“Request ILS” would be the proper phraseology in this case.
1 Like
Agreed, if the airspace was busy, your remark would be correct, but there is nothing wrong with the longer phrasing depending on the airspace.
I agree with @PablodNinja, Negative is not proper phraseology here, “request” would be more suitable. If you can’t fly the RNAV the phrase would be “Unable, negative RNAV”.
1 Like
Precise and concise communication is always better than using plain language, busy or not.
1 Like
For what its worth, I once said ‘Negative’ to a controller in a situation where I really just wanted a different thing than he said…
The result was that he gave me my request, but only after navigating me circuitously to get it done. Never flex your pilot rights against a controller unless there is a good reason to do so, because they have a bag of tricks a mile deep that they can use to show you that if you make their day hard, they can make your day hard too. And its completely above board for them to do so.
Officially, yes. In practice it doesn’t always work out that way. Especially at quieter fields, and I’m glad it is this way. I have had some really fun an enlightening quips with controllers on quiet frequencies.
I know it happens, I’m no fan of it. Having fun on the frequency is fine when it’s quiet. But safety related communication, including clearance, instructions and information should be in accordance with standard phraseology, plain language should only be used when there is no alternative. But we’ll, I’ve been a RTF instructor so I’m a little obsessed with these kind of things 
.
I have experienced a lot of miscommunications during my career which could have been avoided by using standard phraseology, on the contrary I often find that when I really need to relay some information using plain language it often leads to the information not being completely understood the first time around. It is for a good reason that we use standard phraseology…
1 Like
“Understood”
You’re one of those Embry Riddle guys, aren’t ya? 
I totally agree with you. But whats written in the recipe isn’t always what ends up on the plate.
1 Like
Sorry, I fail to understand how this answers the OPs question regarding RNAV priority over ILS. Its not even remotely related to this topic…
This “virtual ILS” is a really nice feature to let people fly straight into terrain, building approaches where there isn’t a published instrument approach. Nice for reference but otherwise not for official use.
1 Like
Actually in certain specific cases it can be, example I gave above of Gatwick and the 380 being case in point… less a problem of just the size of the aircraft and more that it it is both large and vacates at the end near the loc transmitter. They will always (even using CAT I) clear the following couple of aircraft for RNAV26L rather than ILS 26L - never got to test it as a result, but I did once have a hard fly right on the loc in gatters when a triple vacated at the end of the runway so it’s evidently a real concern.
Also LFML for example require you to use the RNAV 31R rather than the ILS unless criteria in the AOI aren’t met and you have to justify any decision to use the ILS instead.
So, as always, there are exceptions to the rule!
99% of the time though, absolutely. Exceedingly rare to use the RNAV rather than the ILS with both approaches available.
Good point, I have flown in and out of most UK airports including Gatwick and I haven’t noticed it myself. The Brits love vectoring for some reason (and often no reason ) so that is also not an argument for flying RNAV over ILS.
For the A380 I think its the same as any other aircraft, the aircraft needs to be clear of the ILS sensitive area before the preceding aircraft passes a point where disturbance can have critical effect, and when vacating at the end, the distance to travel in order to clear the ILS sensitive area is actually shorter so it most have to do with the extra time the aircraft needs to vacate at the end I assume. Also the radar separation needs to be larger anyway when flying behind a super heavy.
I have seen bending of the localizer signal a couple of times in real life with autopilot trying to follow it, it can create a nice “zigzag” on approach. You can see the importance of requesting a CAT II / III approach when intending to perform an autoland for any reason outside of CAT II / III weather (training for example).
But yeah there exceptions, all the more reason to kindly “request” another approach type instead of boldly using the phrase “negative” (if you have followed the conversation above). “Unable due to negative RNAV” is a different story altogether of course.
It’s only when the Emirates 380 is around so only a happens a couple of times a day (well, no times a day currently because they aren’t coming here at the moment) so unless you are based there it’s entirely possible you won’t ever see it happen if your schedule just doesn’t align with their movements.
And yes, we love a good vectoring. They’ll even vector you for the RNAV.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.