Air carrier light transport aircraft was making an instrument approach while another aircraft was cleared for an approach from the opposite direction.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	215341
Time
Date	199207
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : atw
State Reference	WI
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1300 msl bound upper : 1300
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : grb tower : atw
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 2700 flight time type : 1200
ASRS Report	215341
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation
Independent Detector	atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We had been cleared for the localizer backcourse runway at atw by grb approach. Due to a late final vector we flew through the localizer and required additional vectors back to the localizer. Once inbound from the FAF we became very busy in the cockpit. Grb approach handed us off to atw tower just outside the FAF. We needed to prioritize with numerous cockpit duties and contacted atw tower as we were going missed approach. We completed another approach (ILS runway 3) successfully and after landing atw tower informed us that they had another aircraft on an ILS approach into atw (opposite direction opposite runway) and they need for us to call them earlier on the approach (localizer back course 11). Had we gone runway heading on the missed approach there would have been a serious conflict. (We flew the published miss until reviewing instructions otherwise). How can 2 aircraft have been on approach for opposite runways in IMC. Had we lost our radio we would have had a serious conflict. We have been taught aviate, navigate, and then communicate. Do controllers realize our priorities?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LTT ACFT WAS MAKING AN INST APCH WHILE ANOTHER ACFT WAS CLRED FOR AN APCH FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE LOC BACKCOURSE RWY AT ATW BY GRB APCH. DUE TO A LATE FINAL VECTOR WE FLEW THROUGH THE LOC AND REQUIRED ADDITIONAL VECTORS BACK TO THE LOC. ONCE INBOUND FROM THE FAF WE BECAME VERY BUSY IN THE COCKPIT. GRB APCH HANDED US OFF TO ATW TWR JUST OUTSIDE THE FAF. WE NEEDED TO PRIORITIZE WITH NUMEROUS COCKPIT DUTIES AND CONTACTED ATW TWR AS WE WERE GOING MISSED APCH. WE COMPLETED ANOTHER APCH (ILS RWY 3) SUCCESSFULLY AND AFTER LNDG ATW TWR INFORMED US THAT THEY HAD ANOTHER ACFT ON AN ILS APCH INTO ATW (OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPPOSITE RWY) AND THEY NEED FOR US TO CALL THEM EARLIER ON THE APCH (LOC BC 11). HAD WE GONE RWY HDG ON THE MISSED APCH THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS CONFLICT. (WE FLEW THE PUBLISHED MISS UNTIL REVIEWING INSTRUCTIONS OTHERWISE). HOW CAN 2 ACFT HAVE BEEN ON APCH FOR OPPOSITE RWYS IN IMC. HAD WE LOST OUR RADIO WE WOULD HAVE HAD A SERIOUS CONFLICT. WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT AVIATE, NAVIGATE, AND THEN COMMUNICATE. DO CTLRS REALIZE OUR PRIORITIES?

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.