Narrative:

Detroit metropolitan airport was using simultaneous ILS approachs to runways 3L and 3R, in IFR conditions. Our flight, air carrier X from pbi, was told to expect an ILS to runway 3R. We were on the cetus 2 arrival. From listening to the radio traffic, it was evident that the controller working our approach frequency was handling traffic to both runways, and that a mixup on runway assignment with a preceding aircraft was occurring. The final vector to intercept the ILS caused us to overshoot runway 3R and we began a correction back to course while observing visually the lights of an aircraft Y apparently on the approach to runway 3L. The TCASII gave an RA to monitor vertical speed, followed by a recommendation to climb. As we began compliance to the RA, the approach controller gave us a heading of 090 degrees and clearance to maintain 4000 ft, obviously to avoid the conflict. We complied with this, and as we crossed the runway 3R final approach course, the first officer (PF) turned to intercept. I believed this incorrect, and asked the controller if we were still cleared for the approach (the TCASII conflict had ceased). The controller reclred us for the approach with a command to slow to 160 KTS, then subsequently broke us out of the approach for resequencing. No further abnormalities occurred. After landing a phone call to ATC indicated preliminary investigation pointed to controller error. Factors contributing to this event: 2 final controllers, instead of handling traffic to one runway each, having confusion over sequencing aircraft to 2 runways simultaneously.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP SIMULTANEOUS PARALLEL APCHS ACR X HAD LTSS FROM ACFT Y. SYS ERROR.

Narrative: DETROIT METRO ARPT WAS USING SIMULTANEOUS ILS APCHS TO RWYS 3L AND 3R, IN IFR CONDITIONS. OUR FLT, ACR X FROM PBI, WAS TOLD TO EXPECT AN ILS TO RWY 3R. WE WERE ON THE CETUS 2 ARR. FROM LISTENING TO THE RADIO TFC, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE CTLR WORKING OUR APCH FREQ WAS HANDLING TFC TO BOTH RWYS, AND THAT A MIXUP ON RWY ASSIGNMENT WITH A PRECEDING ACFT WAS OCCURRING. THE FINAL VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE ILS CAUSED US TO OVERSHOOT RWY 3R AND WE BEGAN A CORRECTION BACK TO COURSE WHILE OBSERVING VISUALLY THE LIGHTS OF AN ACFT Y APPARENTLY ON THE APCH TO RWY 3L. THE TCASII GAVE AN RA TO MONITOR VERT SPD, FOLLOWED BY A RECOMMENDATION TO CLB. AS WE BEGAN COMPLIANCE TO THE RA, THE APCH CTLR GAVE US A HDG OF 090 DEGS AND CLRNC TO MAINTAIN 4000 FT, OBVIOUSLY TO AVOID THE CONFLICT. WE COMPLIED WITH THIS, AND AS WE CROSSED THE RWY 3R FINAL APCH COURSE, THE FO (PF) TURNED TO INTERCEPT. I BELIEVED THIS INCORRECT, AND ASKED THE CTLR IF WE WERE STILL CLRED FOR THE APCH (THE TCASII CONFLICT HAD CEASED). THE CTLR RECLRED US FOR THE APCH WITH A COMMAND TO SLOW TO 160 KTS, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BROKE US OUT OF THE APCH FOR RESEQUENCING. NO FURTHER ABNORMALITIES OCCURRED. AFTER LNDG A PHONE CALL TO ATC INDICATED PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION POINTED TO CTLR ERROR. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS EVENT: 2 FINAL CTLRS, INSTEAD OF HANDLING TFC TO ONE RWY EACH, HAVING CONFUSION OVER SEQUENCING ACFT TO 2 RWYS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

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.