C172 pilot discovers after being cleared for the ILS that his glide slope has failed. This information is not conveyed to ATC. The approach is continued using LOC minimums and a low altitude alert is generated before the reporter descends below the overcast and lands.

Date: 2010-09 · Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172 · Phase: approach

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-less-severe|deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance

Synopsis

C172 pilot discovers after being cleared for the ILS that his glide slope has failed. This information is not conveyed to ATC. The approach is continued using LOC minimums and a low altitude alert is generated before the reporter descends below the overcast and lands.

Narrative

In flight I discovered that my glide slope was not working. I failed to communicate this to ATC. I was not aware of this failure before the flight. Boston Approach asked me if I had intercepted the localizer which I had. I followed the localizer and got distracted because my glide slope never came in. The localizer went almost to full scale deflection before I noticed that it was deflected. Boston Approach never questioned my vertical or lateral navigation except to ask me if I had intercepted the localizer. When I passed over the LOM; I descended as I would on a localizer approach (without vertical guidance). After being handed over to LWM Tower; I was informed of a low altitude warning. I reported that I had broken out of the clouds and had the runway in sight. From my perspective; I broke out of the clouds at an altitude to make a normal glide path to the runway. To prevent this from reoccurring; ATC should question the pilot in flight of the error in navigation. Boston must have noticed some error and did not notify me until I was on the ground with LWM Ground. I was in error for not reporting an equipment malfunction.

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.