 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
B767 flight crew reported that they felt rushed and pressured when ATC gave them vectors very close to the final approach course.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1497542 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201711 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B767-300 and 300 ER |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Approach was planned and briefed; considering all contingencies; including the possibility of a vector to intercept final on the RNAV. On downwind given an aggressive descent and turn to base; much sooner than we expected. Not turned to final until last minute and told to intercept course to final. By the time the heading bug was around and LNAV selected; LNAV immediately captured. Dogleg heading was directly at zzzzz; which is 2.8 miles from the FAF. Very tight vector for an in the weather RNAV. Current standard/technique requires fully configured 2 miles prior to FAF on an RNAV. Normally; final configuration happens on final. So; slowing to 180 on base to fully configured within 0.8 miles. A lot going on in a very short period of time. Fully configured by (or just inside of) 2 miles from FAF. Due to the busy time; did not verify that VNAV was selected. As we broke out; both of us realized that we were low and corrected; about the same time that ATC called to tell us the same.very aggressive vectors to intercept RNAV final approach. Not verifying that airplane was doing what we wanted it to do. A suggestion to ATC. When vectoring to an RNAV; it's not the same as a visual or an ILS. More to do. Please don't give such aggressive vectors; whether you think you're doing us a favor or just trying to get us out of your hair.a suggestion to the training department. Train tight vector; rush; rush; RNAV approaches. Real world may not be 'direct to zzzzz' (which is 5-10 miles from the FAF); 'cleared the approach'. Apparently; that isn't how it happens all of the time.a word to the crew. Verify that the plane is doing what you want it to and if you're rushed; say so or go around. I felt rushed but in control and fully configured and dialed in where I wanted to be but didn't crosscheck to make sure the plane was doing what I wanted it to do (VNAV pth).
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B767 flight crew reported that they felt rushed and pressured when ATC gave them vectors very close to the final approach course.
Narrative: Approach was planned and briefed; considering all contingencies; including the possibility of a vector to intercept final on the RNAV. On downwind given an aggressive descent and turn to base; much sooner than we expected. Not turned to final until last minute and told to intercept course to final. By the time the heading bug was around and LNAV selected; LNAV immediately captured. Dogleg heading was directly at ZZZZZ; which is 2.8 miles from the FAF. Very tight vector for an in the weather RNAV. Current standard/technique requires fully configured 2 miles prior to FAF on an RNAV. Normally; final configuration happens on final. So; slowing to 180 on base to fully configured within 0.8 miles. A lot going on in a very short period of time. Fully configured by (or just inside of) 2 miles from FAF. Due to the busy time; did not verify that VNAV was selected. As we broke out; both of us realized that we were low and corrected; about the same time that ATC called to tell us the same.Very aggressive vectors to intercept RNAV final approach. Not verifying that airplane was doing what we wanted it to do. A suggestion to ATC. When vectoring to an RNAV; it's not the same as a visual or an ILS. More to do. Please don't give such aggressive vectors; whether you think you're doing us a favor or just trying to get us out of your hair.A suggestion to the training department. Train tight vector; rush; rush; RNAV approaches. Real world may not be 'direct to ZZZZZ' (which is 5-10 miles from the FAF); 'cleared the approach'. Apparently; that isn't how it happens all of the time.A word to the crew. Verify that the plane is doing what you want it to and if you're rushed; say so or go around. I felt rushed but in control and fully configured and dialed in where I wanted to be but didn't crosscheck to make sure the plane was doing what I wanted it to do (VNAV PTH).
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.