Narrative:

I was captain on flight XXX sep/xx/95 sea-lax. We flew the sadde 6 arrival into lax landing at approximately XA00 local. We were assigned, and we agreed, to follow another aircraft for a visual approach to the runway 24 and this is when the trouble started. We were told to follow another aircraft to the airport. We said we saw the other aircraft. We were then told that we were cleared visual approach to runway 24L. The aircraft we were following was on an approach to runway 24R. We should have refused the clearance but I thought we would be able to pick up runway 24L visually shortly after we turned toward the runway from about 10 mi from the airport. We were then told that we should stay to the left of runway 24L because approach control was bringing another aircraft up on our right on a visual to runway 24R. This would have worked out if we could have seen the runway. From 8-10 mi from the airport the only thing we could see was the aircraft we were following and that aircraft was going to another runway. Lax on a sunny, hazy day in the late afternoon is extremely hard to see on a visual approach because of the angle of the sun and the particles in the air. The tower visibility might be 7 mi but east to west on an approach visibility can be as low as 1-3 mi. That was our problem. We were pointed toward the airport but couldn't see the landing runway. No way we should have accepted following an aircraft going to another way. The copilot was flying and, in an attempt to give us some tracking information, I dialed in the runway 24L ILS frequency. Things were happening real fast at the time, but I don't think there was an identify. So, here we are heading for a runway we can't see and completely out of any tracking information, even to runway 24R, which we had had until I switched frequencys. About that time the runways came into view, around 800-1000 ft AGL and we made a landing on runway 24L as directed. When we broke out we were far to the right of runway 24L, almost lined up with runway 24R. We were able to get back to runway 24L for the landing but it was not a good operation. My feeling about this situation is that socal approach should be aware that the afternoon sun will block out almost all attempts at a visual approach on the sadde 6 arrival. I'm aware that this arrival has been flown for decades day and night, rain or shine, but the controllers seem to be coming even faster and looser with the visual approachs. If a pilot accepts a visual based upon following another aircraft to the airport, it is likely that the aircraft will be lost visually as you turn west even though you had a good view of him when he went by going west while you were still downwind. Also, I don't know if it's even legal to clear an aircraft for a visual based upon following another aircraft to the airport when that aircraft is going another runway. Even if it's legal it's not safe. I'll never accept such a clearance again. Losing tracking information as you're descending is not a good feeling. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was very concerned that he let his aircraft get in such a position as to lose contact with preceding traffic and the airport environment. He blames himself and TRACON for setting up this type of approach. Reporter was counseled that the approach was legal on all accounts. However, when the airport and traffic disappear from view, then an announcement must be made that help is needed to maintain direction and separation. Call tower or TRACON to inform them. If contact cannot be made, then it would be appropriate to execute a missed approach. This can be a difficult decision, but when in doubt, get out.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOSS OF VISUAL CONTACT WITH PRECEDING ACFT AND THE ARPT DURING A VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT ON FLT XXX SEP/XX/95 SEA-LAX. WE FLEW THE SADDE 6 ARR INTO LAX LNDG AT APPROX XA00 LCL. WE WERE ASSIGNED, AND WE AGREED, TO FOLLOW ANOTHER ACFT FOR A VISUAL APCH TO THE RWY 24 AND THIS IS WHEN THE TROUBLE STARTED. WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW ANOTHER ACFT TO THE ARPT. WE SAID WE SAW THE OTHER ACFT. WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT WE WERE CLRED VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24L. THE ACFT WE WERE FOLLOWING WAS ON AN APCH TO RWY 24R. WE SHOULD HAVE REFUSED THE CLRNC BUT I THOUGHT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP RWY 24L VISUALLY SHORTLY AFTER WE TURNED TOWARD THE RWY FROM ABOUT 10 MI FROM THE ARPT. WE WERE THEN TOLD THAT WE SHOULD STAY TO THE L OF RWY 24L BECAUSE APCH CTL WAS BRINGING ANOTHER ACFT UP ON OUR R ON A VISUAL TO RWY 24R. THIS WOULD HAVE WORKED OUT IF WE COULD HAVE SEEN THE RWY. FROM 8-10 MI FROM THE ARPT THE ONLY THING WE COULD SEE WAS THE ACFT WE WERE FOLLOWING AND THAT ACFT WAS GOING TO ANOTHER RWY. LAX ON A SUNNY, HAZY DAY IN THE LATE AFTERNOON IS EXTREMELY HARD TO SEE ON A VISUAL APCH BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE OF THE SUN AND THE PARTICLES IN THE AIR. THE TWR VISIBILITY MIGHT BE 7 MI BUT E TO W ON AN APCH VISIBILITY CAN BE AS LOW AS 1-3 MI. THAT WAS OUR PROB. WE WERE POINTED TOWARD THE ARPT BUT COULDN'T SEE THE LNDG RWY. NO WAY WE SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED FOLLOWING AN ACFT GOING TO ANOTHER WAY. THE COPLT WAS FLYING AND, IN AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE US SOME TRACKING INFO, I DIALED IN THE RWY 24L ILS FREQ. THINGS WERE HAPPENING REAL FAST AT THE TIME, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN IDENT. SO, HERE WE ARE HDG FOR A RWY WE CAN'T SEE AND COMPLETELY OUT OF ANY TRACKING INFO, EVEN TO RWY 24R, WHICH WE HAD HAD UNTIL I SWITCHED FREQS. ABOUT THAT TIME THE RWYS CAME INTO VIEW, AROUND 800-1000 FT AGL AND WE MADE A LNDG ON RWY 24L AS DIRECTED. WHEN WE BROKE OUT WE WERE FAR TO THE R OF RWY 24L, ALMOST LINED UP WITH RWY 24R. WE WERE ABLE TO GET BACK TO RWY 24L FOR THE LNDG BUT IT WAS NOT A GOOD OP. MY FEELING ABOUT THIS SIT IS THAT SOCAL APCH SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE AFTERNOON SUN WILL BLOCK OUT ALMOST ALL ATTEMPTS AT A VISUAL APCH ON THE SADDE 6 ARR. I'M AWARE THAT THIS ARR HAS BEEN FLOWN FOR DECADES DAY AND NIGHT, RAIN OR SHINE, BUT THE CTLRS SEEM TO BE COMING EVEN FASTER AND LOOSER WITH THE VISUAL APCHS. IF A PLT ACCEPTS A VISUAL BASED UPON FOLLOWING ANOTHER ACFT TO THE ARPT, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE ACFT WILL BE LOST VISUALLY AS YOU TURN W EVEN THOUGH YOU HAD A GOOD VIEW OF HIM WHEN HE WENT BY GOING W WHILE YOU WERE STILL DOWNWIND. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVEN LEGAL TO CLR AN ACFT FOR A VISUAL BASED UPON FOLLOWING ANOTHER ACFT TO THE ARPT WHEN THAT ACFT IS GOING ANOTHER RWY. EVEN IF IT'S LEGAL IT'S NOT SAFE. I'LL NEVER ACCEPT SUCH A CLRNC AGAIN. LOSING TRACKING INFO AS YOU'RE DSNDING IS NOT A GOOD FEELING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS VERY CONCERNED THAT HE LET HIS ACFT GET IN SUCH A POS AS TO LOSE CONTACT WITH PRECEDING TFC AND THE ARPT ENVIRONMENT. HE BLAMES HIMSELF AND TRACON FOR SETTING UP THIS TYPE OF APCH. RPTR WAS COUNSELED THAT THE APCH WAS LEGAL ON ALL ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ARPT AND TFC DISAPPEAR FROM VIEW, THEN AN ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE MADE THAT HELP IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN DIRECTION AND SEPARATION. CALL TWR OR TRACON TO INFORM THEM. IF CONTACT CANNOT BE MADE, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH. THIS CAN BE A DIFFICULT DECISION, BUT WHEN IN DOUBT, GET OUT.

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.