Narrative:

I have a suggestion for improved ATC phraseology procedure governing approach control during CAT ii, and lower, approachs. In the past, the controller would say 'CAT ii approachs in progress,' now they say 'ILS to runway xx.' I am told that the change was made because of different operators having various approach minimums. The problem was presented to me during parallel ILS CAT ii approachs to runway 14L&right at ord. The WX was W1X, RVR 14R 5000. The controller was periodically giving this WX, and advising new arrs on frequency that 'simultaneous parallel runway 14R&left ILS's in progress, expect ILS runway 14R.' the RVR would permit a CAT I approach, but to get the airplane low enough to land would require CAT ii. Also, the visibility had recently been between CAT I and CAT ii minimums, and I didn't want to do a CAT I to a miss if a CAT ii would get us on the ground. I asked the controller if CAT ii was in progress, and the reply was affirmative. If I had not been advised that CAT ii is in progress, I do not know for sure that all criteria are met at the moment for me to legally fly a CAT ii. Hold short lines are one requirement, sequence strobes another, and maybe other requirements that I am not aware of, perhaps takeoffs on a runway that intersects the landing runway. Also, if takeoffs are also on the landing runway, and CAT ii is not being advertised, the pilots waiting on the ground may not know to observe the CAT ii hold lines. I have been told recently that at some specified WX condition, ord configures for CAT ii, and also that the CAT I and CAT ii hold lines are the same. However, I don't read minds and I don't memorize local procedure at every airport in the united states. My suggestion is that when approachs lower than CAT I are appropriate, the approach controller would state: 'low category ILS's in progress.' this way, a pilot limited to CAT I would attempt an approach if legal, and CAT ii and CAT III pilots would have been put on notice that they are legal to conduct such approachs. The term 'low category ILS' would be a new term, defined as an ILS approach with minimums less than CAT I. To have established procedure which forces a pilot to make assumptions about the type of approach which he is about to execute is to fly in the face of all that is known about flight safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR PLT SUGGESTS THAT ATC PHRASEOLOGY AND WX MINIMUMS ARE CONFUSING TO PLTS AND RECOMMENDS A CHANGE.

Narrative: I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED ATC PHRASEOLOGY PROC GOVERNING APCH CTL DURING CAT II, AND LOWER, APCHS. IN THE PAST, THE CTLR WOULD SAY 'CAT II APCHS IN PROGRESS,' NOW THEY SAY 'ILS TO RWY XX.' I AM TOLD THAT THE CHANGE WAS MADE BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT OPERATORS HAVING VARIOUS APCH MINIMUMS. THE PROB WAS PRESENTED TO ME DURING PARALLEL ILS CAT II APCHS TO RWY 14L&R AT ORD. THE WX WAS W1X, RVR 14R 5000. THE CTLR WAS PERIODICALLY GIVING THIS WX, AND ADVISING NEW ARRS ON FREQ THAT 'SIMULTANEOUS PARALLEL RWY 14R&L ILS'S IN PROGRESS, EXPECT ILS RWY 14R.' THE RVR WOULD PERMIT A CAT I APCH, BUT TO GET THE AIRPLANE LOW ENOUGH TO LAND WOULD REQUIRE CAT II. ALSO, THE VISIBILITY HAD RECENTLY BEEN BTWN CAT I AND CAT II MINIMUMS, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO DO A CAT I TO A MISS IF A CAT II WOULD GET US ON THE GND. I ASKED THE CTLR IF CAT II WAS IN PROGRESS, AND THE REPLY WAS AFFIRMATIVE. IF I HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED THAT CAT II IS IN PROGRESS, I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT ALL CRITERIA ARE MET AT THE MOMENT FOR ME TO LEGALLY FLY A CAT II. HOLD SHORT LINES ARE ONE REQUIREMENT, SEQUENCE STROBES ANOTHER, AND MAYBE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF, PERHAPS TKOFS ON A RWY THAT INTERSECTS THE LNDG RWY. ALSO, IF TKOFS ARE ALSO ON THE LNDG RWY, AND CAT II IS NOT BEING ADVERTISED, THE PLTS WAITING ON THE GND MAY NOT KNOW TO OBSERVE THE CAT II HOLD LINES. I HAVE BEEN TOLD RECENTLY THAT AT SOME SPECIFIED WX CONDITION, ORD CONFIGURES FOR CAT II, AND ALSO THAT THE CAT I AND CAT II HOLD LINES ARE THE SAME. HOWEVER, I DON'T READ MINDS AND I DON'T MEMORIZE LCL PROC AT EVERY ARPT IN THE UNITED STATES. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WHEN APCHS LOWER THAN CAT I ARE APPROPRIATE, THE APCH CTLR WOULD STATE: 'LOW CATEGORY ILS'S IN PROGRESS.' THIS WAY, A PLT LIMITED TO CAT I WOULD ATTEMPT AN APCH IF LEGAL, AND CAT II AND CAT III PLTS WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL TO CONDUCT SUCH APCHS. THE TERM 'LOW CATEGORY ILS' WOULD BE A NEW TERM, DEFINED AS AN ILS APCH WITH MINIMUMS LESS THAN CAT I. TO HAVE ESTABLISHED PROC WHICH FORCES A PLT TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE TYPE OF APCH WHICH HE IS ABOUT TO EXECUTE IS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF ALL THAT IS KNOWN ABOUT FLT SAFETY.

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.