Narrative:

This report is being submitted for safety purposes only. There was no violation committed. WX at mia was 1500 ft broken to overcast. ATIS said ILS approachs in use to runway 9R&left and runway 12 with GS runway 9L OTS. We briefed localizer only approach for runway 9L. On downwind, we heard controller issuing other aircraft approach clrncs for ILS runway 9L. I had first officer ask approach if the GS was in service and his response was 'it's on the ATIS.' we turned final and were given an approach clearance for an ILS runway 9L. We did not receive any GS indications so we knew the GS was still OTS. Once parked at gate, I called clearance delivery (the least busy frequency) and asked him if the GS was out and he said yes. I told him the approach controller was not using proper phraseology to issue the approach clearance. He agreed with me and said he would mention it to the approach controller. I just want to make sure that there is a follow-up to this so the approach controller will use the proper phraseology. This is a safety issue as you might get a false GS and try to fly it, thinking that it is now working. From the j-aid, air traffic procedures, section 4 arrival procedures, 5-4-6(D) approach clearance: 'the name of the instrument approach, as published is used to identify the approach, even though a component of the approach aid, such as the GS on an ILS, is inoperative or unreliable. The controller will use the name of the approach as published, but must advise the aircraft at the time an approach clearance is issued that the inoperative or unreliable approach aid component is unusable.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 CAPT RPTED MIA APCH CTLR WAS NOT USING CORRECT ATC PHRASEOLOGY WHEN CLRING ACFT FOR AN ILS APCH WITH AN INOP GS.

Narrative: THIS RPT IS BEING SUBMITTED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES ONLY. THERE WAS NO VIOLATION COMMITTED. WX AT MIA WAS 1500 FT BROKEN TO OVCST. ATIS SAID ILS APCHS IN USE TO RWY 9R&L AND RWY 12 WITH GS RWY 9L OTS. WE BRIEFED LOC ONLY APCH FOR RWY 9L. ON DOWNWIND, WE HEARD CTLR ISSUING OTHER ACFT APCH CLRNCS FOR ILS RWY 9L. I HAD FO ASK APCH IF THE GS WAS IN SVC AND HIS RESPONSE WAS 'IT'S ON THE ATIS.' WE TURNED FINAL AND WERE GIVEN AN APCH CLRNC FOR AN ILS RWY 9L. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY GS INDICATIONS SO WE KNEW THE GS WAS STILL OTS. ONCE PARKED AT GATE, I CALLED CLRNC DELIVERY (THE LEAST BUSY FREQ) AND ASKED HIM IF THE GS WAS OUT AND HE SAID YES. I TOLD HIM THE APCH CTLR WAS NOT USING PROPER PHRASEOLOGY TO ISSUE THE APCH CLRNC. HE AGREED WITH ME AND SAID HE WOULD MENTION IT TO THE APCH CTLR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THIS SO THE APCH CTLR WILL USE THE PROPER PHRASEOLOGY. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AS YOU MIGHT GET A FALSE GS AND TRY TO FLY IT, THINKING THAT IT IS NOW WORKING. FROM THE J-AID, AIR TFC PROCS, SECTION 4 ARR PROCS, 5-4-6(D) APCH CLRNC: 'THE NAME OF THE INST APCH, AS PUBLISHED IS USED TO IDENT THE APCH, EVEN THOUGH A COMPONENT OF THE APCH AID, SUCH AS THE GS ON AN ILS, IS INOP OR UNRELIABLE. THE CTLR WILL USE THE NAME OF THE APCH AS PUBLISHED, BUT MUST ADVISE THE ACFT AT THE TIME AN APCH CLRNC IS ISSUED THAT THE INOP OR UNRELIABLE APCH AID COMPONENT IS UNUSABLE.'

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.