Narrative:

I; the first officer; was the PF. We were inbound from the southwest to bwi. We were cleared direct to colum intersection on the ILS 10 to bwi. I had briefed ILS 10 to visual; so we were prepared for this. We had the ILS 10 tuned and idented by morse code. We also had the approach programmed with GPS on the electronic map. I also had the runway in sight. I lined up with the runway; and it appeared that we had a localizer and GS signal; again with a good identify. All 3 of us confirmed I was high and that the signal must be erroneous. The localizer signal was also wavering wildly. We disregarded the ILS and confirmed runway identify with the GPS. We also crosschecked our approach profile with altitude/distance. I proceeded visually and stabilized without GS. After landing we questioned the controller about the ILS. He said it was turned on the other runway. We told him he should have notified us of that; and he said 'roger.' I found this to be very disconcerting because I would rather have a flagged approach signal; rather than an erroneous one. This is true especially with receiving glide path information at night. This seems like a hazardous situation; especially since we had a good identify on the ILS. The controller cleared us to an ILS fix to shoot the visual. He made no mention to us of a negative ILS availability on the radio; ATIS; or otherwise. The approach went fine since we caught the controller's error; and crosschecked our approach information. We continued stabilized; visually; and with GPS confirmation; but I would have much rather had some glide path guidance on a nighttime visual approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR PLT RPTS RECEIVING AN ERRATIC ILS SIGNAL ON BWI RWY 10 ILS. AFTER LNDG; UPON INQUIRING; ATC INFORMED THEM THAT THE ILS WAS ON RWY 28.

Narrative: I; THE FO; WAS THE PF. WE WERE INBOUND FROM THE SW TO BWI. WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO COLUM INTXN ON THE ILS 10 TO BWI. I HAD BRIEFED ILS 10 TO VISUAL; SO WE WERE PREPARED FOR THIS. WE HAD THE ILS 10 TUNED AND IDENTED BY MORSE CODE. WE ALSO HAD THE APCH PROGRAMMED WITH GPS ON THE ELECTRONIC MAP. I ALSO HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT. I LINED UP WITH THE RWY; AND IT APPEARED THAT WE HAD A LOC AND GS SIGNAL; AGAIN WITH A GOOD IDENT. ALL 3 OF US CONFIRMED I WAS HIGH AND THAT THE SIGNAL MUST BE ERRONEOUS. THE LOC SIGNAL WAS ALSO WAVERING WILDLY. WE DISREGARDED THE ILS AND CONFIRMED RWY IDENT WITH THE GPS. WE ALSO XCHKED OUR APCH PROFILE WITH ALT/DISTANCE. I PROCEEDED VISUALLY AND STABILIZED WITHOUT GS. AFTER LNDG WE QUESTIONED THE CTLR ABOUT THE ILS. HE SAID IT WAS TURNED ON THE OTHER RWY. WE TOLD HIM HE SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED US OF THAT; AND HE SAID 'ROGER.' I FOUND THIS TO BE VERY DISCONCERTING BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER HAVE A FLAGGED APCH SIGNAL; RATHER THAN AN ERRONEOUS ONE. THIS IS TRUE ESPECIALLY WITH RECEIVING GLIDE PATH INFO AT NIGHT. THIS SEEMS LIKE A HAZARDOUS SITUATION; ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAD A GOOD IDENT ON THE ILS. THE CTLR CLRED US TO AN ILS FIX TO SHOOT THE VISUAL. HE MADE NO MENTION TO US OF A NEGATIVE ILS AVAILABILITY ON THE RADIO; ATIS; OR OTHERWISE. THE APCH WENT FINE SINCE WE CAUGHT THE CTLR'S ERROR; AND XCHKED OUR APCH INFO. WE CONTINUED STABILIZED; VISUALLY; AND WITH GPS CONFIRMATION; BUT I WOULD HAVE MUCH RATHER HAD SOME GLIDE PATH GUIDANCE ON A NIGHTTIME VISUAL APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.