Narrative:

On handoff from center to approach, flight received clearance to fly heading and intercept localizer runway 27. First officer flying and failed to arm or intercept localizer. Approximately 2-3 mi through localizer, captain noticed flight had passed through localizer. Corrective heading initiated and approach questioned if flight had intercepted localizer. Approach then gave a corrective heading to join, flight proceeded normally to landing. No traffic conflicts or airspace transgressions were noted or brought to our attention. My own technique calls for arming localizer on autoplt control panel, any time cleared to intercept. Additionally, as a technique, I normally call armed so as to avoid sits such as described. I feel it is just as important to confirm arming of navigation functions, as it is the arming of altitude functions. However, since it is not company procedure, not very many pilots are as vocal concerning arming of localizer/VOR/ILS. Perhaps we should adopt a procedure similar to our proven altitude alert setting procedure to avoid these sits, as I know I will certainly become more diligent with my technique in any case. Failure of first officer to arm localizer and failure of captain to verify were obviously the reasons for the deviation. Heavy workload in terminal area -- ie, checklist, etc, may have contributed to failure on both sides.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SUPER 80 FLC PASSES THROUGH LOC WHEN CLRED TO INTERCEPT.

Narrative: ON HDOF FROM CTR TO APCH, FLT RECEIVED CLRNC TO FLY HDG AND INTERCEPT LOC RWY 27. FO FLYING AND FAILED TO ARM OR INTERCEPT LOC. APPROX 2-3 MI THROUGH LOC, CAPT NOTICED FLT HAD PASSED THROUGH LOC. CORRECTIVE HDG INITIATED AND APCH QUESTIONED IF FLT HAD INTERCEPTED LOC. APCH THEN GAVE A CORRECTIVE HDG TO JOIN, FLT PROCEEDED NORMALLY TO LNDG. NO TFC CONFLICTS OR AIRSPACE TRANSGRESSIONS WERE NOTED OR BROUGHT TO OUR ATTN. MY OWN TECHNIQUE CALLS FOR ARMING LOC ON AUTOPLT CTL PANEL, ANY TIME CLRED TO INTERCEPT. ADDITIONALLY, AS A TECHNIQUE, I NORMALLY CALL ARMED SO AS TO AVOID SITS SUCH AS DESCRIBED. I FEEL IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO CONFIRM ARMING OF NAV FUNCTIONS, AS IT IS THE ARMING OF ALT FUNCTIONS. HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS NOT COMPANY PROC, NOT VERY MANY PLTS ARE AS VOCAL CONCERNING ARMING OF LOC/VOR/ILS. PERHAPS WE SHOULD ADOPT A PROC SIMILAR TO OUR PROVEN ALT ALERT SETTING PROC TO AVOID THESE SITS, AS I KNOW I WILL CERTAINLY BECOME MORE DILIGENT WITH MY TECHNIQUE IN ANY CASE. FAILURE OF FO TO ARM LOC AND FAILURE OF CAPT TO VERIFY WERE OBVIOUSLY THE REASONS FOR THE DEV. HVY WORKLOAD IN TERMINAL AREA -- IE, CHKLIST, ETC, MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO FAILURE ON BOTH SIDES.

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.