Narrative:

We were approaching sdf and being vectored for the ILS runway 29 approach. We noticed other aircraft, namely medium large transport's and widebody transport's being vectored for runway 1. We were given a frequency change and continued to be vectored for our approach along with speed restrictions. There was no runway 1 traffic noticed on our final approach control frequency. We changed to the tower frequency at the OM as instructed after having been told that 'spacing looks good.' (we were still at our assigned speed.) upon breaking out of the overcast approximately half way between the OM and the runway we noticed that there was a widebody transport on final for runway 1, about the same distance out as us. The widebody transport pilot said on the tower frequency, 'you've got to be kidding.' approximately 15 seconds later the tower issued us go around instructions which we complied with. We subsequently were vectored for a successful ILS runway 1 approach and landing. Visibility was good enough that each aircraft could see the other far enough out and avoid any potential conflict. The ceiling was well defined. I believe there was either a breakdown in communication between approach controllers or between approach and tower controllers or just plain bad timing/sequencing on approach control's part. Perhaps instead of using 2 different approach control frequencys for 2 runways, one could give initial vectors and the other final vectors and clearance for approachs on both runways. Another alternative would be to have all approachs use runway 1 when the crosswind is at or below acceptable limits as it was this day.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT APCHING FOR LNDG ON CROSS RWYS. ILS APCHS.

Narrative: WE WERE APCHING SDF AND BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 29 APCH. WE NOTICED OTHER ACFT, NAMELY MLG'S AND WDB'S BEING VECTORED FOR RWY 1. WE WERE GIVEN A FREQ CHANGE AND CONTINUED TO BE VECTORED FOR OUR APCH ALONG WITH SPD RESTRICTIONS. THERE WAS NO RWY 1 TFC NOTICED ON OUR FINAL APCH CTL FREQ. WE CHANGED TO THE TWR FREQ AT THE OM AS INSTRUCTED AFTER HAVING BEEN TOLD THAT 'SPACING LOOKS GOOD.' (WE WERE STILL AT OUR ASSIGNED SPD.) UPON BREAKING OUT OF THE OVCST APPROX HALF WAY BTWN THE OM AND THE RWY WE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A WDB ON FINAL FOR RWY 1, ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE OUT AS US. THE WDB PLT SAID ON THE TWR FREQ, 'YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.' APPROX 15 SECS LATER THE TWR ISSUED US GAR INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH. WE SUBSEQUENTLY WERE VECTORED FOR A SUCCESSFUL ILS RWY 1 APCH AND LNDG. VISIBILITY WAS GOOD ENOUGH THAT EACH ACFT COULD SEE THE OTHER FAR ENOUGH OUT AND AVOID ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICT. THE CEILING WAS WELL DEFINED. I BELIEVE THERE WAS EITHER A BREAKDOWN IN COM BTWN APCH CTLRS OR BTWN APCH AND TWR CTLRS OR JUST PLAIN BAD TIMING/SEQUENCING ON APCH CTL'S PART. PERHAPS INSTEAD OF USING 2 DIFFERENT APCH CTL FREQS FOR 2 RWYS, ONE COULD GIVE INITIAL VECTORS AND THE OTHER FINAL VECTORS AND CLRNC FOR APCHS ON BOTH RWYS. ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO HAVE ALL APCHS USE RWY 1 WHEN THE XWIND IS AT OR BELOW ACCEPTABLE LIMITS AS IT WAS THIS DAY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.