Simultaneous ILS on ATIS

[ssrlw]

Situation: management says we must include “simultaneous” visuals on ATIS but when running “dependent” parallel ILS we don’t have to advertise “simultaneous” ILS.

We run dependent parallel ILS only with RWY more than 4300ft apart.

My reading of the 7110.65 was either you have to put “Simultaneous” for ILS if you are say the 7110 requires ATIS to say “simultaneous” for visuals. The wording is nearly the same. Neither says the word simultaneous but you can interpret their intent is to advise pilots of the closer proximity of other aircraft on final.

The only thing that says simultaneous is independent IFR approaches.

Visual Approaches to Multiple RWY: 7-4-4(a) “All aircraft must be informed that approaches are being conducted to parallel, intersecting, or converging RWY. This may be accomplished through use of the ATIS.”

Dependent ILS: 5-9-6 (b)(4) “Aircraft are informed that approaches to both RWY are in use. This information may be provided through the ATIS.”

 

[DankVectorz]

For dependent ILS it says “may” which means it’s not must. They must be told on visuals so they don’t go through centerline for some reason into the other runways traffic.

I think that pertains to what you’re asking?

 

[ssrlw]

It says on both it “may” be provided on ATIS. Meaning to me if not on ATIS they must be told by controller.

 

[ssrlw]

No input?

 

[Electricfence]

I agree the controller can tell them, I read it the way you do, but isn't it easier to just put on the ATIS so you don't have to?

 

[ssrlw]

Just to clarify my question. Does “simultaneous” ILS need to be told to pilots (atis or verbally) when conducting dependent parallels with 1.5nm stagger?

Management says no.

 

[Stinger]

Just to clarify my question. Does “simultaneous” ILS need to be told to pilots (atis or verbally) when conducting dependent parallels with 1.5nm stagger?

Management says no.

The aircraft have to know (either via atis or individually by the controller) that approaches to both runways are in use. If the aircraft on 36R doesn't have any relevant traffic on a parallel final, then he wouldn't need to be told about simultaneous approaches.

5-9-6 b.4.
4. Aircraft are informed that approaches to both runways are in use. This information may be provided through the ATIS.

 

[ssrlw]

That’s what I think. But management is saying: it doesn’t have to say “simultaneous”. That’s it’s only for independent approaches.

They are reading it as only needing to inform Aircraft “ILS approaches are in use to RWY 2L and 2R” is all that’s required. Not “simultaneous” ILS to RWY 2L and 2R.

Which I don’t care, but then they say we DO have to say the word “simultaneous” when it comes to visual approaches..

 

[MJ]

That’s what I think. But management is saying: it doesn’t have to say “simultaneous”. That’s it’s only for independent approaches.

They are reading it as only needing to inform Aircraft “ILS approaches are in use to RWY 2L and 2R” is all that’s required. Not “simultaneous” ILS to RWY 2L and 2R.

Which I don’t care, but then they say we DO have to say the word “simultaneous” when it comes to visual approaches..

You could always request it be sent up for an official interpretation, if you think mgmt. is wrong.

 

[Stinger]

They are reading it as only needing to inform Aircraft “ILS approaches are in use to RWY 2L and 2R” is all that’s required.

I agree with them.
Except for visual approaches...I don't see a need to include "simultaneous" on those either.

 

[ssrlw]

I agree with them.
Except for visual approaches...I don't see a need to include "simultaneous" on those either.

That’s the point I’m making.. the wording for VIS and ILS on advising pilots is the same (with exception of independent ILS). So either the word “simultaneous” is required for both. Or not required for either. Would you agree?

You could always request it be sent up for an official interpretation, if you think mgmt. is wrong.

Not that big of deal here, just annoying how it came up, but whats the process for sending it up for official interpretation. I assume that has to go through local management first.

 

[Stinger]

That’s the point I’m making.. the wording for VIS and ILS on advising pilots is the same (with exception of independent ILS). So either the word “simultaneous” is required for both. Or not required for either. Would you agree?

Absolutely.
Maybe they're looking at the text of IAP though too...do your instrument approaches to 2L/R include a note that mentions simultaneous approaches?

 

[MJ]

Not that big of deal here, just annoying how it came up, but whats the process for sending it up for official interpretation. I assume that has to go through local management first.

Yeah, you do. Depends how formal your management wants to be I suppose. We had a couple that we just asked and the ATM sent the question in. Otherwise, you can send an email or memo to your supervisor, asking for an interpretation from the next level.

 

[ssrlw]

Absolutely.
Maybe they're looking at the text of IAP though too...do your instrument approaches to 2L/R include a note that mentions simultaneous approaches?

Yes they do.

 

[Stinger]

Yes they do.

I was at an airport with converging non-intersecting runways. Our ATIS script mentioned that we were supposed to add "converging operations in effect" or something similar to that. I never did, I just always did "visual approaches in use, landing runways 14 and 19."
Never heard anything about it other than a couple other controllers asking why I didn't put the converging part on there.

Basically to me, your question is solidly in the territory of "do it how you want to do it."