Narrative:

I was in command of flight on 4/X/91, PNF. Den approach control vectored us downwind for runway 17 on a 340 degree heading at 9000' MSL. We had no information to expect a short approach or we were #1 for the approach. We were given a 170 degree heading and asked if the airport was in sight. The copilot commenced a standard rate turn to 170 degrees. I reported the field. ATC cleared us for a visual approach. No traffic was reported to us. It was readily apparent the turn to final was bad, too high and we were aligned with runway 17R, cleared for 17L. My concern immediately became traffic sep with 17R, and to get the aircraft back on 17L final. There was a little confusion with the first officer on priorities, but for only a short time. The bad turn to final, and my insistence not to descend until aligned with 17L, aggravated the already high altitude and short final. We commenced a rapid descent. At about 3 mi ATC asked if we could make the field ok. I responded that we were high and fast and didn't know yet. ATC gave me a 080 degree heading. I responded that I would like to continue, we might still make it. ATC began to give instructions to air carrier Y behind us. ATC cleared air carrier Y for a visible approach to 17L from 9000' air carrier Y replied no way, he was too high to get down in time. ATC gave air carrier Y an 080 degree heading at 9000' MSL. During this time it became apparent that we were not in a position to safely land, so I told first officer to go around, and pick up a 080 degree heading. We were inside 2 mi about 7000' MSL. We still did not have an altitude, so we chose 9000', the published missed approach altitude for the DME 17L ILS approach we were using as a backup for the visibility approach. I attempted to call ATC twice, giving them my heading with no reply. The frequency was very busy with air carrier Y aborted approach. ATC gave us a heading of 340 degrees for downwind and another approach. No altitude was given. I was aware of air carrier Y position and altitude, and had visual contact. We were closing, but did not seem in danger of a collision. While passing 8500' MSL, ATC asked our altitude. On reply gave us an immediate descent to 8000', then asked if we were aware our cleared altitude was 8000'. I replied we weren't given an altitude, and we were climbing to the published missed altitude of 9000' MSL. From 8000' we shot a normal visual approach to 17L. Contributing factors: 1) poor ATC control for runway line up, and too high an altitude for the turn to final distance, for 2 aircraft that had to go around at the same time. 2) unclr miss procedures for a visual approach with no written procedure to follow, 2 separate approach procedures, one with 1000' MSL, the other 9000' MSL, both for runway 17L. 3) frequency congestion. Air carrier Y miss prevented verification of altitude with ATC. 4) I never should have elected to continue the approach after ATC gave me a missed approach heading. It would have been safer to go around then and help reduce the ATC workload. My decision increased his load when I also had to miss. 5) I expected ATC to vector air carrier Y out of our way. ATC was thinking altitude sep. Both aircraft had visual sep, though not adequate for ATC. 6) air carrier Y aggravation and comments to ATC tied up the frequency and controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ON VISUAL APCH TOO HIGH ON FINAL RESULTING IN A MISSED APCH. PLT CRITICAL OF ATC HANDLING.

Narrative: I WAS IN COMMAND OF FLT ON 4/X/91, PNF. DEN APCH CTL VECTORED US DOWNWIND FOR RWY 17 ON A 340 DEG HDG AT 9000' MSL. WE HAD NO INFO TO EXPECT A SHORT APCH OR WE WERE #1 FOR THE APCH. WE WERE GIVEN A 170 DEG HDG AND ASKED IF THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT. THE COPLT COMMENCED A STANDARD RATE TURN TO 170 DEGS. I RPTED THE FIELD. ATC CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH. NO TFC WAS RPTED TO US. IT WAS READILY APPARENT THE TURN TO FINAL WAS BAD, TOO HIGH AND WE WERE ALIGNED WITH RWY 17R, CLRED FOR 17L. MY CONCERN IMMEDIATELY BECAME TFC SEP WITH 17R, AND TO GET THE ACFT BACK ON 17L FINAL. THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION WITH THE F/O ON PRIORITIES, BUT FOR ONLY A SHORT TIME. THE BAD TURN TO FINAL, AND MY INSISTENCE NOT TO DSND UNTIL ALIGNED WITH 17L, AGGRAVATED THE ALREADY HIGH ALT AND SHORT FINAL. WE COMMENCED A RAPID DSNT. AT ABOUT 3 MI ATC ASKED IF WE COULD MAKE THE FIELD OK. I RESPONDED THAT WE WERE HIGH AND FAST AND DIDN'T KNOW YET. ATC GAVE ME A 080 DEG HDG. I RESPONDED THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, WE MIGHT STILL MAKE IT. ATC BEGAN TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ACR Y BEHIND US. ATC CLRED ACR Y FOR A VISIBLE APCH TO 17L FROM 9000' ACR Y REPLIED NO WAY, HE WAS TOO HIGH TO GET DOWN IN TIME. ATC GAVE ACR Y AN 080 DEG HDG AT 9000' MSL. DURING THIS TIME IT BECAME APPARENT THAT WE WERE NOT IN A POS TO SAFELY LAND, SO I TOLD F/O TO GAR, AND PICK UP A 080 DEG HDG. WE WERE INSIDE 2 MI ABOUT 7000' MSL. WE STILL DID NOT HAVE AN ALT, SO WE CHOSE 9000', THE PUBLISHED MISSED APCH ALT FOR THE DME 17L ILS APCH WE WERE USING AS A BACKUP FOR THE VIS APCH. I ATTEMPTED TO CALL ATC TWICE, GIVING THEM MY HDG WITH NO REPLY. THE FREQ WAS VERY BUSY WITH ACR Y ABORTED APCH. ATC GAVE US A HDG OF 340 DEGS FOR DOWNWIND AND ANOTHER APCH. NO ALT WAS GIVEN. I WAS AWARE OF ACR Y POS AND ALT, AND HAD VISUAL CONTACT. WE WERE CLOSING, BUT DID NOT SEEM IN DANGER OF A COLLISION. WHILE PASSING 8500' MSL, ATC ASKED OUR ALT. ON REPLY GAVE US AN IMMEDIATE DSNT TO 8000', THEN ASKED IF WE WERE AWARE OUR CLRED ALT WAS 8000'. I REPLIED WE WEREN'T GIVEN AN ALT, AND WE WERE CLBING TO THE PUBLISHED MISSED ALT OF 9000' MSL. FROM 8000' WE SHOT A NORMAL VISUAL APCH TO 17L. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) POOR ATC CTL FOR RWY LINE UP, AND TOO HIGH AN ALT FOR THE TURN TO FINAL DISTANCE, FOR 2 ACFT THAT HAD TO GAR AT THE SAME TIME. 2) UNCLR MISS PROCS FOR A VISUAL APCH WITH NO WRITTEN PROC TO FOLLOW, 2 SEPARATE APCH PROCS, ONE WITH 1000' MSL, THE OTHER 9000' MSL, BOTH FOR RWY 17L. 3) FREQ CONGESTION. ACR Y MISS PREVENTED VERIFICATION OF ALT WITH ATC. 4) I NEVER SHOULD HAVE ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH AFTER ATC GAVE ME A MISSED APCH HDG. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER TO GAR THEN AND HELP REDUCE THE ATC WORKLOAD. MY DECISION INCREASED HIS LOAD WHEN I ALSO HAD TO MISS. 5) I EXPECTED ATC TO VECTOR ACR Y OUT OF OUR WAY. ATC WAS THINKING ALT SEP. BOTH ACFT HAD VISUAL SEP, THOUGH NOT ADEQUATE FOR ATC. 6) ACR Y AGGRAVATION AND COMMENTS TO ATC TIED UP THE FREQ AND CTLR.

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.