New ILS MAP...are they joking???
02-23-2007, 09:33 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 79
New ILS MAP...are they joking???
ALPA Warns Pilots on New ATC Procedure For ILS Missed Approaches
ALPA issued ALPA Safety Alert 2007-02 on February 23 to warn pilots about a new U.S. ATC procedure that ALPA believes is unacceptable. The new procedure, implemented January 21, requires pilots flying ILS approaches to ensure their own obstacle clearance or separation from ground traffic that has violated the obstacle-free zone.
ALPA recommends that you:
execute an immediate missed approach if, during final approach, the controller tells you, “[Aircraft call sign], in the event of missed approach, taxiing aircraft/vehicle left/right of runway,” and file ASAP, ASRS, and/or company reports to document this unsafe condition.
The new FAA procedure requires controllers to issue “traffic” advisories to the pilots of landing aircraft that are flying ILS approaches when an aircraft or vehicle has crossed the ILS critical area hold lines during certain weather conditions. The pilot may continue the approach but must provide his or her own obstacle clearance or separation from this ground traffic during a missed approach.
This new procedure is unacceptable and could have catastrophic consequences. There is no guarantee that pilots will be able identify the obstacle and avoid it during a missed approach. The only safe procedure is for the controller to direct the pilot to go around when the obstruction-free area is compromised.
The FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee determined that, under certain weather conditions, the precision obstacle-free zone (POFZ) and obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS) must be protected. These protected surfaces are important because, during a missed approach, the momentum of the aircraft may carry it below decision altitude (DA) before the aircraft begins to climb. During this dip below DA, the tails of taxiing airplanes and those holding for departure could become hazardous obstacles or collision risks.
Under certain weather conditions, this new FAA procedure permits the controller to inform the pilot of the ground traffic in the ILS critical area and allows the pilot to continue the approach. This is an unsafe procedure with unrealistic expectations and potentially disastrous consequences.
ALPA has brought this critical safety issue to the FAA’s attention.
Shouldn't tower or ground be responsible for keeping these areas clear when aircraft NEEDING to make an ILS approach are actually performing one?
ALPA issued ALPA Safety Alert 2007-02 on February 23 to warn pilots about a new U.S. ATC procedure that ALPA believes is unacceptable. The new procedure, implemented January 21, requires pilots flying ILS approaches to ensure their own obstacle clearance or separation from ground traffic that has violated the obstacle-free zone.
ALPA recommends that you:
execute an immediate missed approach if, during final approach, the controller tells you, “[Aircraft call sign], in the event of missed approach, taxiing aircraft/vehicle left/right of runway,” and file ASAP, ASRS, and/or company reports to document this unsafe condition.
The new FAA procedure requires controllers to issue “traffic” advisories to the pilots of landing aircraft that are flying ILS approaches when an aircraft or vehicle has crossed the ILS critical area hold lines during certain weather conditions. The pilot may continue the approach but must provide his or her own obstacle clearance or separation from this ground traffic during a missed approach.
This new procedure is unacceptable and could have catastrophic consequences. There is no guarantee that pilots will be able identify the obstacle and avoid it during a missed approach. The only safe procedure is for the controller to direct the pilot to go around when the obstruction-free area is compromised.
The FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee determined that, under certain weather conditions, the precision obstacle-free zone (POFZ) and obstacle clearance surfaces (OCS) must be protected. These protected surfaces are important because, during a missed approach, the momentum of the aircraft may carry it below decision altitude (DA) before the aircraft begins to climb. During this dip below DA, the tails of taxiing airplanes and those holding for departure could become hazardous obstacles or collision risks.
Under certain weather conditions, this new FAA procedure permits the controller to inform the pilot of the ground traffic in the ILS critical area and allows the pilot to continue the approach. This is an unsafe procedure with unrealistic expectations and potentially disastrous consequences.
ALPA has brought this critical safety issue to the FAA’s attention.
Shouldn't tower or ground be responsible for keeping these areas clear when aircraft NEEDING to make an ILS approach are actually performing one?
02-24-2007, 06:58 AM
#2
Chief Jeppesen Updater
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Executive Transport Driver
Posts: 3,080
The key phrase here is "certain weather conditions". Those of us who fly approaches into major airports fly ILS approaches that have aircraft/traffic/obstructions in the ILS critical area all the time. We do it when the weather is essentially VFR, but a descent through a cloud deck is required to pick up the field.
I have no problem flying an actual approach (in clouds) with aircraft in the ILS critical area, provided that I have enough ceiling and vis (say 1000-1500' and 3+ SM) to identify that traffic well before the DH/MAP.
However if this is changing the rules when the critical area should be protected, then it's a different story. The ALPA safety brief doesn't specify the exact conditions that this new ATC procedure applies.
Sounds to me more like some busy body in DC that feels that controllers don't have enough BS to worry about already, so they're going to come up with a hairbrained procedure to cover somebody's butt.
I have no problem flying an actual approach (in clouds) with aircraft in the ILS critical area, provided that I have enough ceiling and vis (say 1000-1500' and 3+ SM) to identify that traffic well before the DH/MAP.
However if this is changing the rules when the critical area should be protected, then it's a different story. The ALPA safety brief doesn't specify the exact conditions that this new ATC procedure applies.
Sounds to me more like some busy body in DC that feels that controllers don't have enough BS to worry about already, so they're going to come up with a hairbrained procedure to cover somebody's butt.
02-25-2007, 05:42 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 657
The key phrase here is "certain weather conditions". Those of us who fly approaches into major airports fly ILS approaches that have aircraft/traffic/obstructions in the ILS critical area all the time. We do it when the weather is essentially VFR, but a descent through a cloud deck is required to pick up the field.
I have no problem flying an actual approach (in clouds) with aircraft in the ILS critical area, provided that I have enough ceiling and vis (say 1000-1500' and 3+ SM) to identify that traffic well before the DH/MAP.
However if this is changing the rules when the critical area should be protected, then it's a different story. The ALPA safety brief doesn't specify the exact conditions that this new ATC procedure applies.
Sounds to me more like some busy body in DC that feels that controllers don't have enough BS to worry about already, so they're going to come up with a hairbrained procedure to cover somebody's butt.
I have no problem flying an actual approach (in clouds) with aircraft in the ILS critical area, provided that I have enough ceiling and vis (say 1000-1500' and 3+ SM) to identify that traffic well before the DH/MAP.
However if this is changing the rules when the critical area should be protected, then it's a different story. The ALPA safety brief doesn't specify the exact conditions that this new ATC procedure applies.
Sounds to me more like some busy body in DC that feels that controllers don't have enough BS to worry about already, so they're going to come up with a hairbrained procedure to cover somebody's butt.
Would have to agree with you. Those who have flown into ORD specifically know how bad that localizer can flucuate.
02-25-2007, 06:55 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
CatII/III
I figure that this is a major factor for Cat IIIA/B or Cat II approches where you will likely hit the ground during a go around or missed approach especially if localizer flucuation is the cause of the missed approach right at the bottom. It is likely that this could put you very close to an airplane on a taxiway or something like that and the vis could be so low you never see them. Bad Idea to make this our responsibility just so they can pack a few more planes on the taxiway. I could be way off the mark though, just a hypothisis.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
