Narrative:

I was PIC of the flight which is the subject of this report. The first officer was flying the aircraft and we were on approach into lax. The time was approximately XX45 los angeles time on aug/mon/96. Our original clearance was via the civet 1 arrival and upon reaching fuelr, cleared for the ILS runway 25L. Upon reaching a point approximately between downe and hunda the approach controller revised the clearance to the following: 'cleared for the ILS runway 25L, sidestep to runway 25R.' despite the ATIS reported visibility of 7 mi I felt that sighting runway 25R in adequate time for the sidestep maneuver to be feasible was very questionable due to the sun being almost down to the western horizon and the usual smog in the los angeles basin. This caused the flight visibility, when looking to the west to be considerably less than 7 mi. Therefore I requested continuation of the approach to runway 25L with subsequent landing on runway 25L. The approach controller restated the 'sidestep' clearance and advised us of a cessna behind our flight which was also inbound to runway 25L. The controller made some reference to the cessna's speed which I do not recall. I acknowledged the clearance. The first officer and I had a brief discussion of why the reference was made relative to a cessna behind us when in all likelihood our relative speed would preclude the cessna from being an issue with respect to our approach path. The approach to runway 25L was continued but at a point between hunda and limma I again requested to continue the approach and land on runway 25L. The approach controller said something to the effect that it was too late to change our clearance and advised us to contact los angeles tower now. Upon contacting the tower we were issued the clearance: 'cleared to land runway 25R.' I stated that we did not have runway 25R in sight and would like to land on runway 25L. We did not have runway 25L in sight at that time either although we were now inside limma. This was due to the extreme glare from the sun. The tower controller again stated 'cleared to land, runway 25R.' I stated that we were now below 1000 ft (meaning above field elevation) and I still did not have runway 25 in sight. In fact, though I did not state it, we still did not have runway 25L in sight. At this time I was very seriously considering telling the first officer to initiate a missed approach. However, before I did I looked above us and observed a cessna. (I believe it was a model 206). This aircraft was approximately 500 ft above us, perhaps 1/10 of a mi ahead of us and very slightly to our left. The heading of this aircraft was such that it appeared to me that it was just completing a turn to final for runway 25L. The pitch attitude of this aircraft changed leading me to believe it was going to increase its descent rate. I immediately told the first officer to move us to the right. He stated that he did not yet have runway 25R in sight. I stated we must move to our right immediately because of a potential conflict with another aircraft. I did not take physical control of our aircraft as I could see that the maneuver initiated by the first officer was increasing the lateral distance between our aircraft and the cessna and because I felt I could more effectively monitor the separation with the cessna if I were not flying the aircraft. At about this time the first officer stated that he had runway 25R in sight. I looked ahead and observed that we were almost aligned with runway 25R. At this point the tower controller stated, 'it looks like you are lined up with runway 25R, (our identifier), cleared to land runway 25R.' we completed the approach and landing normally. In my peripheral vision I observed the cessna to our left landing on runway 25L and I believe that at some point on very short final we passed it. Subsequent telephone conversations with both tower and approach personnel raise the following issues: how did the cessna arrive at a position ahead of us? The tower controller who handled our flight stated that we were 'tagged' for landing on runway 25R. I have been told by a different los angeles tower controller that a non-verbal means of communication exists between approach control and tower control by which the approach controller can put certain information on a radar screen pertinent to an aircraft to include call sign, aircraft type and runway assignment. The screen on which this information appears is viewed by the twrctlr and is used in issuing further clearance. The runway assignment options for our flight were runway 25R (or some other runway) or 'south' which means the flight has been cleared for a sidestep maneuver. I am told that being 'tagged' with runway 25R means we have runway 25R in sight and have accepted it as the landing runway. This was definitely not the case. I don't recall hearing clearance instructions from approach control to the cessna although it is possible that I did not assimilate them. I have been advised by approach controller supervisor that the cessna had transitioned from a position over or near seal beach VOR. Specific to the los angeles area I would suggest that the method of reporting prevailing visibility be reviewed particularly with respect to late afternoon arrs to the west and perhaps early morning arrs to the east if landing to the east. Often it is possible for an aircraft on approach to visually acquire another aircraft if both are above the smog layer but if separation criteria is based on that acquisition it will, in all probability not be valid once the two aircraft are below that layer. Often such a layer exists up to 3000 ft or 4000 ft MSL.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTSS WHEN ACR X ON ILS APCH WITH SIDESTEP FOR THE PARALLEL RWY NOT YET IN SIGHT HAS TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID UGA Y TURNING DSNDING FOR THE SAME APCH RWY WITHOUT APPROPRIATE CLASS B SEPARATION.

Narrative: I WAS PIC OF THE FLT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS RPT. THE FO WAS FLYING THE ACFT AND WE WERE ON APCH INTO LAX. THE TIME WAS APPROX XX45 LOS ANGELES TIME ON AUG/MON/96. OUR ORIGINAL CLRNC WAS VIA THE CIVET 1 ARR AND UPON REACHING FUELR, CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 25L. UPON REACHING A POINT APPROX BTWN DOWNE AND HUNDA THE APCH CTLR REVISED THE CLRNC TO THE FOLLOWING: 'CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 25L, SIDESTEP TO RWY 25R.' DESPITE THE ATIS RPTED VISIBILITY OF 7 MI I FELT THAT SIGHTING RWY 25R IN ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE SIDESTEP MANEUVER TO BE FEASIBLE WAS VERY QUESTIONABLE DUE TO THE SUN BEING ALMOST DOWN TO THE WESTERN HORIZON AND THE USUAL SMOG IN THE LOS ANGELES BASIN. THIS CAUSED THE FLT VISIBILITY, WHEN LOOKING TO THE W TO BE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN 7 MI. THEREFORE I REQUESTED CONTINUATION OF THE APCH TO RWY 25L WITH SUBSEQUENT LNDG ON RWY 25L. THE APCH CTLR RESTATED THE 'SIDESTEP' CLRNC AND ADVISED US OF A CESSNA BEHIND OUR FLT WHICH WAS ALSO INBOUND TO RWY 25L. THE CTLR MADE SOME REF TO THE CESSNA'S SPD WHICH I DO NOT RECALL. I ACKNOWLEDGED THE CLRNC. THE FO AND I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF WHY THE REF WAS MADE RELATIVE TO A CESSNA BEHIND US WHEN IN ALL LIKELIHOOD OUR RELATIVE SPD WOULD PRECLUDE THE CESSNA FROM BEING AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO OUR APCH PATH. THE APCH TO RWY 25L WAS CONTINUED BUT AT A POINT BTWN HUNDA AND LIMMA I AGAIN REQUESTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH AND LAND ON RWY 25L. THE APCH CTLR SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS TOO LATE TO CHANGE OUR CLRNC AND ADVISED US TO CONTACT LOS ANGELES TWR NOW. UPON CONTACTING THE TWR WE WERE ISSUED THE CLRNC: 'CLRED TO LAND RWY 25R.' I STATED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE RWY 25R IN SIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO LAND ON RWY 25L. WE DID NOT HAVE RWY 25L IN SIGHT AT THAT TIME EITHER ALTHOUGH WE WERE NOW INSIDE LIMMA. THIS WAS DUE TO THE EXTREME GLARE FROM THE SUN. THE TWR CTLR AGAIN STATED 'CLRED TO LAND, RWY 25R.' I STATED THAT WE WERE NOW BELOW 1000 FT (MEANING ABOVE FIELD ELEVATION) AND I STILL DID NOT HAVE RWY 25 IN SIGHT. IN FACT, THOUGH I DID NOT STATE IT, WE STILL DID NOT HAVE RWY 25L IN SIGHT. AT THIS TIME I WAS VERY SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING TELLING THE FO TO INITIATE A MISSED APCH. HOWEVER, BEFORE I DID I LOOKED ABOVE US AND OBSERVED A CESSNA. (I BELIEVE IT WAS A MODEL 206). THIS ACFT WAS APPROX 500 FT ABOVE US, PERHAPS 1/10 OF A MI AHEAD OF US AND VERY SLIGHTLY TO OUR L. THE HEADING OF THIS ACFT WAS SUCH THAT IT APPEARED TO ME THAT IT WAS JUST COMPLETING A TURN TO FINAL FOR RWY 25L. THE PITCH ATTITUDE OF THIS ACFT CHANGED LEADING ME TO BELIEVE IT WAS GOING TO INCREASE ITS DSCNT RATE. I IMMEDIATELY TOLD THE FO TO MOVE US TO THE R. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT YET HAVE RWY 25R IN SIGHT. I STATED WE MUST MOVE TO OUR R IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT. I DID NOT TAKE PHYSICAL CTL OF OUR ACFT AS I COULD SEE THAT THE MANEUVER INITIATED BY THE FO WAS INCREASING THE LATERAL DISTANCE BTWN OUR ACFT AND THE CESSNA AND BECAUSE I FELT I COULD MORE EFFECTIVELY MONITOR THE SEPARATION WITH THE CESSNA IF I WERE NOT FLYING THE ACFT. AT ABOUT THIS TIME THE FO STATED THAT HE HAD RWY 25R IN SIGHT. I LOOKED AHEAD AND OBSERVED THAT WE WERE ALMOST ALIGNED WITH RWY 25R. AT THIS POINT THE TWR CTLR STATED, 'IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE LINED UP WITH RWY 25R, (OUR IDENTIFIER), CLRED TO LAND RWY 25R.' WE COMPLETED THE APCH AND LNDG NORMALLY. IN MY PERIPHERAL VISION I OBSERVED THE CESSNA TO OUR L LNDG ON RWY 25L AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME POINT ON VERY SHORT FINAL WE PASSED IT. SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH BOTH TWR AND APCH PERSONNEL RAISE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: HOW DID THE CESSNA ARRIVE AT A POS AHEAD OF US? THE TWR CTLR WHO HANDLED OUR FLT STATED THAT WE WERE 'TAGGED' FOR LNDG ON RWY 25R. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A DIFFERENT LOS ANGELES TWR CTLR THAT A NON-VERBAL MEANS OF COM EXISTS BTWN APCH CTL AND TWR CTL BY WHICH THE APCH CTLR CAN PUT CERTAIN INFO ON A RADAR SCREEN PERTINENT TO AN ACFT TO INCLUDE CALL SIGN, ACFT TYPE AND RWY ASSIGNMENT. THE SCREEN ON WHICH THIS INFO APPEARS IS VIEWED BY THE TWRCTLR AND IS USED IN ISSUING FURTHER CLRNC. THE RWY ASSIGNMENT OPTIONS FOR OUR FLT WERE RWY 25R (OR SOME OTHER RWY) OR 'S' WHICH MEANS THE FLT HAS BEEN CLRED FOR A SIDESTEP MANEUVER. I AM TOLD THAT BEING 'TAGGED' WITH RWY 25R MEANS WE HAVE RWY 25R IN SIGHT AND HAVE ACCEPTED IT AS THE LNDG RWY. THIS WAS DEFINITELY NOT THE CASE. I DON'T RECALL HEARING CLRNC INSTRUCTIONS FROM APCH CTL TO THE CESSNA ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I DID NOT ASSIMILATE THEM. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY APCH CTLR SUPVR THAT THE CESSNA HAD TRANSITIONED FROM A POS OVER OR NEAR SEAL BEACH VOR. SPECIFIC TO THE LOS ANGELES AREA I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE METHOD OF RPTING PREVAILING VISIBILITY BE REVIEWED PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO LATE AFTERNOON ARRS TO THE W AND PERHAPS EARLY MORNING ARRS TO THE E IF LNDG TO THE E. OFTEN IT IS POSSIBLE FOR AN ACFT ON APCH TO VISUALLY ACQUIRE ANOTHER ACFT IF BOTH ARE ABOVE THE SMOG LAYER BUT IF SEPARATION CRITERIA IS BASED ON THAT ACQUISITION IT WILL, IN ALL PROBABILITY NOT BE VALID ONCE THE TWO ACFT ARE BELOW THAT LAYER. OFTEN SUCH A LAYER EXISTS UP TO 3000 FT OR 4000 FT MSL.

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.