 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew of a B737-300 failed to advise ATC when losing visual sighting of a preceding B737 ahead on a visual approach to a parallel runway. There was no known conflict.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 351628 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199610 |
| Day | Mon |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sfo |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 100 msl bound upper : 4000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : oak tracon : sat |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B737-300 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 9500 flight time type : 1000 |
| ASRS Report | 351628 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : clearance other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
During approach to sfo, just after passing menlo intersection, we were cleared for a visual approach to sfo runway 28L. This clearance was received after confirming 'airport in sight.' bay approach pointed out company aircraft approximately 1000 ft higher and 8-10 mi turning right base from downwind. We acknowledged 'in sight.' I don't believe we were told to 'maintain visual separation' but I'm not sure. In any case ATC told us to slow from 250 KTS to 210 KTS because we were '100 KTS faster' than traffic we were following. They subsequently slowed us to '180 KTS to the bridge.' as a result of the assigned speed, we were unable to stay behind the parallel traffic, and I asked the copilot if he could see the traffic as we crossed the high span 'brijj.' he indicated he did not have him in sight. We should have advised sfo tower at that time and executed a missed approach. However, we had him on TCASII and distance was not a factor, so I elected to continue. While this was not an incident per southeast (it happens at sfo on a regular basis, many times a day). Contributing factors to this deviation from FARS and company SOP were as follows: 1) ambiguous clearance from ATC, ie, visual approach and maintain 180 KTS -- were we assigned to 'maintain visual separation' or was the other aircraft? 2) we should have clarified the clearance with ATC and determined who was to maintain separation. 3) this was leg #4 of a long day of catch-up due to delays and WX, so we were tired. I thought I had the runway 28L localizer frequency selected, but the copilot had the runway 28R localizer set up on his side, so he was preoccupied reconfiguring the radios at a critical time. As a lesson, I will brief every approach from now on. That way, we can concentrate on ATC, traffic etc, and have time to perform other tasks as necessary.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF A B737-300 FAILED TO ADVISE ATC WHEN LOSING VISUAL SIGHTING OF A PRECEDING B737 AHEAD ON A VISUAL APCH TO A PARALLEL RWY. THERE WAS NO KNOWN CONFLICT.
Narrative: DURING APCH TO SFO, JUST AFTER PASSING MENLO INTXN, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO SFO RWY 28L. THIS CLRNC WAS RECEIVED AFTER CONFIRMING 'ARPT IN SIGHT.' BAY APCH POINTED OUT COMPANY ACFT APPROX 1000 FT HIGHER AND 8-10 MI TURNING R BASE FROM DOWNWIND. WE ACKNOWLEDGED 'IN SIGHT.' I DON'T BELIEVE WE WERE TOLD TO 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION' BUT I'M NOT SURE. IN ANY CASE ATC TOLD US TO SLOW FROM 250 KTS TO 210 KTS BECAUSE WE WERE '100 KTS FASTER' THAN TFC WE WERE FOLLOWING. THEY SUBSEQUENTLY SLOWED US TO '180 KTS TO THE BRIDGE.' AS A RESULT OF THE ASSIGNED SPD, WE WERE UNABLE TO STAY BEHIND THE PARALLEL TFC, AND I ASKED THE COPLT IF HE COULD SEE THE TFC AS WE CROSSED THE HIGH SPAN 'BRIJJ.' HE INDICATED HE DID NOT HAVE HIM IN SIGHT. WE SHOULD HAVE ADVISED SFO TWR AT THAT TIME AND EXECUTED A MISSED APCH. HOWEVER, WE HAD HIM ON TCASII AND DISTANCE WAS NOT A FACTOR, SO I ELECTED TO CONTINUE. WHILE THIS WAS NOT AN INCIDENT PER SE (IT HAPPENS AT SFO ON A REGULAR BASIS, MANY TIMES A DAY). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS DEV FROM FARS AND COMPANY SOP WERE AS FOLLOWS: 1) AMBIGUOUS CLRNC FROM ATC, IE, VISUAL APCH AND MAINTAIN 180 KTS -- WERE WE ASSIGNED TO 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION' OR WAS THE OTHER ACFT? 2) WE SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE CLRNC WITH ATC AND DETERMINED WHO WAS TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION. 3) THIS WAS LEG #4 OF A LONG DAY OF CATCH-UP DUE TO DELAYS AND WX, SO WE WERE TIRED. I THOUGHT I HAD THE RWY 28L LOC FREQ SELECTED, BUT THE COPLT HAD THE RWY 28R LOC SET UP ON HIS SIDE, SO HE WAS PREOCCUPIED RECONFIGURING THE RADIOS AT A CRITICAL TIME. AS A LESSON, I WILL BRIEF EVERY APCH FROM NOW ON. THAT WAY, WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON ATC, TFC ETC, AND HAVE TIME TO PERFORM OTHER TASKS AS NECESSARY.
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.