Due to approach controller's terminology, the medium large transport X aircraft executing a visual approach lined up with the wrong runway causing a trailing aircraft to make a go around.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	162169
Time
Date	199011
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : sfo
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1800 msl bound upper : 1800
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : oak tower : sfo
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : straight in approach : visual arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : straight in approach : visual arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time total : 8000
ASRS Report	162169
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 210 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	162157
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe incursion : runway other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Inter Facility Coordination Failure other

Narrative:

Told by bay approach to 'expect tipp toe visibility to runway 28L,' but to follow a widebody transport Y 6 mi ahead for runway 28R.' confusion was were we going to runway 28L, or did he change his mind to follow the widebody transport Y to runway 28R? I asked first officer to verify landing runway when we switched to tower, but tower was talking nonstop and we couldn't get a word in edgewise until 500' AGL. Then an medium large transport Z apparently following us went missed, saying we were lined up on his runway, runway 28R! Tower then responded to our request to verify landing runway, saying, 'cleared to land runway 28R, but your runway was runway 28L!' landed west/O incident. Contacted tower after landing. Found out later from tower chief that controller training was in progress at bay approach, and that a tape analysis verified we correctly acknowledged to expect runway 28R, but controller didn't catch his error before switching us to tower.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DUE TO APCH CTLR'S TERMINOLOGY, THE MLG X ACFT EXECUTING A VISUAL APCH LINED UP WITH THE WRONG RWY CAUSING A TRAILING ACFT TO MAKE A GO AROUND.

Narrative: TOLD BY BAY APCH TO 'EXPECT TIPP TOE VIS TO RWY 28L,' BUT TO FOLLOW A WDB Y 6 MI AHEAD FOR RWY 28R.' CONFUSION WAS WERE WE GOING TO RWY 28L, OR DID HE CHANGE HIS MIND TO FOLLOW THE WDB Y TO RWY 28R? I ASKED F/O TO VERIFY LNDG RWY WHEN WE SWITCHED TO TWR, BUT TWR WAS TALKING NONSTOP AND WE COULDN'T GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE UNTIL 500' AGL. THEN AN MLG Z APPARENTLY FOLLOWING US WENT MISSED, SAYING WE WERE LINED UP ON HIS RWY, RWY 28R! TWR THEN RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST TO VERIFY LNDG RWY, SAYING, 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 28R, BUT YOUR RWY WAS RWY 28L!' LANDED W/O INCIDENT. CONTACTED TWR AFTER LNDG. FOUND OUT LATER FROM TWR CHIEF THAT CTLR TRNING WAS IN PROGRESS AT BAY APCH, AND THAT A TAPE ANALYSIS VERIFIED WE CORRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO EXPECT RWY 28R, BUT CTLR DIDN'T CATCH HIS ERROR BEFORE SWITCHING US TO TWR.

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.