ATC phraseology when using converging ILS approachs.

Attributes
ACN	268507
Time
Date	199402
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : phl
State Reference	PA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : phl tracon : yyz
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, High Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 5200 flight time type : 120
ASRS Report	268507
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

It seems to me that the controllers leave some ambiguity when using runway 9 and runway 17 ILS 'converging' or 'not converging!' in phl airport. Even the ATIS doesn't always mention which one is in use! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: TRACON supervisor stated type ILS is always on the ATIS. Converging ILS has to have a ceiling of 800 ft and visibility 2 mi. Supervisor stated the controller will change the converging approach to a regular approach when there is not traffic on converging runway that is a factor. The controller will state the approach at the time approach clearance is issued. Callback conversation #2 with reporter revealed the following: reporter was advised of the call to phl TRACON supervisor and the content of the callback. Reporter was also advised to ask controller what type approach if the flight crew was not sure. Reporter stated she now understood the phraseology and fly the approach issued.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC PHRASEOLOGY WHEN USING CONVERGING ILS APCHS.

Narrative: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CTLRS LEAVE SOME AMBIGUITY WHEN USING RWY 9 AND RWY 17 ILS 'CONVERGING' OR 'NOT CONVERGING!' IN PHL ARPT. EVEN THE ATIS DOESN'T ALWAYS MENTION WHICH ONE IS IN USE! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: TRACON SUPVR STATED TYPE ILS IS ALWAYS ON THE ATIS. CONVERGING ILS HAS TO HAVE A CEILING OF 800 FT AND VISIBILITY 2 MI. SUPVR STATED THE CTLR WILL CHANGE THE CONVERGING APCH TO A REGULAR APCH WHEN THERE IS NOT TFC ON CONVERGING RWY THAT IS A FACTOR. THE CTLR WILL STATE THE APCH AT THE TIME APCH CLRNC IS ISSUED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION #2 WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR WAS ADVISED OF THE CALL TO PHL TRACON SUPVR AND THE CONTENT OF THE CALLBACK. RPTR WAS ALSO ADVISED TO ASK CTLR WHAT TYPE APCH IF THE FLC WAS NOT SURE. RPTR STATED SHE NOW UNDERSTOOD THE PHRASEOLOGY AND FLY THE APCH ISSUED.

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.