Narrative:

I don't get into lax often, only enough to be apprehensive about execution of 'civet 3 profile descent.' yesterday and today I had the dubious pleasure of participating in 2 such approachs! First approach: operating in autoplt/FMC, ATC requested 310 KTS plus over civet. I overheard at 14000 ft, 320 KTS and descended toward bremer. A controller instruction referenced either suzzi or fuelr, which were not in the data base. The resulting confusion in attempting to update the data base manually while continuing to manipulate MCP and maintain profile prompted me to abandon autoplt/FMC, and complete the approach manually, handflown, successfully, but just barely, because approach control required 250 till very close to limma. Approach #2: similar conditions, 325 KTS assigned at civet, suzzi and fuelr installed in FMC. Attempting autoplt/FMC VNAV descent, the high ground speed accelerated events so that the bremer-arnes descent to 10000 assumed increasing importance because of 7 mi distance and 325 plus KTS ground speed. In addition, frequency change approaching bremer diverted my attention critically, and bremer overhead was at 11000 vice 12000 published. Confusion was compounded by fact of copilot flying, resulting numerous crossed hands and repeated motions at the MCP. My conclusions: I won't again attempt a civet profile using autoplt/FMC. Attention of both pilots is severely diluted by FMC operation and slow a response. Controller requests for high speeds at and after civet and 250 as close as downe, are inappropriate. Overloaded communications precludes requesting/advising lower speeds. Suzzi and fuelr should be either: included in the DB, or not referenced by the controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LGT ACR CREW MISSED A XING ALT ON A PROFILE DSCNT INTO LAX.

Narrative: I DON'T GET INTO LAX OFTEN, ONLY ENOUGH TO BE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT EXECUTION OF 'CIVET 3 PROFILE DSCNT.' YESTERDAY AND TODAY I HAD THE DUBIOUS PLEASURE OF PARTICIPATING IN 2 SUCH APCHS! FIRST APCH: OPERATING IN AUTOPLT/FMC, ATC REQUESTED 310 KTS PLUS OVER CIVET. I OVERHEARD AT 14000 FT, 320 KTS AND DSNDED TOWARD BREMER. A CTLR INSTRUCTION REFED EITHER SUZZI OR FUELR, WHICH WERE NOT IN THE DATA BASE. THE RESULTING CONFUSION IN ATTEMPTING TO UPDATE THE DATA BASE MANUALLY WHILE CONTINUING TO MANIPULATE MCP AND MAINTAIN PROFILE PROMPTED ME TO ABANDON AUTOPLT/FMC, AND COMPLETE THE APCH MANUALLY, HANDFLOWN, SUCCESSFULLY, BUT JUST BARELY, BECAUSE APCH CTL REQUIRED 250 TILL VERY CLOSE TO LIMMA. APCH #2: SIMILAR CONDITIONS, 325 KTS ASSIGNED AT CIVET, SUZZI AND FUELR INSTALLED IN FMC. ATTEMPTING AUTOPLT/FMC VNAV DSCNT, THE HIGH GND SPD ACCELERATED EVENTS SO THAT THE BREMER-ARNES DSCNT TO 10000 ASSUMED INCREASING IMPORTANCE BECAUSE OF 7 MI DISTANCE AND 325 PLUS KTS GND SPD. IN ADDITION, FREQ CHANGE APCHING BREMER DIVERTED MY ATTN CRITICALLY, AND BREMER OVERHEAD WAS AT 11000 VICE 12000 PUBLISHED. CONFUSION WAS COMPOUNDED BY FACT OF COPLT FLYING, RESULTING NUMEROUS CROSSED HANDS AND REPEATED MOTIONS AT THE MCP. MY CONCLUSIONS: I WON'T AGAIN ATTEMPT A CIVET PROFILE USING AUTOPLT/FMC. ATTN OF BOTH PLTS IS SEVERELY DILUTED BY FMC OP AND SLOW A RESPONSE. CTLR REQUESTS FOR HIGH SPDS AT AND AFTER CIVET AND 250 AS CLOSE AS DOWNE, ARE INAPPROPRIATE. OVERLOADED COMS PRECLUDES REQUESTING/ADVISING LOWER SPDS. SUZZI AND FUELR SHOULD BE EITHER: INCLUDED IN THE DB, OR NOT REFED BY THE CTLR.

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.