Clearance for 34L, but ILS only for 34R - what to do?

[bluebombers_84]

As per the heading, I recently flew a mission out of Choongwon Airbase in inclement weather with terrible visibility. I contacted the ATC who cleared me to land R34L - but ILS is available only for 34R. So what is one to do in such a situation, where a visual approach is impossible? ILS guided me in perfectly to 34R, but that’s not what I had clearance for.

On a side note, when contacting the tower (UHF 230.15) the ATC identifies himself as Chongju, not Choongwon. What’s up with that? All of the vectors he gave guided me right in to the proper approach, but the name he gave conflicted with the data I have for Choongwon. My ILS was set to 111.30 and TACAN 005X, the data listed for Choongwon - but he kept identifying himself as Chongju airbase. It was rather confusing!

[Agave_Blue]

T-2, then land on the ILS RWY.

[Ahmed]

And if the visibility is not thaaaat bad you could always try a sidestep from the ILS…

[Frederf]

Go to alternate

But seriously, if you need a procedure use the TACAN approach or “roll your own” side step ILS if the 500’ MDA isn’t low enough. To need the minimums for ILS is pretty rare. Do a TACAN approach or even (gasp) a circle to land.

[Red Dog]

the next step for the Ai ATC would be to sync ILS runway according to weather. For now it works according to Wind but unfortunatly on double runway airbase, such issues may appear because one runway might be assigned for departure and the other for landing. In this case it’s a clear mismatch, that would need to be fixed.

In you shoes, I’d request autonomous approach and then land on the ILS runway. doing so you tell the ATC that you are managing your own approach and they will clear to land when you are final on 34R.

The original falcon called Choongwon Chungju and Chongju was called Cheongju
both name very close to each other.
Choongwon (amongst other airbases) needs their voice frag updated indeed. It’s an old SP issue that never was corrected … yet

There are other leftovers:
Kadena to Fukuoka
Haemi to Seosan
Samcheonpo to Sachon
Toun-Ni to Taetan

[Blu3wolf]

@Red:

the next step for the Ai ATC would be to sync ILS runway according to weather. For now it works according to Wind but unfortunatly on double runway airbase, such issues may appear because one runway might be assigned for departure and the other for landing. In this case it’s a clear mismatch, that would need to be fixed.

In you shoes, I’d request autonomous approach and then land on the ILS runway. doing so you tell the ATC that you are managing your own approach and they will clear to land when you are final on 34R.

The original falcon called Choongwon Chungju and Chongju was called Cheongju
both name very close to each other.
Choongwon (amongst other airbases) needs their voice frag updated indeed. It’s an old SP issue that never was corrected … yet

There are other leftovers:
Kadena to Fukuoka
Haemi to Seosan
Samcheonpo to Sachon
Toun-Ni to Taetan

Haemi does not need fixing. Seosan controllers refer to their base as Haemi, to avoid confusion with Osan.

If there are plans to adjust where the AI will direct operations to for considerations other than wind, it would be nice if Kunsan could be set up to prefer using 36 regardless of wind, unless there would be more than 10 knots tailwind. This mirrors real world usage of the runways there.

[bluebombers_84]

Thanks for the info everyone! I was running some bad weather with visibility so low I couldn’t see the runway signs while taxiing. ILS was necessary to land, as visual was completely out of the question.

[Red Dog]

remember BlueBomber the ATC in BMS is not flexible. It’s a hundreth time better than before, but you’re a** is in the airplane. If you need to send them to mustard because their instruction don’t make any sense. Do it
there is no conséquences to land without clearance except the advisory call when your weels touch the ground. ANd if you want to avoid that, use autonomous approach or emergency in the last resort

[Frederf]

Autonomous won’t avoid “next time get a clearance.” It just suspends instructions until you wander close to the final approach. ATC will give you a specific runway to land at even with a “T2” approach. If you land on other runway than specified it’s the finger wagging message anyway. Emergency is cleared to land any/all runway I believe.

If we respect ATC runway assignment and approach is not possible with available equipment, the real recourse is to fly to alternate. This is one of the main reasons to have alternates if weather precludes legal approach.

Of course it is ridiculous that ATC would not approve a request or even assign without being asked with intelligence an approach knowing exactly the weather and equipment situation. So the “double realism” answer is to ignore the runway assignment and safely as possible pretend ATC clears you for the intelligent approach and runway.

[Red Dog]

Autonomous won’t avoid “next time get a clearance.” It just suspends instructions until you wander close to the final approach. ATC will give you a specific runway to land at even with a “T2” approach. If you land on other runway than specified it’s the finger wagging message anyway. Emergency is cleared to land any/all runway I believe.

You might be right. I don’t remember testing this on double runways airbase.

[Malc]

eChoongwon (amongst other airbases) needs their voice frag updated indeed. It’s an old SP issue that never was corrected … yet

Is replacing voice frags a difficult process?

[Red Dog]

yes