Narrative:

We landed on runway 27R, cleared the runway, and were taxiing in, wbound on taxiway M. Another flight was cleared to land on runway 9L. We were watching his approach and when it was clear to my first officer and myself that the approaching aircraft was lined up to the right of us, north of the intended landing runway, we turned our landing lights on and then called 'go around' on tower frequency. The aircraft on approach executed a missed approach, still off to our right and north of the runway centerline. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that there has been no follow up of any nature to this incident. He does not know what was happening with the second aircraft to have him line up so far off the runway. Reporter is just grateful that the second aircraft responded promptly with no questions asked. Reporter feels that the problem was 3 fold: it was late night, actually early morning, the aircraft was landing opposite to the other traffic flow which meant the ILS was not active and thirdly he accepted a visual approach. To reporter the visual approach is very poor. Often there are no navaids available and ATC accepts no more responsibility. He feels that the flight crew may have been suffering from fatigue from an all- night flight and aligned with something that gave the appearance of a runway. Reporter and his first officer had some very bad moments prior to making the go around call. The tower did question why the aircraft had gone around and reporter said because I told him to. No more was said about it. The reporter's aircraft had been cleared to taxi to parking but remain on the tower frequency or they would not have been able to react as fast. Both were B757 aircraft. Reporter feels incidents like this could be avoided if there was an ILS on every runway used by air carrier aircraft. This backup should be used even when flying a visual approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 TAXIING SIGHTS A B757 ON APCH OPPOSITE DIRECTION BUT NOT ALIGNED WITH THE RWY. CAPT TELLS SECOND ACFT TO GAR.

Narrative: WE LANDED ON RWY 27R, CLRED THE RWY, AND WERE TAXIING IN, WBOUND ON TXWY M. ANOTHER FLT WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 9L. WE WERE WATCHING HIS APCH AND WHEN IT WAS CLR TO MY FO AND MYSELF THAT THE APCHING ACFT WAS LINED UP TO THE R OF US, N OF THE INTENDED LNDG RWY, WE TURNED OUR LNDG LIGHTS ON AND THEN CALLED 'GAR' ON TWR FREQ. THE ACFT ON APCH EXECUTED A MISSED APCH, STILL OFF TO OUR R AND N OF THE RWY CTRLINE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO FOLLOW UP OF ANY NATURE TO THIS INCIDENT. HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE SECOND ACFT TO HAVE HIM LINE UP SO FAR OFF THE RWY. RPTR IS JUST GRATEFUL THAT THE SECOND ACFT RESPONDED PROMPTLY WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED. RPTR FEELS THAT THE PROB WAS 3 FOLD: IT WAS LATE NIGHT, ACTUALLY EARLY MORNING, THE ACFT WAS LNDG OPPOSITE TO THE OTHER TFC FLOW WHICH MEANT THE ILS WAS NOT ACTIVE AND THIRDLY HE ACCEPTED A VISUAL APCH. TO RPTR THE VISUAL APCH IS VERY POOR. OFTEN THERE ARE NO NAVAIDS AVAILABLE AND ATC ACCEPTS NO MORE RESPONSIBILITY. HE FEELS THAT THE FLC MAY HAVE BEEN SUFFERING FROM FATIGUE FROM AN ALL- NIGHT FLT AND ALIGNED WITH SOMETHING THAT GAVE THE APPEARANCE OF A RWY. RPTR AND HIS FO HAD SOME VERY BAD MOMENTS PRIOR TO MAKING THE GAR CALL. THE TWR DID QUESTION WHY THE ACFT HAD GONE AROUND AND RPTR SAID BECAUSE I TOLD HIM TO. NO MORE WAS SAID ABOUT IT. THE RPTR'S ACFT HAD BEEN CLRED TO TAXI TO PARKING BUT REMAIN ON THE TWR FREQ OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REACT AS FAST. BOTH WERE B757 ACFT. RPTR FEELS INCIDENTS LIKE THIS COULD BE AVOIDED IF THERE WAS AN ILS ON EVERY RWY USED BY ACR ACFT. THIS BACKUP SHOULD BE USED EVEN WHEN FLYING A VISUAL APCH.

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.