Narrative:

Backgnd: orh has 1 air carrier runway, 11-29, served by 2 lower approachs: ILS 11, with MALSR, identify irsr, 200 ft ht above touchdown, 1/2 mi, and localizer 29, with REIL, identify iekw, 290 ft ht above touchdown, 1 mi, crow hill NDB/LOM. Both facilities have the same frequency, 110.9. The orh tower closes at XY00 local, and approachs are controled by bdl approach. Situation: our scheduled arrival time at orh is XX00. Our company provides an approved WX observer until we land. On this particular night we had an ETA of XX20. About 50 mi out we checked on the WX observation which was, indefinite ceiling, 100 ft, sky obscured, 1 mi visibility in fog, wind 230 degrees, 9 KTS. I wanted to use the ILS 11 so that we would have a GS and approach lights, even though a slight tailwind. Bdl approach informed us that the approach in use was the localizer runway 29. Since the orh tower was closed, bdl approach had no control over which approach is on the air. Bdl was briefed that orh tower closed with the localizer 29 on the air. In fact, bdl told us that a light plane was on the localizer 29 approach and that we would be next for the approach. Bdl cleared us direct to crow hill NDB. Since the reported visibility was sufficient for the approach we proceeded to crow hill, since we apparently had no other choice. We fully expected a missed approach because of the ceiling and we discussed our plans for proceeding to an alternate. The other airplane apparently missed the approach and was cleared to hold. We were cleared down to 3000 ft and cleared for the approach. There is no radar service on the east side of the airport (poor coverage), so we proceeded with the approach on our own navigation. When we reached crow hill NDB and turned outbound, I had a difficult time intercepting the localizer. I soon realized that the problem was reversed sensing which could only be resulting from a back course signal. My copilot checked the identify again and realized that it was the identify for the ILS runway 11. We were actually trying to intercept the ILS 11 back course, which is not an authority/authorized signal. We maintained altitude and competed the procedure turn using the NDB and returned to crow hill. We reported all this to bdl. They queried the pilot of the light plane and he reported that, on his approach, he had experienced reverse sensing on the '29 localizer' inbound! Bdl approach then cleared us to the initial approach fix for the ILS 11 and subsequently vectored us for the approach which we completed uneventfully. For the record, we saw the approach lights 50 ft above decision altitude. We reported this and the light plane followed us on the approach. I talked to the bdl controller by telephone after we landed. He apologized for the confusion and said that when he came on duty he had been briefed that the orh tower had closed, leaving the localizer 29 on the air, although it is usually the ILS 11 that is left on. I was surprised to find that bdl had no control over switching the facilities, and even more surprised to find that they had no indication of which facility was transmitting. This is a good case for listening to idents carefully. Also, bdl approach and orh tower need to clarify their procedures and maybe the airport trust fund could spring for a light bulb at bdl to show which approach is on the air!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X ISSUED APCH CLRNC WITH WRONG ILS SYS ON AIR.

Narrative: BACKGND: ORH HAS 1 ACR RWY, 11-29, SERVED BY 2 LOWER APCHS: ILS 11, WITH MALSR, IDENT IRSR, 200 FT HT ABOVE TOUCHDOWN, 1/2 MI, AND LOC 29, WITH REIL, IDENT IEKW, 290 FT HT ABOVE TOUCHDOWN, 1 MI, CROW HILL NDB/LOM. BOTH FACILITIES HAVE THE SAME FREQ, 110.9. THE ORH TWR CLOSES AT XY00 LCL, AND APCHS ARE CTLED BY BDL APCH. SIT: OUR SCHEDULED ARR TIME AT ORH IS XX00. OUR COMPANY PROVIDES AN APPROVED WX OBSERVER UNTIL WE LAND. ON THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT WE HAD AN ETA OF XX20. ABOUT 50 MI OUT WE CHKED ON THE WX OBSERVATION WHICH WAS, INDEFINITE CEILING, 100 FT, SKY OBSCURED, 1 MI VISIBILITY IN FOG, WIND 230 DEGS, 9 KTS. I WANTED TO USE THE ILS 11 SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE A GS AND APCH LIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH A SLIGHT TAILWIND. BDL APCH INFORMED US THAT THE APCH IN USE WAS THE LOC RWY 29. SINCE THE ORH TWR WAS CLOSED, BDL APCH HAD NO CTL OVER WHICH APCH IS ON THE AIR. BDL WAS BRIEFED THAT ORH TWR CLOSED WITH THE LOC 29 ON THE AIR. IN FACT, BDL TOLD US THAT A LIGHT PLANE WAS ON THE LOC 29 APCH AND THAT WE WOULD BE NEXT FOR THE APCH. BDL CLRED US DIRECT TO CROW HILL NDB. SINCE THE RPTED VISIBILITY WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE APCH WE PROCEEDED TO CROW HILL, SINCE WE APPARENTLY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE. WE FULLY EXPECTED A MISSED APCH BECAUSE OF THE CEILING AND WE DISCUSSED OUR PLANS FOR PROCEEDING TO AN ALTERNATE. THE OTHER AIRPLANE APPARENTLY MISSED THE APCH AND WAS CLRED TO HOLD. WE WERE CLRED DOWN TO 3000 FT AND CLRED FOR THE APCH. THERE IS NO RADAR SVC ON THE E SIDE OF THE ARPT (POOR COVERAGE), SO WE PROCEEDED WITH THE APCH ON OUR OWN NAV. WHEN WE REACHED CROW HILL NDB AND TURNED OUTBOUND, I HAD A DIFFICULT TIME INTERCEPTING THE LOC. I SOON REALIZED THAT THE PROB WAS REVERSED SENSING WHICH COULD ONLY BE RESULTING FROM A BACK COURSE SIGNAL. MY COPLT CHKED THE IDENT AGAIN AND REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE IDENT FOR THE ILS RWY 11. WE WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO INTERCEPT THE ILS 11 BACK COURSE, WHICH IS NOT AN AUTH SIGNAL. WE MAINTAINED ALT AND COMPETED THE PROC TURN USING THE NDB AND RETURNED TO CROW HILL. WE RPTED ALL THIS TO BDL. THEY QUERIED THE PLT OF THE LIGHT PLANE AND HE RPTED THAT, ON HIS APCH, HE HAD EXPERIENCED REVERSE SENSING ON THE '29 LOC' INBOUND! BDL APCH THEN CLRED US TO THE INITIAL APCH FIX FOR THE ILS 11 AND SUBSEQUENTLY VECTORED US FOR THE APCH WHICH WE COMPLETED UNEVENTFULLY. FOR THE RECORD, WE SAW THE APCH LIGHTS 50 FT ABOVE DECISION ALT. WE RPTED THIS AND THE LIGHT PLANE FOLLOWED US ON THE APCH. I TALKED TO THE BDL CTLR BY TELEPHONE AFTER WE LANDED. HE APOLOGIZED FOR THE CONFUSION AND SAID THAT WHEN HE CAME ON DUTY HE HAD BEEN BRIEFED THAT THE ORH TWR HAD CLOSED, LEAVING THE LOC 29 ON THE AIR, ALTHOUGH IT IS USUALLY THE ILS 11 THAT IS LEFT ON. I WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THAT BDL HAD NO CTL OVER SWITCHING THE FACILITIES, AND EVEN MORE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT THEY HAD NO INDICATION OF WHICH FACILITY WAS XMITTING. THIS IS A GOOD CASE FOR LISTENING TO IDENTS CAREFULLY. ALSO, BDL APCH AND ORH TWR NEED TO CLARIFY THEIR PROCS AND MAYBE THE ARPT TRUST FUND COULD SPRING FOR A LIGHT BULB AT BDL TO SHOW WHICH APCH IS ON THE AIR!

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.