You tell the controller that you are executing the miss, go around, and get
set up for the LOC-only, if one exists. Changing from an ILS to a LOC in
midstream is not good practice...the assumption is that you briefed the ILS
(even if you are alone), not the LOC.

Bob Gardner

"Lee Elson" wrote in message
om...
"Hilton" wrote in message
thlink.net...
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Barry said:
When doing an ILS approach, with the glideslope, is it a requirement
to
be
able to identify the outer marker or a substitute? FAR 91.175(k)
lists
the

"or a substitute" is the operative phrase. If the FAF is identified
by an
intersection, LOM, or DME, that's an acceptable substitute for a
locator
beacon.

The FAF on an ILS is glideslope intersect, not the LOM, DME etc which
are
not required.

HIlton


Ahhh, but suppose your glideslope fails (onboard or on the ground)
after this "not required" intersection (with the "X" on Jepp charts)?
Suddenly you are doing a localizer approach and the FAF identification
becomes much more useful as a place from which you start your timing.


Lee