Obligation to Notam an INOP glideslope?

Peter wrote:

I think an SRA is a UK-only peculiarity.

No, there are plenty of them around. According to Jeppesen, for example, EBBR Brussels, EBCI Charleroi offer SRA; ETNN Nörvenich, ETNG Geilenkirchen offer SRA and PAR (they are military but I don’t think they will decline an emergency, will they?); EHAM Amsterdam, EDDB Schönefeld, EDDK Cologne-Bonn offer SRE (surveillance radar element – the surveillance part of the PAR system – but no proper PAR approach).

I think an SRA is a UK-only peculiarity. Also I see less and less of them on the Jepp plates. Any unit with radar could potentially do it but it needs controller training and they never got enough of it, due to lack of demand.

My homebase offers it also. And you are actually doing ATC a favor by asking for one every now and then because it will provide the controllers with their required training. But they will only accept it in quiet times since they need to assign you an individual controller for the duration of the approach on a separate frequency. One can select from two variants “gyro” and “non-gyro”, the latter being the real cool one. You will get steered by “start turn” and “stop turn” commands. One instrument however is still required: an altimeter.

I wonder if there are also “special” requirements regarding the radar head.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

TobiBS – it is a worry that assuming there was an approach service, approach didnt give you that information before hand off. I would have been peeved.

There was an approach service and I did not receive notice from them. But of course technically it would be possible that the lights failed in the moment tower informed about it. Even with ALS out, the penalty on the minimum was only for visibility and that was far beyond limiting.

Ah yes TobiBS I see that. The ILS signal is of course monitored in most (maybe all towers) so I guess the controller should know well before the pilot if there is a failure, but of course will not report the failure unless you have requested that approach. There have been a few cases where the signal is not monitored for one reason or another and an “interesting” accident report on one such case.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

an “interesting” accident report on one such case

Do you mean Air New Zealand Flight NZ60?

I agree with those that would expect at least to see a NOTAM! In particular with the ILS as that is often one that gets you in if it’s really bad due to the very low minima.

It would not be unreasonable that you would never have taken off if you knew the glideslope/HIAL was u/s on a bad weather day. It could even mean the difference between carrying alternate fuel, or not.

I’d consider ringing atc up in a friendly manner to find out.

Archie wrote:

It would not be unreasonable that you would never have taken off if you knew the glideslope/HIAL was u/s on a bad weather day.

I rather think that on a real bad day where the glideslope is required they wouldn’t have done the grass cutting in the first place.

You would certainly hope so! However in TobiBS’s example it was INOP and they didn’t give notice.