Narrative:

ATIS information stated O'hare was landing ILS 28. I knew the ILS 28 was not available from NOTAM ord number 13/10. I sent dispatch an ACARS asking to verify information on ATIS. He responded that it was incorrect on ATIS and it was the localizer 28. On initial contact chicago approach told us to expect the ILS 28. I asked him to clarify whether it was a localizer or ILS and he again stated ILS. Listening to aircraft ahead I heard the controller clear them for an 'ILS approach glideslope unusable.' he would only say this while turning the aircraft onto final. This is way to late to expect a pilot to brief and fly a localizer glideslope out of service approach instead of an ILS with glideslope. I am not sure what the correct verbage is; whether it is an ILS glideslope out of service; localizer glideslope out of service; or ILS glideslope unusable. But no matter what it needs to be given to the pilots on the ATIS and on initial contact with approach. Turning final is way to late to let a pilot know the glideslope is out of service. I believe the controllers actions of not clearly defining the approach until final adds workload to the pilots that could lead to an unsafe or at least a go-around situation. Also after dispatch contacted ord controllers the ATIS changed to reflect a localizer 28 but the controller continued stating an ILS 28 approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain voiced concern regarding inaccurate and incomplete information provided by ATC; NOTAMS; and Dispatch regarding the ILS 28 status at ORD; alleging difficulty in determining what component of the ILS was inoperative; expressing the need for accurate information for approach planning.

Narrative: ATIS information stated O'hare was landing ILS 28. I knew the ILS 28 was not available from NOTAM ORD Number 13/10. I sent Dispatch an ACARS asking to verify information on ATIS. He responded that it was incorrect on ATIS and it was the LOC 28. On initial contact Chicago Approach told us to expect the ILS 28. I asked him to clarify whether it was a LOC or ILS and he again stated ILS. Listening to aircraft ahead I heard the Controller clear them for an 'ILS approach glideslope unusable.' he would only say this while turning the aircraft onto final. This is way to late to expect a pilot to brief and fly a LOC glideslope out of service approach instead of an ILS with glideslope. I am not sure what the correct verbage is; whether it is an ILS glideslope out of service; LOC glideslope out of service; or ILS glideslope unusable. But no matter what it needs to be given to the pilots on the ATIS and on initial contact with approach. Turning final is way to late to let a pilot know the glideslope is out of service. I believe the controllers actions of not clearly defining the approach until final adds workload to the pilots that could lead to an unsafe or at least a go-around situation. Also after Dispatch contacted ORD Controllers the ATIS changed to reflect a LOC 28 but the Controller continued stating an ILS 28 approach.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.