There was an instrument approach briefing given by an instrument pilot/instructor on youtube.
I think the title was ~"Instrument Approach Briefing" for reference, he is sitting on his couch.

Anyway, some comments were made in the notes at the bottom of the video.

One comment said: along the lines of: if you lose your glideslope during an ILS then continue on and convert it to a Localisor only approach - having timed from your FAF. the `note` goes on to say: if you go missed just because of a Glideslope failure on a FAA checkride then you would fail the checkride.

Hmmmm. . . ????????

So, when in history do we continue descent in the event of a G/S failure. . . . ?

So, this means that you have pre-programmed an MDA instead of a DH and gone from a Precision approach to a non-precision approach, well, this is fine if you are at 2,000 above T/H but what if you are at 500` and did you work out the MDA - its on the charts, so have we got time to sort this out, did we check out what the height is AGL compared to the QNH alt? - so what height does that make us. at. . . Fun City.

I would personally, of course, if not visual, commit the G/A if no rad alt or DME (which was implied - due to the fact that they were not mentioned), sort us all out, and re-do the approach as a non-precision, and happily fail my check ride - if, if that is the case, I can`t see that reference to an FAA check-ride being true though.

Any nice FAA examiners want to comment?

Are you on a precision approach? YES. Have you got the glideslope? NO. Then WHY descend?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!! PLEASE TATTOO THIS ONTO YOUR BRAINS.

If the G/S fails during an ILS while near, at or below localizer minimums while IMC, then no. I wouldn't think anyone would fail a ride in that scenario. A missed approach would be appropriate in this case.

Having said that...

I've never had a GS failure, but was taught to treat each ILS as a potential Localizer, thus starting the clock and knowing your MDAs as depicted on the localizer chart just in case the unexpected happens. Oddly enough, it was during my multi-engine CHECK-RIDE where the check-airman (brutal beast and retired military instructor) introduced this concept into my then mushy head for the first time. Those eighteen year old CFII instructors at American Flyers back in the eighties apparently weren't presented this scenario in their training syllabus (at the time, to be fair)...

God bless that tough old bird who passed me for multi-engined flight. Literally slapped the back of my head a couple of times for my improper use of elevator trim, called me a dumb head at least once, but in the end told me, "good job pilot."

So yes. IF, in the very unlikely, but certainly plausible, event that a GS goes kaput on you while coupled to the AP and headed down to something less than visual rules, I'd expect nothing less than having those localizer scenario numbers handy and ready to input as soon as the GS flag shows itself. You can then at least determine if you are sufficiently above published MDA to react and continue down, or go missed to re-group.

Of course, if the announced ceiling is below MDA, easy decision...

Sorry, I'm not buying it. A busted checkride because of an equipment failure and then not continuing to a seperate set of minimums? For me the b.s. flag goes up instantly. What are we trying to encourage in aviation? All together now, kids-



What exactly are you telling an applicant when you bust his/her chops because they didn't continue in what may be considered a confusing situation? Yeah. Sorry, I ain't buying it. If this kind of crap is going on then the system needs an attitude adjustment. I would never fault my copilot for missing an approach due to a glide slope failure. Even if the localizer mins were briefed. Go around and live to fight another day.