 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier flight crew reported being high on the approach due to task saturation; communications errors and focusing outside for traffic.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1754275 |
| Time | |
| Date | 202008 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.TRACON |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude Deviation - Procedural Clearance |
Narrative:
While on a left dogleg to final we were set up for a visual approach to xxl. We had selected the ILS as a backup. We were set up to come down to the glideslope from the dogleg and intercept the localizer at approximately the FAF; with a aircraft intercepting the north runway (xyr) from the other direction and approximately abeam our position. The controller initially incorrectly cleared us for a visual to xyr at the same time the PF set the MCP altitude to what we thought was the FAF altitude. In the task saturated moment of looking for traffic; verifying and correcting the clearance; and a configuration change we failed to select the approach mode on the MCP and flew down below the glideslope toward an incorrectly set MCP altitude. As it was a visual approach we elected to level off and re-intercept the glideslope at approximately 1;300-1;400 AGL. The approach was stable after glideslope intercept. Task saturation and communications errors; along with a focus outside for traffic; led to a slow response as pm. I should have paid more attention to the setup for the approach and suggested earlier configuration changes to be more stable during the turn to final. After several months of little flight time I need to pay more attention to slowing down and controlling the pace better than I did today.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air carrier flight crew reported being high on the approach due to task saturation; communications errors and focusing outside for traffic.
Narrative: While on a left dogleg to final we were set up for a visual approach to XXL. We had selected the ILS as a backup. We were set up to come down to the glideslope from the dogleg and intercept the localizer at approximately the FAF; with a aircraft intercepting the north runway (XYR) from the other direction and approximately abeam our position. The Controller initially incorrectly cleared us for a visual to XYR at the same time the PF set the MCP altitude to what we thought was the FAF altitude. In the task saturated moment of looking for traffic; verifying and correcting the clearance; and a configuration change we failed to select the approach mode on the MCP and flew down below the glideslope toward an incorrectly set MCP altitude. As it was a visual approach we elected to level off and re-intercept the glideslope at approximately 1;300-1;400 AGL. The approach was stable after glideslope intercept. Task saturation and communications errors; along with a focus outside for traffic; led to a slow response as PM. I should have paid more attention to the setup for the approach and suggested earlier configuration changes to be more stable during the turn to final. After several months of little flight time I need to pay more attention to slowing down and controlling the pace better than I did today.
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.