37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 113334 |
Time | |
Date | 198906 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : azo |
State Reference | MI |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 0 msl bound upper : 4000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : azo |
Operator | general aviation : corporate |
Make Model Name | Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other other |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 1500 |
ASRS Report | 113334 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Events | |
Anomaly | other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other other : unspecified |
Resolutory Action | none taken : unable |
Consequence | faa : investigated |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Operational Deviation |
Narrative:
Upon arrival, kalamazoo stated that it would be necessary to hold for a short time, but no specific reason was stated at that time. Subsequent holding instructions were issued to hold 10 south of azo on the localizer, left turns maintain 4000, 5 mi legs were approved. Time was approximately XA25 with efc of 35. Approach clearance was granted at approximately 45, with the advisory of an small aircraft on base to 35. Subsequent clearance to land runway 35 was issued with advisory of acrobatic team 3 east of airport. Landing was made on 35. As acrobatic team passed overhead, we were met by FAA representative who questioned events and stated that this was 'a bad scene'. We were at no time advised that the airport was closed, and followed all clrncs issued by azo tower and approach control. There was no conflict between aircraft, but if we were not supposed to land under these circumstances, we should have been advised to divert, as we had not indicated any desire or need for special handling or priority. It appears as though there was some confusion between controling agencies as to the open or closed status of the airport. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states crew was never given any information about a NOTAM when requested during briefing. Approach never mentioned, tower never mentioned that airport was closed. In fact it was not, as this day was practice time for air show and tower was working traffic around such practice. General feeling is that aerial flight team began their practice about 3 mins earlier than expected. Reporter feels they were high enough as they crossed when he was on final to be no problem. Feels FAA representative overreacted to situation. If the aircraft should not have been there, somebody should have told them so. Have heard nothing further from FAA.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: APCH HELD CORP ACFT OUTSIDE ATA WITH EXPECT FURTHER CLRNC TIME AND RELEASED AT THAT TIME FOR ILS APCH. ADVISED OF SMA ON BASE TO RWY THEN ADVISORY OF ACROBATIC TEAM OVERHEAD. FAA QUESTIONED EVENTS AFTER LNDG.
Narrative: UPON ARR, KALAMAZOO STATED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HOLD FOR A SHORT TIME, BUT NO SPECIFIC REASON WAS STATED AT THAT TIME. SUBSEQUENT HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED TO HOLD 10 S OF AZO ON THE LOC, LEFT TURNS MAINTAIN 4000, 5 MI LEGS WERE APPROVED. TIME WAS APPROX XA25 WITH EFC OF 35. APCH CLRNC WAS GRANTED AT APPROX 45, WITH THE ADVISORY OF AN SMA ON BASE TO 35. SUBSEQUENT CLRNC TO LAND RWY 35 WAS ISSUED WITH ADVISORY OF ACROBATIC TEAM 3 EAST OF ARPT. LNDG WAS MADE ON 35. AS ACROBATIC TEAM PASSED OVERHEAD, WE WERE MET BY FAA REPRESENTATIVE WHO QUESTIONED EVENTS AND STATED THAT THIS WAS 'A BAD SCENE'. WE WERE AT NO TIME ADVISED THAT THE ARPT WAS CLOSED, AND FOLLOWED ALL CLRNCS ISSUED BY AZO TWR AND APCH CTL. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN ACFT, BUT IF WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO LAND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DIVERT, AS WE HAD NOT INDICATED ANY DESIRE OR NEED FOR SPECIAL HANDLING OR PRIORITY. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN CTLING AGENCIES AS TO THE OPEN OR CLOSED STATUS OF THE ARPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATES CREW WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY INFO ABOUT A NOTAM WHEN REQUESTED DURING BRIEFING. APCH NEVER MENTIONED, TWR NEVER MENTIONED THAT ARPT WAS CLOSED. IN FACT IT WAS NOT, AS THIS DAY WAS PRACTICE TIME FOR AIR SHOW AND TWR WAS WORKING TFC AROUND SUCH PRACTICE. GENERAL FEELING IS THAT AERIAL FLT TEAM BEGAN THEIR PRACTICE ABOUT 3 MINS EARLIER THAN EXPECTED. REPORTER FEELS THEY WERE HIGH ENOUGH AS THEY CROSSED WHEN HE WAS ON FINAL TO BE NO PROBLEM. FEELS FAA REPRESENTATIVE OVERREACTED TO SITUATION. IF THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE, SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM SO. HAVE HEARD NOTHING FURTHER FROM FAA.
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.