anonymous Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 So a little while ago, operating into CYYZ. They were on the 33s. ATIS states ILS 33L and departures 33R. We were in a long line-up of aircraft on vectors. The aircraft ahead was vectored onto the localizer. The controller then clears them for the LOCALIZER 33L. We were right behind them (maybe 1.5-2 minutes), vectored for the intercept and then he clears us for the LOCALIZER 33L. There was not a single word about why we weren't flying the full ILS. We were too busy to ask questions. I wonder if controllers know that there is a huge (order of magnitude) increase of workload in flying a non-precision approach. To have this thrown at a crew last minute is a huge disservice to crews. It's sort of like (although this analogy isn't really equivalent in the change in workload from a NPA) a crew accepting a take-off clearance and then telling tower that they need a 30 sec engine run-up. Not a problem if tower knows ahead of time, but can be a huge one if done at the last minute. When we landed, I asked what had happened. The tower guy told us that the Glideslope had failed. Would have been nice to know 15 minutes earlier. My point or question is this...what would it have taken for a controller or a supervisor to get on the radio and make a broadcast "ALL AIRCRAFT ON APPROACH FOR 33L, THE GLIDESLOPE HAS FAILED, ANTICIPATE LOCALIZER 33L." Then everyone knows what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanishing point Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 At least you get cleared for the Localizer approach. Last year in YVR, ATIS says "IFR approach in use ILS 08L glideslope inop" Ahh....isn't that a localizer approach then? I did ask ATC about the wording but can't remember their response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 2 hours ago, vanishing point said: At least you get cleared for the Localizer approach. Last year in YVR, ATIS says "IFR approach in use ILS 08L glideslope inop" Ahh....isn't that a localizer approach then? I did ask ATC about the wording but can't remember their response. I asked a supervisor at YYZ a similar question a few years ago, and according to him, the YVR ATIS was correct. Unless the CAP chart says ILS or LOC RWY 08L, then the only clearance they can give is a clearance for the ILS with the GP inoperative. The ATIS is set up the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Yeah, heard it the same way - the only APP they can clear you to do is the one in the title on the plate. The plates used to say, "ILS XX or LOC XX" but I find a lot of them just say "ILS XX" now, there is still a box with LOC mins and you can still do a LOC APP but you can't be cleared for a LOC APP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Related: Descend via 'the STAR' is pointless in the context of YYZ's current airspace design. And the controllers agree, at least the ones I talked to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Zan Vetter said: Related: Descend via 'the STAR' is pointless in the context of YYZ's current airspace design. And the controllers agree, at least the ones I talked to do. Same thing in KBOS; "Descend via the JFUND1"....and then the controller will intervene 37 times with different speeds, headings, altitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 11 hours ago, J.O. said: I asked a supervisor at YYZ a similar question a few years ago, and according to him, the YVR ATIS was correct. Unless the CAP chart says ILS or LOC RWY 08L, then the only clearance they can give is a clearance for the ILS with the GP inoperative. The ATIS is set up the same way. Typical Canadian regulations. BS trumps safety and efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanishing point Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 On 28/04/2017 at 11:07 PM, Zan Vetter said: Related: Descend via 'the STAR' is pointless in the context of YYZ's current airspace design. And the controllers agree, at least the ones I talked to do. We're discovering this in YVR as well. "Descend via the STAR; maintain XXXXX ft" defeats the purpose of the STAR. Inbound to PDX, we usually get "descend via the KRATR ARR". That's it and that's all we need. Not sure who at Nav Canada came up with these "less than efficient" procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 1 hour ago, vanishing point said: Not sure who at Nav Canada came up with these "less than efficient" procedures. They're not happy until we're not happy. Goes for the GTAA especially. Down at 3,000' with 30 miles to run? INSANE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canoehead Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 From NavCanada: Effective 0000z May 20th 2017, ATC clearances shall not include the phrase VIA SID/STAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Good riddance. Redesign the SID/STAR overlaps (ie. make them not) and then try again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 "I wonder if controllers know that there is a huge (order of magnitude) increase of workload in flying a non-precision approach. To have this thrown at a crew last minute is a huge disservice to crews." Just a question, but if you brief for a vectored ILS and the GP fails just as you're passing over the FAF, wouldn't you carry on with the LOC only approach? Iow's, are you 'prepared' to continue with the LOC only approach at the time of the failure, or would you miss at the FAF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanishing point Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Passing the FAF and the GP fails....go-around and set up for the LOC approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 FAF crossing height on a LOC approach isn't always the same as the GP crossing height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 If you can, continue visually or go around. A reversion to LOC only approach below 1000' or inside the FAF wouldn't be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.