Reporter protests erroneous heading given by tower controller to flight on visual approach.

Attributes
ACN	195089
Time
Date	199111
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dca
State Reference	DC
Altitude	msl bound lower : 800 msl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : dca tower : lga
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	195089
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : exited adverse environment
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We were coming into dca from baltimore VOR. About 10 mi out we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 21. On short final, at 700 ft, we were told to turn to heading 210 degree and to maintain altitude. Further we were told to expect runway 15, no reason for the go around was given. We climbed to a safer altitude and entered right downwind to runway 15. Tower told us that we would follow 2 planes; a jet for runway 18 and a turbo propeller mdt for runway 21. Both were on the 'river visual' approach. He also said that he would 'call the base.' after we said that we has the turbo in sight, he cleared us for visual to runway 18 to hold short of 21. We were somewhat confused since we were told to expect runway 15 and we asked, twice, for clarification. We were cleared for visual 18, hold short 21, behind the turbo. We were maneuvering a little to stay behind the turbo. A moment later tower tells us that the heading we were on would take us into the restr area. He further suggested a left turn to avoid the area. We told that we were already turning toward the airport and that we were still over the river (the left turn would have put us right into the area). Tower replied 'alright, clear to land 18.' at dca, in order to handle all traffic, the sometimes sequence traffic too close, and this results in unnecessary gars. In our situation we were given 2 runway changes to further confuse us. We also had to fly relatively close pattern, and I had to spend a lot of time inside, in order to do the checklists from climb to landing, at the time when attention should have been outside. All these factors together can easily lead to a violation of the 'right' area. In our situation we could have refused the call for base leg and flown a pattern that would have given us enough time to get ready and fly a stable approach. Most likely though, this would have resulted in another go around because the traffic behind us.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR PROTESTS ERRONEOUS HDG GIVEN BY TWR CTLR TO FLT ON VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE COMING INTO DCA FROM BALTIMORE VOR. ABOUT 10 MI OUT WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 21. ON SHORT FINAL, AT 700 FT, WE WERE TOLD TO TURN TO HDG 210 DEG AND TO MAINTAIN ALT. FURTHER WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 15, NO REASON FOR THE GAR WAS GIVEN. WE CLBED TO A SAFER ALT AND ENTERED R DOWNWIND TO RWY 15. TWR TOLD US THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW 2 PLANES; A JET FOR RWY 18 AND A TURBO PROP MDT FOR RWY 21. BOTH WERE ON THE 'RIVER VISUAL' APCH. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WOULD 'CALL THE BASE.' AFTER WE SAID THAT WE HAS THE TURBO IN SIGHT, HE CLRED US FOR VISUAL TO RWY 18 TO HOLD SHORT OF 21. WE WERE SOMEWHAT CONFUSED SINCE WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 15 AND WE ASKED, TWICE, FOR CLARIFICATION. WE WERE CLRED FOR VISUAL 18, HOLD SHORT 21, BEHIND THE TURBO. WE WERE MANEUVERING A LITTLE TO STAY BEHIND THE TURBO. A MOMENT LATER TWR TELLS US THAT THE HDG WE WERE ON WOULD TAKE US INTO THE RESTR AREA. HE FURTHER SUGGESTED A L TURN TO AVOID THE AREA. WE TOLD THAT WE WERE ALREADY TURNING TOWARD THE ARPT AND THAT WE WERE STILL OVER THE RIVER (THE L TURN WOULD HAVE PUT US R INTO THE AREA). TWR REPLIED 'ALRIGHT, CLR TO LAND 18.' AT DCA, IN ORDER TO HANDLE ALL TFC, THE SOMETIMES SEQUENCE TFC TOO CLOSE, AND THIS RESULTS IN UNNECESSARY GARS. IN OUR SITUATION WE WERE GIVEN 2 RWY CHANGES TO FURTHER CONFUSE US. WE ALSO HAD TO FLY RELATIVELY CLOSE PATTERN, AND I HAD TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME INSIDE, IN ORDER TO DO THE CHKLISTS FROM CLB TO LNDG, AT THE TIME WHEN ATTN SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE. ALL THESE FACTORS TOGETHER CAN EASILY LEAD TO A VIOLATION OF THE 'R' AREA. IN OUR SITUATION WE COULD HAVE REFUSED THE CALL FOR BASE LEG AND FLOWN A PATTERN THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN US ENOUGH TIME TO GET READY AND FLY A STABLE APCH. MOST LIKELY THOUGH, THIS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN ANOTHER GAR BECAUSE THE TFC BEHIND US.

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.