37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 206272 |
Time | |
Date | 199204 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : lga |
State Reference | NY |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2500 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | Mixed |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : n90 |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
Flight Phase | cruise other cruise other |
Route In Use | approach : circling approach : visual enroute : on vectors |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 160 flight time total : 18000 flight time type : 2500 |
ASRS Report | 206272 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1500 |
ASRS Report | 206267 |
Events | |
Anomaly | altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : far non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course flight crew : took evasive action |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Situations | |
ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
On approach to lga after being vectored around ny area, in and out of clouds, 3 changes of active runways, we were vectored on a downwind for runway 31. Captain (PNF) had seen lga off to the right as we passed it on the north side. A few moments later, a very harried approach control asked if we had the runway in sight? The captain, feeling sure of his position, accepted a visual approach to runway 31. Unfortunately, the copilot (PF) did not see the runway as clouds were now obscuring the airport area. As we were looking for the runway, we began to intrude into the jfk airport airspace at which time we had a TCASII RA warning, calling for an immediate climb, which we followed. Air traffic/approach controller at that time instructed us to turn north and directed us to lga runway 31 the rest of the approach was uneventful. The moral of this story is to never accept a visual approach unless you know that the PF has the runway in sight. The ATC controller should also give a direction and mileage to the airport, especially in an area where there are several large airports and visibility is marginal. Supplemental information from acn 206267: we were following extended vectors in a counter clockwise direction around the lga airport area. We approached the ny area from the south and eventually made 1 complete circle around lga airport. The active runway was changed at least twice, and at times, we were not sure which runway or approach was in use. Finally, the captain (PNF) did not have the runway in sight and was not convinced that the captain had the correct runway in sight. We prematurely accepted a visual approach without adequate references to complete the approach. Supplemental information from acn 206355: captain said he had airport in sight, so and first officer did not. Due to crowded ATC frequency, we were unable to get a new heading back to lga for almost a full min. We all learned not to say 'I have the airport in sight' unless all pilots have the airport in sight and the WX and time of day is such that losing the airport is not a realistic probability. Also ATC controller should always give heading and distance to the airport when clearing for a visual approach.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC, CONFUSED OVER ACFT POS AS RELATED TO DEST ARPT, WANDERS INTO JFK'S ATA AND EXPERIENCES AN ALTDEV IN PLT RESPONSE TO TCASII RA.
Narrative: ON APCH TO LGA AFTER BEING VECTORED AROUND NY AREA, IN AND OUT OF CLOUDS, 3 CHANGES OF ACTIVE RWYS, WE WERE VECTORED ON A DOWNWIND FOR RWY 31. CAPT (PNF) HAD SEEN LGA OFF TO THE R AS WE PASSED IT ON THE N SIDE. A FEW MOMENTS LATER, A VERY HARRIED APCH CTL ASKED IF WE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT? THE CAPT, FEELING SURE OF HIS POS, ACCEPTED A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 31. UNFORTUNATELY, THE COPLT (PF) DID NOT SEE THE RWY AS CLOUDS WERE NOW OBSCURING THE ARPT AREA. AS WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE RWY, WE BEGAN TO INTRUDE INTO THE JFK ARPT AIRSPACE AT WHICH TIME WE HAD A TCASII RA WARNING, CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE CLB, WHICH WE FOLLOWED. AIR TFC/APCH CTLR AT THAT TIME INSTRUCTED US TO TURN N AND DIRECTED US TO LGA RWY 31 THE REST OF THE APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL. THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS TO NEVER ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH UNLESS YOU KNOW THAT THE PF HAS THE RWY IN SIGHT. THE ATC CTLR SHOULD ALSO GIVE A DIRECTION AND MILEAGE TO THE ARPT, ESPECIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL LARGE ARPTS AND VISIBILITY IS MARGINAL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 206267: WE WERE FOLLOWING EXTENDED VECTORS IN A COUNTER CLOCKWISE DIRECTION AROUND THE LGA ARPT AREA. WE APCHED THE NY AREA FROM THE S AND EVENTUALLY MADE 1 COMPLETE CIRCLE AROUND LGA ARPT. THE ACTIVE RWY WAS CHANGED AT LEAST TWICE, AND AT TIMES, WE WERE NOT SURE WHICH RWY OR APCH WAS IN USE. FINALLY, THE CAPT (PNF) DID NOT HAVE THE RWY IN SIGHT AND WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CAPT HAD THE CORRECT RWY IN SIGHT. WE PREMATURELY ACCEPTED A VISUAL APCH WITHOUT ADEQUATE REFS TO COMPLETE THE APCH. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 206355: CAPT SAID HE HAD ARPT IN SIGHT, SO AND FO DID NOT. DUE TO CROWDED ATC FREQ, WE WERE UNABLE TO GET A NEW HDG BACK TO LGA FOR ALMOST A FULL MIN. WE ALL LEARNED NOT TO SAY 'I HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT' UNLESS ALL PLTS HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT AND THE WX AND TIME OF DAY IS SUCH THAT LOSING THE ARPT IS NOT A REALISTIC PROBABILITY. ALSO ATC CTLR SHOULD ALWAYS GIVE HDG AND DISTANCE TO THE ARPT WHEN CLRING FOR A VISUAL APCH.
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.