Narrative:

Normal descent to ont via cajon arrival. On handoff to ont TRACON were given a descent to 6000 and a vector that we were advised would take us through the localizer due eastbound mlt (flight of 3) going into norton AFB. We were given further clearance to what I thought was 3200 and a turn to intercept the ILS inside the final approach fix. At about the time we got the mlt in sight the controller advised us we were only cleared to 4200'. At this time we were about 3500'. When it appeared that we might have a conflict with one of the mlt on our present heading and altitude, we made a turn to the west paralleling the localizer. Moments later we got the airport in sight and made a normal approach and landing. It appeared to me the controller was trying to get us north a position for a visual approach however due to smog and low position of the sun the airport was not in sight until about 6 mi out. Contributing factor to this incident was high workload on PIC due to student first officer who was flying aircraft at the time. Supplemental information from acn 116680: controller was relying on visual approach under marginal visibility and did not have us positioned for normal ILS intercept. Crew all felt certain afterward that our altitude clearance was 3200, and captain was certain he read back that altitude. Possibly we mistook mlt altitude (3200) for our assigned altitude. I must question the safety of flying opposite direction military aircraft through the ILS final approach course of ontario international during instrument or visual lndgs.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALT DEVIATION. ALT OVERSHOT IN DESCENT RESULTING IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH MIL ACFT BEING RADAR VECTORED THROUGH APCH COURSE. ATC ERROR FOR FAILURE TO PICK UP INCORRECT CLRNC READBACK.

Narrative: NORMAL DSCNT TO ONT VIA CAJON ARR. ON HANDOFF TO ONT TRACON WERE GIVEN A DSCNT TO 6000 AND A VECTOR THAT WE WERE ADVISED WOULD TAKE US THROUGH THE LOC DUE EBND MLT (FLT OF 3) GOING INTO NORTON AFB. WE WERE GIVEN FURTHER CLRNC TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS 3200 AND A TURN TO INTERCEPT THE ILS INSIDE THE FINAL APCH FIX. AT ABOUT THE TIME WE GOT THE MLT IN SIGHT THE CTLR ADVISED US WE WERE ONLY CLRED TO 4200'. AT THIS TIME WE WERE ABOUT 3500'. WHEN IT APPEARED THAT WE MIGHT HAVE A CONFLICT WITH ONE OF THE MLT ON OUR PRESENT HDG AND ALT, WE MADE A TURN TO THE W PARALLELING THE LOC. MOMENTS LATER WE GOT THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND MADE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. IT APPEARED TO ME THE CTLR WAS TRYING TO GET US N A POSITION FOR A VISUAL APCH HOWEVER DUE TO SMOG AND LOW POSITION OF THE SUN THE ARPT WAS NOT IN SIGHT UNTIL ABOUT 6 MI OUT. CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THIS INCIDENT WAS HIGH WORKLOAD ON PIC DUE TO STUDENT F/O WHO WAS FLYING ACFT AT THE TIME. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 116680: CTLR WAS RELYING ON VISUAL APCH UNDER MARGINAL VISIBILITY AND DID NOT HAVE US POSITIONED FOR NORMAL ILS INTERCEPT. CREW ALL FELT CERTAIN AFTERWARD THAT OUR ALT CLRNC WAS 3200, AND CAPT WAS CERTAIN HE READ BACK THAT ALT. POSSIBLY WE MISTOOK MLT ALT (3200) FOR OUR ASSIGNED ALT. I MUST QUESTION THE SAFETY OF FLYING OPPOSITE DIRECTION MIL ACFT THROUGH THE ILS FINAL APCH COURSE OF ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL DURING INSTRUMENT OR VISUAL LNDGS.

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.