 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew of government aircraft arriving chs is given intercept vector for approach that doesn't make sense. Flight crew expecting VOR DME runway 33 approach, was probably given intercept vector for VOR DME runway 3 approach.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 210381 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199205 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : chs |
| State Reference | SC |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : chs |
| Operator | other |
| Make Model Name | Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Route In Use | enroute : on vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | government other |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 10 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 300 |
| ASRS Report | 210381 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : military |
| Function | controller : approach |
| Qualification | controller : radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
PNF and controller miscommunicated which approach we were cleared to conduct. Chs has a wonderful professional staff, however, considering the workload and simultaneous approach procedure names I feel this can happen again. We believe we heard we were cleared to descend to X altitude turn left to 030 degrees until intercepting the final approach course inbound. Cleared VOR/DME runway 33 approach, contact the tower 126.0. Once turning to 030 degrees in the descent and contacting the tower, both pilots could not understand the intercept heading given. What we figured out later on a subsequent leg was we were put on an intercept for the VOR/DME runway 3 approach. Thus the snafu of runway 33 or runway 3 which we were cleared for, which we heard or what was said is the problem. When we asked tower to return to approach, he very professionally picked us up for a quick vector to runway 3. He was quick and sharp.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF GOV ACFT ARRIVING CHS IS GIVEN INTERCEPT VECTOR FOR APCH THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. FLC EXPECTING VOR DME RWY 33 APCH, WAS PROBABLY GIVEN INTERCEPT VECTOR FOR VOR DME RWY 3 APCH.
Narrative: PNF AND CTLR MISCOMMUNICATED WHICH APCH WE WERE CLRED TO CONDUCT. CHS HAS A WONDERFUL PROFESSIONAL STAFF, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE WORKLOAD AND SIMULTANEOUS APCH PROC NAMES I FEEL THIS CAN HAPPEN AGAIN. WE BELIEVE WE HEARD WE WERE CLRED TO DSND TO X ALT TURN L TO 030 DEGS UNTIL INTERCEPTING THE FINAL APCH COURSE INBOUND. CLRED VOR/DME RWY 33 APCH, CONTACT THE TWR 126.0. ONCE TURNING TO 030 DEGS IN THE DSCNT AND CONTACTING THE TWR, BOTH PLTS COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE INTERCEPT HDG GIVEN. WHAT WE FIGURED OUT LATER ON A SUBSEQUENT LEG WAS WE WERE PUT ON AN INTERCEPT FOR THE VOR/DME RWY 3 APCH. THUS THE SNAFU OF RWY 33 OR RWY 3 WHICH WE WERE CLRED FOR, WHICH WE HEARD OR WHAT WAS SAID IS THE PROBLEM. WHEN WE ASKED TWR TO RETURN TO APCH, HE VERY PROFESSIONALLY PICKED US UP FOR A QUICK VECTOR TO RWY 3. HE WAS QUICK AND SHARP.
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.