 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Corporate pilot voiced concern regarding the term 'converging' on several approach procedures noting the term is less than clear in it's meaning and flight crew requirements.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1072840 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201303 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | PHL.Airport |
| State Reference | PA |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
This report does not involve an event; it is rather a warning that there is a potential problem that crew members need to be aware of. Specifically when phl ATIS is advertising '....landing converging ILS 9R; 9L and 17......' and when subsequently 'cleared approach converging ILS 9R' none of the crew members or instructors I have asked is aware of what exactly the term 'converging' represents; or what this requires that they do differently. The term when contained in the title of the approach; as it is in phl; iad; msp means that the missed approach is different from an otherwise identical approach by the same name but lacking the term 'converging.' of even greater significance is the fact our aircraft FMC in each case contains only one of the two possible approaches. The vulnerability being a pilot who is cleared 'converging ILS 9R' and subsequently directed to execute a missed approach; if that crew follows the missed approach in the box; it will take the flight directly into the flight path of another aircraft. Suggestions; crews should be cautioned to recognize why the term 'converging' is put in the title of an approach and what it changes from what they were expecting. With regard to changing the FMC I believe that the company should query both equipment manufacturers for possible solutions.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Corporate pilot voiced concern regarding the term 'converging' on several approach procedures noting the term is less than clear in it's meaning and flight crew requirements.
Narrative: This report does not involve an event; it is rather a warning that there is a potential problem that crew members need to be aware of. Specifically when PHL ATIS is advertising '....landing converging ILS 9R; 9L and 17......' and when subsequently 'cleared approach converging ILS 9R' none of the crew members or instructors I have asked is aware of what exactly the term 'converging' represents; or what this requires that they do differently. The term when contained in the title of the approach; as it is in PHL; IAD; MSP means that the missed approach is different from an otherwise identical approach by the same name but lacking the term 'Converging.' Of even greater significance is the fact our aircraft FMC in each case contains only one of the two possible approaches. The vulnerability being a pilot who is cleared 'Converging ILS 9R' and subsequently directed to execute a missed approach; if that crew follows the missed approach in the box; it will take the flight directly into the flight path of another aircraft. Suggestions; crews should be cautioned to recognize why the term 'Converging' is put in the title of an approach and what it changes from what they were expecting. With regard to changing the FMC I believe that the company should query both equipment manufacturers for possible solutions.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.