ILS or LOC approach?

I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY
23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so
why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"?

"Dan Wegman" wrote in message
ink.net...

I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY
23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach
so
why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"?


It used to be called that. I vaguely recall reading about a planned change
in the naming convention along these lines. It appears it's now being
implemented.

There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the
LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision
obstacle clearance slope.
Also, about 2 years ago, the naming convention for ILS procedures in the
TERPS manual was changed, so all procedures that have both precision ILS
and non-precision LOC minima will be called "ILS or LOC", or "ILS or
LOC/DME", etc. These changes take place as the procedures get routine
amendments.
I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima on
separate plates in the future, but can't verify that.
JPH

Dan Wegman wrote:
I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY
23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so
why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"?

J Haggerty wrote:

There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the
LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision
obstacle clearance slope.
Also, about 2 years ago, the naming convention for ILS procedures in the
TERPS manual was changed, so all procedures that have both precision ILS
and non-precision LOC minima will be called "ILS or LOC", or "ILS or
LOC/DME", etc. These changes take place as the procedures get routine
amendments.
I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima on
separate plates in the future, but can't verify that.
JPH



You're correct on all counts except there is no plan to have separate charts.

Dan Wegman wrote:

I just noticed an approach to Frederick, MD (FDK) entitled "ILS OR LOC RWY
23". I thought every ILS could be flown as a non-precision LOC approach so
why not just call this one the "ILS RWY 23"?

The naming convention was changed to conform with Jeppesen's view of what the
rest of the world does in this regard.

Stay tuned. ;-)

J Haggerty wrote:

I've heard rumors that there's talk about placing ILS and LOC minima
on
separate plates in the future, but can't verify that.
JPH


Actually, at SJC, they combined what used to be a separate ILS and
LOC/DME plates onto one "ILS or LOC/DME" so it seems they may going the
other way.

Can you give us some examples?
Stan

On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the
LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision
obstacle clearance slope.

I'm trying to remember where I saw one of these. I believe that it was
in either UT or CA, but can't recall which airport.
In the meantime, the instructions to procedure developers indicate what
note to place on the procedure when this situation occurs, and can be
read at the following website;
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...19C%20CHG3.pdf
(page 107 of 201)
Para 854 m(6)(e) states

(e) When terrain, obstacles, descent
gradient, etc., do not allow the use of a LOC procedure
associated with the ILS when the GS is not used, place
NA in the visibility column for each LOC category
affected. If, in such an instance, another procedure must
be used instead, enter the following in the NOTES
section: "Chart planview note: When GS not used, use
LOC RWY 26 procedure." When circling is authorized,
but the LOC procedure associated with the ILS is "NA,"
enter the following in the NOTES section: "Chart note:
Circling requires descent on GS to MDA."

JPH

wrote:
Can you give us some examples?
Stan

On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep the
LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the precision
obstacle clearance slope.

Found one.
ILS Rwy 16R, Reno, NV (KRNO)
LOC and circling minimums NA.
This isn't the one I was thinking of. The one I was thinking of had ILS
and circling minima, but LOC minima was NA. I'll post that one if I run
across it.
Plate can be viewed at this site;
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0504/00346I16R.PDF


wrote:

Can you give us some examples?
Stan

On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep
the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the
precision obstacle clearance slope.

Here's an ILS with ILS and Circling minima, but LOC is NA.
This one has the note on the procedure that states "Circling requires
descent on GS to MDA".
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0504/00388ID32.PDF
For May 12th effective date, the link is;
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0505/00388ID32.PDF
Sheridan, WY (KSHR) ILS/DME Rwy 32

JPH

wrote:

Can you give us some examples?
Stan

On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:04:24 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


There are actually a few ILS procedures that do not have LOC minima.
That would normally be caused by very high obstacles that would keep
the LOC MDA too high, but are not high enough to penetrate the
precision obstacle clearance slope.