Narrative:

Orl approach control assigns and changes assignments for landing runways too close to the airport. I am sure the people at orl approach control have their reasons for this action since they have been doing it for many yrs. However, the case of apr/xa/98 was enough to make me submit this report. Initial contact: expect runway 18R, runway 17 on request, some vectors, more vectors, now to the east of all runways, heading 180 degrees, more vectors, fly assigned heading and intercept localizer for runway 18R, 'no, intercept localizer for runway 17.' all of this was too close to the airport. I do not want to exaggerate the facts but the aircraft position when the approach clearance (runway 18R, no, runway 17) was given was 1/2 mi left of the runway 17 localizer and too close to the airport. There was not enough time to perform a proper approach check. Next time, I will miss the approach and make time for a proper briefing. This is not an isolated experience for orl approach control. They really should get their act together. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: analyst informed the reporter of our position of not being able to do follow-up investigation of a reported incident such as reviewing audio tapes and other data. Reporter stated an irregularity report was filed with his company who in turn reported the matter to approach control. Reporter felt the report did some good and alleges the response from approach control indicated there was a problem with the handling of reporter's aircraft. Reporter stated his aircraft was a B767-300ER. Analyst suggested the reporter call the facility if it happens again and have the tapes held for reporter/facility review and discussion of how the flight crew is affected by the close approach change.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS A PLANNED RWY 18R APCH WAS CHANGED TO RWY 17 APCH TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT FOR FLC TO MAKE APPROPRIATE APCH CHK. RPTEDLY, THE CTLR STATED ON INITIAL CONTACT TO EXPECT RWY 18R, RWY 17 ON REQUEST.

Narrative: ORL APCH CTL ASSIGNS AND CHANGES ASSIGNMENTS FOR LNDG RWYS TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT. I AM SURE THE PEOPLE AT ORL APCH CTL HAVE THEIR REASONS FOR THIS ACTION SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR MANY YRS. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF APR/XA/98 WAS ENOUGH TO MAKE ME SUBMIT THIS RPT. INITIAL CONTACT: EXPECT RWY 18R, RWY 17 ON REQUEST, SOME VECTORS, MORE VECTORS, NOW TO THE E OF ALL RWYS, HDG 180 DEGS, MORE VECTORS, FLY ASSIGNED HDG AND INTERCEPT LOC FOR RWY 18R, 'NO, INTERCEPT LOC FOR RWY 17.' ALL OF THIS WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT. I DO NOT WANT TO EXAGGERATE THE FACTS BUT THE ACFT POS WHEN THE APCH CLRNC (RWY 18R, NO, RWY 17) WAS GIVEN WAS 1/2 MI L OF THE RWY 17 LOC AND TOO CLOSE TO THE ARPT. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO PERFORM A PROPER APCH CHK. NEXT TIME, I WILL MISS THE APCH AND MAKE TIME FOR A PROPER BRIEFING. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED EXPERIENCE FOR ORL APCH CTL. THEY REALLY SHOULD GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST INFORMED THE RPTR OF OUR POS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO DO FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION OF A RPTED INCIDENT SUCH AS REVIEWING AUDIO TAPES AND OTHER DATA. RPTR STATED AN IRREGULARITY RPT WAS FILED WITH HIS COMPANY WHO IN TURN RPTED THE MATTER TO APCH CTL. RPTR FELT THE RPT DID SOME GOOD AND ALLEGES THE RESPONSE FROM APCH CTL INDICATED THERE WAS A PROB WITH THE HANDLING OF RPTR'S ACFT. RPTR STATED HIS ACFT WAS A B767-300ER. ANALYST SUGGESTED THE RPTR CALL THE FACILITY IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN AND HAVE THE TAPES HELD FOR RPTR/FACILITY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF HOW THE FLC IS AFFECTED BY THE CLOSE APCH CHANGE.

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.