In the latest Jepp update for Marion, ILL, the procedure has changed
to what looks for all the world like a LOC approach. The minimums for
the ILS have been replaced by ‘NA’, and the DA has been replaced by an
MDA. Yet the title of the approach is still ILS Rwy 20. Why didn’t
they change the name of the procedure to LOC Rwy 20?
-Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan
(Reply through this forum, not by direct e-mail to me, as automatic reply address is fake.)

In article >,
(Robert Scott) wrote:

> In the latest Jepp update for Marion, ILL, the procedure has changed
> to what looks for all the world like a LOC approach. The minimums for
> the ILS have been replaced by ‘NA’, and the DA has been replaced by an
> MDA. Yet the title of the approach is still ILS Rwy 20. Why didn’t
> they change the name of the procedure to LOC Rwy 20?
> -Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan
> (Reply through this forum, not by direct e-mail to me, as automatic reply
> address is fake.)

Have you checked for notams? It could just be that the GS is OTS. Jepp
will often issue a new chart to reflect temporary changes like this, then
re-issue the original chart when the notam is withdrawn.

"Robert Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the latest Jepp update for Marion, ILL, the procedure has changed
> to what looks for all the world like a LOC approach. The minimums for
> the ILS have been replaced by 'NA', and the DA has been replaced by an
> MDA. Yet the title of the approach is still ILS Rwy 20. Why didn't
> they change the name of the procedure to LOC Rwy 20?
>

The NACO charts still show S-ILS minima, a current NOTAM indicates S-ILS
MINIMUMS NA. Looks like Jeppesen incorporated the NOTAM into their new
plate. That seems reasonable, but they don't have the authority to rename
approaches. My guess is the GS is out of service temporarily. When it's
returned to service the NOTAM will be dropped and Jeppesen will issue a
plate with ILS minima.

Robert Scott wrote:
> In the latest Jepp update for Marion, ILL, the procedure has changed
> to what looks for all the world like a LOC approach. The minimums for
> the ILS have been replaced by ‘NA’, and the DA has been replaced by an
> MDA. Yet the title of the approach is still ILS Rwy 20. Why didn’t
> they change the name of the procedure to LOC Rwy 20?
> -Robert Scott
> Ypsilanti, Michigan
> (Reply through this forum, not by direct e-mail to me, as automatic reply address is fake.)

When all else fails, check the NOTAMS:

FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL
REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN

wrote in
nk.net:

> When all else fails, check the NOTAMS:
>
> FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
> AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL
> REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN

But that doesn't answer the OP's question - why?

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

If your "why" refers to the OPs "why" (why didn't they change the title?),
the answer has already been posted...Cap'n Jepp can't change procedure
titles on his own. I very much doubt that NACO can, without a lot of paper
shuffling. They are just chart printers, not procedures developers.

Bob Gardner

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>> When all else fails, check the NOTAMS:
>>
>> FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
>> AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL
>> REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> But that doesn't answer the OP's question - why?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Since the LOC MAP is now closer to the FAF (4.57 NM vs 4.90 NM), my
guess is that they extended the runway at the approach end, since the
LOC MAP would be at the runway threshold. This would put the runway
point of intercept for the glideslope (RPI) too far from the new
threshold for an ILS, and the ILS TCH would now be too high for an ILS
without a waiver.
The LOC could continue with a different FAF to MAP distance, but not the
ILS.
As far as the name, it's still an ILS procedure, except that the
glideslope is currently NA. To change the name would require NFPO to
create an amendment and have that published in the National Flight Data
Digest. They are probably creating an amendment, but rather than change
the name, they would be amending the ILS data to have it published with
a new FAF, glideslope intercept point, and TCH to match wherever they
would be installing the new glideslope (assuming the runway was lengthened).

JPH

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>
>>When all else fails, check the NOTAMS:
>>
>>FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
>>AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL
>>REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN
>
>
> But that doesn't answer the OP's question - why?
>

I recently had a similiar experience at Ponca City where the FSS said
the ILS was operational during the pre-flight briefing. Center cleared
me for the ILS-17 approach. I queried about the lack of GS information,
they said all was well as far as they knew. About 3 miles past the
OM,Center asked me if I wanted to switch to the LOC approach. I
didn't, so Missed approach, no GS, minimum conditions, slight icing
conditions.
Anyway, after landing and reviewing what I had done wrong, I found that
the FSS will not read you all the notams unless you specifically ask.
DUATS will not provide all the notams.

During the review of the flight, I read the notam that was similar to
the one below, I read all the FAA abbreviations list, and I can not
find what, exactly, "S-ILS" means. Just like the notam below, I don't
see where the ILS is OTS? What does "S-ILS" mean?


Greg

> FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,

> AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE
ALL
> REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN

gregscheetah > wrote:
> I recently had a similiar experience at Ponca City where the FSS said
> the ILS was operational during the pre-flight briefing.

Did the briefer specifically say that the ILS was operational, or did
he just fail to mention the GS OTS notam?

> Anyway, after landing and reviewing what I had done wrong, I found that
> the FSS will not read you all the notams unless you specifically ask.
> DUATS will not provide all the notams.

What a F***ed up system. They tells you about unlit cell-phone towers
300 feet AGL 4 miles from the airport, but leave out important stuff
like the GS being OTS. Some of this may have made sense in the days
of teletypes, but it's assinine today. Mapquest gives me more
complete information about my drive to the airport than DUATS gives me
about my flight.

>During the review of the flight, I read the notam that was similar to
>the one below, I read all the FAA abbreviations list, and I can not
>find what, exactly, "S-ILS" means. Just like the notam below, I don't
>see where the ILS is OTS? What does "S-ILS" mean?

>> FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
>> AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE
>> ALL REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN

The S means "straight-in" (as opposed to circling). I'm looking at
the NOS chart (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05215I20.PDF). It's got
three lines of minimums: S-ILS 20, S-LOC 20, and CIRCLING.

Tearing apart the notam piece by piece, it says:

>> FDC 5/1241

This is Flight Data Center notam number 5/1241. I think that's just
the 1241st notam issued in 2005.

>> - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,

What approach this applies to; i.e. the approach titled "ILS RWY 20"
at Williamson County Regional airport in Marion IL.

>> AMDT 11A...

The version of the approach it applies to. If your plate doesn't say
AMDT 11A on it, you're applying the changes to an out-of-date plate.

>> S-ILS MINIMUMS NA.

The minimums shown in the line titled "S-ILS" in the minimums section
of the plate is not authorized (i.e. may not be used).

>> DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM.

The distance shown on the profile view from the FAF (JONNY) to the MAP
should be changed from 4.9 NM to 4.57 (bottom-right of the plate).
They leave it to you to work out new timings. At 90 kts, it's a
change from 3:16 to 3:03. There's no information as to *WHY* they
moved the MAP, but if you're still using the old timing, you're going
to drive 15 seconds past the MAP before starting your missed.

>> DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO MM.

There is no more middle marker. They're de-commissioning MM's left
and right these days, so this should be no surprise. It's also of no
operational consequence that I can think of.

>> WIE UNTIL UFN

These changes are "WIth Effect Until Further Notice.". That's
probably the reason Jepp decided to issue a new chart. My guess is
that the S-ILS minimums will come back some day, perhaps after some
transmitter or antenna is repaired, and/or some flight testing can be
done. But there's no date scheduled.

"gregscheetah" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I recently had a similiar experience at Ponca City where the FSS said
> the ILS was operational during the pre-flight briefing. Center cleared
> me for the ILS-17 approach. I queried about the lack of GS information,
> they said all was well as far as they knew. About 3 miles past the
> OM,Center asked me if I wanted to switch to the LOC approach. I
> didn't, so Missed approach, no GS, minimum conditions, slight icing
> conditions.
> Anyway, after landing and reviewing what I had done wrong, I found that
> the FSS will not read you all the notams unless you specifically ask.
> DUATS will not provide all the notams.
>
> During the review of the flight, I read the notam that was similar to
> the one below, I read all the FAA abbreviations list, and I can not
> find what, exactly, "S-ILS" means. Just like the notam below, I don't
> see where the ILS is OTS? What does "S-ILS" mean?
>
>
> Greg
>
>> FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS
>> RWY 20, AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP
>> 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN
>

"S-ILS" means "Straight-in ILS", you'll find it on page A1 of the NACO
charts.

The controller is going to clear you for an ILS whether or not the GS is
working. If the GS is out of service he's supposed to say so when the
approach clearance is issued; "Cleared I-L-S Runway one seven approach,
glideslope unusable." Naturally, he'd have to know that it was out of
service. He should have been aware of the NOTAM.

You say the FSS said the ILS was operational during the pre-flight briefing.
I would take that statement to mean fully operational, including the
glideslope. Navaids are assumed to be operational unless there's a NOTAM
saying they aren't. FSS isn't in a position to definitely say that it is
operational unless they've checked NOTAMs.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The distance shown on the profile view from the FAF (JONNY) to the MAP
> should be changed from 4.9 NM to 4.57 (bottom-right of the plate).
> They leave it to you to work out new timings. At 90 kts, it's a
> change from 3:16 to 3:03. There's no information as to *WHY* they
> moved the MAP, but if you're still using the old timing, you're going
> to drive 15 seconds past the MAP before starting your missed.
>

They moved the MAP because they moved the runway threshold, runway 2/20 has
been lengthened. The plate still shows the length as 6503 feet but AirNav
shows it to be 8012 feet. I have to wonder why that isn't included in the
NOTAM.


>
> These changes are "WIth Effect Until Further Notice.". That's
> probably the reason Jepp decided to issue a new chart. My guess is
> that the S-ILS minimums will come back some day, perhaps after some
> transmitter or antenna is repaired, and/or some flight testing can be
> done. But there's no date scheduled.
>

I'd expect the S-ILS minima will be back after the glideslope is moved a
quarter mile north.

Thanks for everyone's help. Great source of information.

And, Yes, the FSS briefer read the NOTAM about the unlit towers. They
also read a notam about MSA from Pioneer increasing to 3200 for ILS RWY
17. I then specifically asked if the ILS was in service. The answer
was "yes".

Even when I asked center about the GS problem they were not aware of
it.

Since I was snowed / iced in at Wichita for the next day, I went to the
FSS and Tower and asked them what I had done wrong. I wanted to find
out what I should have done in order to not make this mistake again.

I found that there are two references I will forever use: the biweekly
notams booklet and A/FD. If you want this info from the briefer, you
must ask the FSS briefer for the FDC notams and D notams. They may
have to go get the book, and you may have to wait, but that is the only
way to get the info if you don't have the biweekly notam booklet.

There is a good reference on Avweb on this issue: The Notam Mess:
http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183201-1.html

That article mentioned that Jeppesen does a good job of incorporating
the FDC notams into their charts. If anyone has a Jepp chart of PNC, I
would be interested to know if it has the GS OTS note. This would be
one + for using the jepp charts.
>
> Did the briefer specifically say that the ILS was operational, or did
> he just fail to mention the GS OTS notam?
>

"gregscheetah" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> And, Yes, the FSS briefer read the NOTAM about the unlit towers. They
> also read a notam about MSA from Pioneer increasing to 3200 for ILS RWY
> 17. I then specifically asked if the ILS was in service. The answer
> was "yes".
>

Well, that is a correct answer albeit incomplete.


>
> Since I was snowed / iced in at Wichita for the next day, I went to the
> FSS and Tower and asked them what I had done wrong. I wanted to find
> out what I should have done in order to not make this mistake again.
>
> I found that there are two references I will forever use: the biweekly
> notams booklet and A/FD. If you want this info from the briefer, you
> must ask the FSS briefer for the FDC notams and D notams. They may
> have to go get the book, and you may have to wait, but that is the only
> way to get the info if you don't have the biweekly notam booklet.
>

Not true, there is an online version of the biweekly notam booklet:

http://www.faa.gov/ntap/

On 23 Feb 2005 06:56:49 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
wrote:

> If you want this info from the briefer, you
>must ask the FSS briefer for the FDC notams and D notams. They may
>have to go get the book, and you may have to wait, but that is the only
>way to get the info if you don't have the biweekly notam bookle


A fact that any decent instructor should have covered with you during
your training.

Ya,ya,ya,.....

> A fact that any decent instructor should have covered with you during
> your training.

This really helps the readers. While I'm sure you recall 100% of
everything you have ever heard, I usually require a little repetition
and practice in order to become proficient at anything.
Congratulations, and thanks for the pointer.

I was thinking that maybe there are others like me, who forgot that if
the FSS briefer tells you the ILS is in service, it may not actually be
in service. I thought maybe this thread would contribute to reminding
others that there are three sources of notams and that duats / fss does
not cover them all.

I can't wait to see what will happen when Lockheed takes over control
of the fss's.

gregscheetah wrote:
>
> DUATS will not provide all the notams.
>

Seems like it actually does. Perhaps the information was posted after
your flight but the DUATS standard briefing has:

!MWA 12/002 MWA 20 ILS GP OTS

!FDC 5/1241 MWA FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL.
ILS RWY 20, AMDT 11A...
S-ILS MINIMUMS NA.
DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM.
DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO MM.


If anything, DUATS seems to provde too much info and the principal risk
is missing the wheat for the chaff...

I feel much safer with DUATS and the other sources on the Internet than
depending on a carbon based unit reading some of the same info to me
over the phone...

The fact that FDC NOTAMS are not part of a standard briefing, and that
one has to ask a briefer for them, is an extremely important aspect of
instrument flying, and should be hammered into every sudent's head by
his instructor.

I too learned this the hard way, many years ago.. It should not have
been so. It is as basic as minimums on an approach, and very close to
being as important. Arriving at a destination and discovering that an
expected procedure is not authorized is more than inconvenient, it can
be a safety factor.

But instructors get so caught up in stupid stuff like making sure
their students can fly exactly one minute inbound legs in a holding
pattern, they often forget to mention the important things like FDC
notams..




On 23 Feb 2005 11:46:51 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
wrote:

>
>Ya,ya,ya,.....
>
>> A fact that any decent instructor should have covered with you during
>> your training.
>
>This really helps the readers. While I'm sure you recall 100% of
>everything you have ever heard, I usually require a little repetition
>and practice in order to become proficient at anything.
>Congratulations, and thanks for the pointer.
>
>I was thinking that maybe there are others like me, who forgot that if
>the FSS briefer tells you the ILS is in service, it may not actually be
>in service. I thought maybe this thread would contribute to reminding
>others that there are three sources of notams and that duats / fss does
>not cover them all.
>
>I can't wait to see what will happen when Lockheed takes over control
>of the fss's.

> wrote in message
...
> The fact that FDC NOTAMS are not part of a standard briefing, and that
> one has to ask a briefer for them, is an extremely important aspect of
> instrument flying, and should be hammered into every sudent's head by
> his instructor.
>
> I too learned this the hard way, many years ago.. It should not have
> been so. It is as basic as minimums on an approach, and very close to
> being as important. Arriving at a destination and discovering that an
> expected procedure is not authorized is more than inconvenient, it can
> be a safety factor.
>
> But instructors get so caught up in stupid stuff like making sure
> their students can fly exactly one minute inbound legs in a holding
> pattern, they often forget to mention the important things like FDC
> notams..

and its a pretty important aspect to remember for the checkride too.

On 23 Feb 2005 06:56:49 -0800, "gregscheetah" >
wrote:

>That article mentioned that Jeppesen does a good job of incorporating
>the FDC notams into their charts. If anyone has a Jepp chart of PNC, I
>would be interested to know if it has the GS OTS note. This would be
>one + for using the jepp charts.

FWIW, the Jepp package dated 2/16 (the 25 Feb 05 cycle) has a new
sheet for KMWA with the ILS portion shown as NA.

"gregscheetah" > wrote in
oups.com:

> That article mentioned that Jeppesen does a good job of incorporating
> the FDC notams into their charts. If anyone has a Jepp chart of PNC, I
> would be interested to know if it has the GS OTS note. This would be
> one + for using the jepp charts.

The Jepp NavData NOTAMS show this:

Marion, ILS Rwy 20, VOR or GPS Rwy 2 and NDB or GPS Rwy 20 procedures
unusable.
ILS Rwy 20 procedure not in database (Rwy2/20 extended - MAP not coincident
with rwy end).

The NavData NOTAMS are issued weekly.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin