Our experienced pilots always tell me about complex navigation. That includes not only the ILS beam usage during approach but any other navigation means that you have to control your position on the descent trajectiory.
Who knows weather there is a true ILS signal you capture or not!

This has not been the view of the ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel (now Instrument Flight Procedures Panel), who are responsible for Doc 8168, whenever someone has suggested that, for CDFA, MDA can equal DA. Also note the safety advisory that EUROCONTROL recently issued:EUROCONTROL - Safety Alerts Board

LLLK: Thanks, good sir. I stand my argument back until further more reading and research is done.

Sincerely,
FD (the un-real)

Pensador: The pilots know wether they have tuned the correct ILS or not by making sure they have tuned the correct frequency and then identify the station by confirming the station identifier on that frequency with the identifier on the approach procedure.

-If I understood your post correctly

pensador refers, I'm sure, to false lobe capture?

Fly the GS intercept altitude until intercepting the GS, crosschecking your altitude against the approachplate. I.E. on this approach: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1004/00924IL35.PDF (ILS35 to KLAW) if you are on the correct GS beam, your altitude should read 2298ft when passing the OM.

An instructor I flew with a couple of times during primary flight training had experienced false glideslopes once when descending ONTO the GS instead of intercepting it from the GS intercept altitude. He was waaaaay above the 2298ft when passing the OM on the above mentioned approach.

(To explain excactly what I mean... the small font numbers close to the FAF-symbol is the altitude of the point where the GS intersects the FAF DME and/or OM

Other considerations?

You can ID false glideslopes by your excessive rate of descend and by the check heights on the plate.

experienced false glideslopes

I inadvertently set up a situation in a 737 simulator some years ago (which the crew, unfortunately, managed to blunder/stumble into) where the autopilot merrily and quite cheerfully intercepted a false localiser signal. Interestingly, the crew realised that something was not quite right .. but it still took them a frightening period of time before the penny dropped.

Until the jungle drums got the message to all and sundry, I was able to reconstruct the situation for the training benefit of a reasonable number of crews ..

Message is to use the ILS entry keyhole positively and every time. Shortcuts might well prove to be direct to the smoking hole in the ground.

It's well worth a read of the Air New Zealand B767 fright at Apia ..

seilfly, you are absolutely right about false glideslope catpure.

BOAC. But a glideslope beam as well

False glideslope capture:

Monitor ground speed and anticipate ROD based on the glide requirement. Does it look right? How does altitude look against the DME (the old 300 feet/nm on a 3 degree etc..)? How does altitude compare at the check altitude?

If something is amiss either: Check with ATC, initiate a go-around or if both pilots have confirmed that there is a glide slope issue and the aircraft is no danger and within tolerances at that point, then use raw data, assume LLZ only and use plate info to manually execute the approach :eek: bearing in mind the new MDA.

Depends on your SOPs of course. :ok:

LLLK

Many thanks for the link it explains the issue much better and more convincingly than I did.

Rudderrudderrat

I am sorry, but I cannot explain why it refers to JAR-OPS and has a DA but as the link that LLLK provided, there may be issues with Jeppesen minimas. I am not sure if the same is true of AERAD charts.