Narrative:

On arrival to stl, we were cleared ILS runway 30R approach. We were then reclred lda runway 30L stl due to traffic and another aircraft's emergency. We flew the approach and were told to contact tower just prior to joess intersection. On contact with tower, we stated 'visual with the field for landing.' tower responded we were not clear for the visual approach and to return to the localizer. Then they cleared us to land 30 seconds later. The note to remain on the localizer on the chart should be starred and enlarged. The landing was completed without incident. As with any approachs with notes or special procedures, the controller should bring them to the attention of air crews. Supplemental information from acn 377865: traffic caused much vectoring and speed changes. Was given approach clearance and frequency change to tower. Tower very busy and was difficult to make timely contact. I missed fine print in 'note' on approach plate which says at joess, execute missed approach, if landing clearance or further instructions not received upon reaching joess. Apparently, they had also vectored another aircraft onto runway 30L localizer and it was flying the ILS runway 30L approach. This aircraft was slightly behind and below. Because ceiling was 1800 ft and visibility about 10 mi, I sighted runway early. I continued to fly lda localizer to joess. At joess it shows arrows on a 312 degree heading to runway 30L. I started lining up with runway 30L at joess when I was informed by tower I had not been cleared for a visual. Because of the unusual procedures for this approach and the fine print as the only indication, I think it is a hazard. More attention getting measures should be used to alert pilots of this. In the very busy environment where approachs are changed late, it is too easy to miss these instructions. It is also very dangerous and unwise to put aircraft on these 2 approachs at the same time to the same runway. Talked to approach, said aircraft make this mistake frequently. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter was allowed to make the approach after the tower controller asked the following aircraft if he had the traffic, aircraft X, in sight. With an affirmative answer the reporter made a short approach and landing with a quick runway exit. He feels that the tower or approach controller should remind the flcs of the 4.4 mi restr at joess if and when a last min runway or approach method change is made, as it was in this case. Incident gave the crew little time to review the chart. Reporter feels that the whole approach is weird, almost like a 'coney island game' with a 'maybe we'll let you in...we'll call you back' attitude. WX was not a factor, reporter had the airport and runway many mi out from joess. The conversation with approach on flight crew review was light, not heavy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MLG ACFT CLRED FOR LDA APCH, FLC MISSED NOTE ON APCH PLATE TO REMAIN ON THE LOC UNTIL MARKER BEFORE TURNING TO RWY LINE-UP.

Narrative: ON ARR TO STL, WE WERE CLRED ILS RWY 30R APCH. WE WERE THEN RECLRED LDA RWY 30L STL DUE TO TFC AND ANOTHER ACFT'S EMER. WE FLEW THE APCH AND WERE TOLD TO CONTACT TWR JUST PRIOR TO JOESS INTXN. ON CONTACT WITH TWR, WE STATED 'VISUAL WITH THE FIELD FOR LNDG.' TWR RESPONDED WE WERE NOT CLR FOR THE VISUAL APCH AND TO RETURN TO THE LOC. THEN THEY CLRED US TO LAND 30 SECONDS LATER. THE NOTE TO REMAIN ON THE LOC ON THE CHART SHOULD BE STARRED AND ENLARGED. THE LNDG WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AS WITH ANY APCHS WITH NOTES OR SPECIAL PROCS, THE CTLR SHOULD BRING THEM TO THE ATTN OF AIR CREWS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 377865: TFC CAUSED MUCH VECTORING AND SPD CHANGES. WAS GIVEN APCH CLRNC AND FREQ CHANGE TO TWR. TWR VERY BUSY AND WAS DIFFICULT TO MAKE TIMELY CONTACT. I MISSED FINE PRINT IN 'NOTE' ON APCH PLATE WHICH SAYS AT JOESS, EXECUTE MISSED APCH, IF LNDG CLRNC OR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS NOT RECEIVED UPON REACHING JOESS. APPARENTLY, THEY HAD ALSO VECTORED ANOTHER ACFT ONTO RWY 30L LOC AND IT WAS FLYING THE ILS RWY 30L APCH. THIS ACFT WAS SLIGHTLY BEHIND AND BELOW. BECAUSE CEILING WAS 1800 FT AND VISIBILITY ABOUT 10 MI, I SIGHTED RWY EARLY. I CONTINUED TO FLY LDA LOC TO JOESS. AT JOESS IT SHOWS ARROWS ON A 312 DEG HDG TO RWY 30L. I STARTED LINING UP WITH RWY 30L AT JOESS WHEN I WAS INFORMED BY TWR I HAD NOT BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL. BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL PROCS FOR THIS APCH AND THE FINE PRINT AS THE ONLY INDICATION, I THINK IT IS A HAZARD. MORE ATTN GETTING MEASURES SHOULD BE USED TO ALERT PLTS OF THIS. IN THE VERY BUSY ENVIRONMENT WHERE APCHS ARE CHANGED LATE, IT IS TOO EASY TO MISS THESE INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS ALSO VERY DANGEROUS AND UNWISE TO PUT ACFT ON THESE 2 APCHS AT THE SAME TIME TO THE SAME RWY. TALKED TO APCH, SAID ACFT MAKE THIS MISTAKE FREQUENTLY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS ALLOWED TO MAKE THE APCH AFTER THE TWR CTLR ASKED THE FOLLOWING ACFT IF HE HAD THE TFC, ACFT X, IN SIGHT. WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER THE RPTR MADE A SHORT APCH AND LNDG WITH A QUICK RWY EXIT. HE FEELS THAT THE TWR OR APCH CTLR SHOULD REMIND THE FLCS OF THE 4.4 MI RESTR AT JOESS IF AND WHEN A LAST MIN RWY OR APCH METHOD CHANGE IS MADE, AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE. INCIDENT GAVE THE CREW LITTLE TIME TO REVIEW THE CHART. RPTR FEELS THAT THE WHOLE APCH IS WEIRD, ALMOST LIKE A 'CONEY ISLAND GAME' WITH A 'MAYBE WE'LL LET YOU IN...WE'LL CALL YOU BACK' ATTITUDE. WX WAS NOT A FACTOR, RPTR HAD THE ARPT AND RWY MANY MI OUT FROM JOESS. THE CONVERSATION WITH APCH ON FLC REVIEW WAS LIGHT, NOT HVY.

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.