Narrative:

I feel a hazardous condition was created when the equipment dedicated to the ATIS advertised approach was switched west/O warning to the opposite runway. This was especially dangerous given that both approachs use the same frequency. Because twring cumulus clouds obscured the intended runway and the surrounding hill tops, the localizer approach was needed to insure a safe approach to the correct airport and to avoid restr area R-2511. When we were handed off to monterey approach control, we acknowledged ATIS information current. It stated localizer DME runway 28L was the approach in use. We were informed that we would be vectored through the centerline and turned back to intercept the final approach course. Approximately 15 mi northeast of the field, we were given a heading and asked if we could see the field at 12 0'clock. We look out the window and acknowledged the field in sight. We were then cleared for a visibility approach. But, all was not right. There was no identify code on the localizer frequency, but there were no localizer malfunction flags on the course deviation indicator. The localizer course responded backwards from the way it should. Puzzled by these indications, we asked if the localizer monitored correctly? At this point, we were told that the equipment had been switched around to accommodate a request for a practice ILS to runway 10. As we continued, we determined that the field in front of us was fritzsche aaf and that monterey must be under the clouds to the left. A moment later we did see monterey and landed there in spite of a false ATIS message and a vector to intercept an approach course that did not exist. In a telephone conversation with the tower, I learned that it was common practice to switch the equipment around to accommodate a request for a practice ILS. This is a dangerous practice, especially at monterey where clouds often obscure the steeply rising terrain; terrain too steep to permit an ILS to both runways. I feel strongly that the approach equipment should be set up for the active runway and not changed until the active runway is changed due to WX.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR MLG ARRIVING MRY COMPLAINS OF FALSE LOCALIZER READINGS WHEN HE WAS UNKNOWINGLY USING THE BACKCOURSE SIGNAL TO ASSIST IN NAVIGATION DURING A VISUAL APCH. REPORTER SAYS ATCT SHOULD KEEP ATIS APCH EQUIPMENT ACTIVE UNTIL THE ACTIVE RWY IS CHANGED.

Narrative: I FEEL A HAZARDOUS CONDITION WAS CREATED WHEN THE EQUIP DEDICATED TO THE ATIS ADVERTISED APCH WAS SWITCHED W/O WARNING TO THE OPPOSITE RWY. THIS WAS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS GIVEN THAT BOTH APCHS USE THE SAME FREQ. BECAUSE TWRING CUMULUS CLOUDS OBSCURED THE INTENDED RWY AND THE SURROUNDING HILL TOPS, THE LOC APCH WAS NEEDED TO INSURE A SAFE APCH TO THE CORRECT ARPT AND TO AVOID RESTR AREA R-2511. WHEN WE WERE HANDED OFF TO MONTEREY APCH CTL, WE ACKNOWLEDGED ATIS INFO CURRENT. IT STATED LOC DME RWY 28L WAS THE APCH IN USE. WE WERE INFORMED THAT WE WOULD BE VECTORED THROUGH THE CENTERLINE AND TURNED BACK TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE. APPROX 15 MI NE OF THE FIELD, WE WERE GIVEN A HDG AND ASKED IF WE COULD SEE THE FIELD AT 12 0'CLOCK. WE LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE FIELD IN SIGHT. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR A VIS APCH. BUT, ALL WAS NOT RIGHT. THERE WAS NO IDENT CODE ON THE LOC FREQ, BUT THERE WERE NO LOC MALFUNCTION FLAGS ON THE COURSE DEVIATION INDICATOR. THE LOC COURSE RESPONDED BACKWARDS FROM THE WAY IT SHOULD. PUZZLED BY THESE INDICATIONS, WE ASKED IF THE LOC MONITORED CORRECTLY? AT THIS POINT, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE EQUIP HAD BEEN SWITCHED AROUND TO ACCOMMODATE A REQUEST FOR A PRACTICE ILS TO RWY 10. AS WE CONTINUED, WE DETERMINED THAT THE FIELD IN FRONT OF US WAS FRITZSCHE AAF AND THAT MONTEREY MUST BE UNDER THE CLOUDS TO THE L. A MOMENT LATER WE DID SEE MONTEREY AND LANDED THERE IN SPITE OF A FALSE ATIS MESSAGE AND A VECTOR TO INTERCEPT AN APCH COURSE THAT DID NOT EXIST. IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR, I LEARNED THAT IT WAS COMMON PRACTICE TO SWITCH THE EQUIP AROUND TO ACCOMMODATE A REQUEST FOR A PRACTICE ILS. THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY AT MONTEREY WHERE CLOUDS OFTEN OBSCURE THE STEEPLY RISING TERRAIN; TERRAIN TOO STEEP TO PERMIT AN ILS TO BOTH RWYS. I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE APCH EQUIP SHOULD BE SET UP FOR THE ACTIVE RWY AND NOT CHANGED UNTIL THE ACTIVE RWY IS CHANGED DUE TO WX.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.