Air carrier widebody transport experienced malfunction of leading edge flap system on approach.

Attributes
ACN	149445
Time
Date	199006
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : stl
State Reference	MO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 7000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : stl tower : lex
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent other
Route In Use	arrival other enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 17000 flight time type : 14
ASRS Report	149445
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : overcame equipment problem none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Upon arrival in stl area, we developed a leading edge slat asymmetry problem. We advised stl approach control of our problem and told them we would have a higher than normal approach speed (vref plus 30 KTS). We requested the emergency equipment standby in the event of hot brakes, etc. Approachs in use where runway 30R ILS and runway 30L lda. The longest runway is runway 30L (we were already on vectors for it). 3 times during the discussion with ATC, I had to request runway 30L ILS rather than lda, which is an off set type approach. We were very busy in the cockpit with or flap problem, high approach speeds, dealing with F/as, passenger, etc (2 man crew). We did not need the additional hassle of the ILS/lda discussions as they were distractive and unnecessary. (Our company has an agreement with stl ATC that lda apches will not be given to widebody aircraft). Wind was gusting to 31 KTS. I did not declare an emergency or request any special or priority handling other than the ILS rather than lda which I should not have had to do. I think the ATC controller should have been aware that lda apches are not given to our company widebody aircraft and should not have distraction us with discussions on the subject while a 2 man crew was trying to handle a problem.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB EXPERIENCED MALFUNCTION OF LEADING EDGE FLAP SYSTEM ON APCH.

Narrative: UPON ARR IN STL AREA, WE DEVELOPED A LEADING EDGE SLAT ASYMMETRY PROB. WE ADVISED STL APCH CTL OF OUR PROB AND TOLD THEM WE WOULD HAVE A HIGHER THAN NORMAL APCH SPD (VREF PLUS 30 KTS). WE REQUESTED THE EMER EQUIP STANDBY IN THE EVENT OF HOT BRAKES, ETC. APCHS IN USE WHERE RWY 30R ILS AND RWY 30L LDA. THE LONGEST RWY IS RWY 30L (WE WERE ALREADY ON VECTORS FOR IT). 3 TIMES DURING THE DISCUSSION WITH ATC, I HAD TO REQUEST RWY 30L ILS RATHER THAN LDA, WHICH IS AN OFF SET TYPE APCH. WE WERE VERY BUSY IN THE COCKPIT WITH OR FLAP PROB, HIGH APCH SPDS, DEALING WITH F/AS, PAX, ETC (2 MAN CREW). WE DID NOT NEED THE ADDITIONAL HASSLE OF THE ILS/LDA DISCUSSIONS AS THEY WERE DISTRACTIVE AND UNNECESSARY. (OUR COMPANY HAS AN AGREEMENT WITH STL ATC THAT LDA APCHES WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO WIDEBODY ACFT). WIND WAS GUSTING TO 31 KTS. I DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER OR REQUEST ANY SPECIAL OR PRIORITY HANDLING OTHER THAN THE ILS RATHER THAN LDA WHICH I SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO DO. I THINK THE ATC CTLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT LDA APCHES ARE NOT GIVEN TO OUR COMPANY WIDEBODY ACFT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISTR US WITH DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUBJECT WHILE A 2 MAN CREW WAS TRYING TO HANDLE A PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.