37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 420313 |
Time | |
Date | 199811 |
Day | Sun |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | atc facility : mia airport : mia |
State Reference | FL |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 500 msl bound upper : 1500 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : mia |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
ASRS Report | 420313 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe non adherence : required legal separation other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted other |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Situations | |
ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Question regarding ZMA. After having been cleared for a visual approach to runway 12 at mia, we turned to intercept the final approach course and configured to land. After passing 1500 ft MSL, we noticed a B727 making a final approach to what at first appeared to be runway 9R. As we neared the field, and when approximately 500 ft MSL, it became obvious to us that the B727 was landing on runway 9L, just in front of us. No one had pointed out this aircraft to us. We had only been told to hold short of runway 9R upon landing. We asked tower about the B727, and were only told that he was landing runway 9L. Question 1) are we not required to be told of this type of conflicting traffic? Question 2) wouldn't wake turbulence be a factor? Question 3) if both aircraft had to execute a go around wouldn't there be a conflict? Question 4) is it legal for ATC to issue clrncs for both aircraft to land at the same time on these runways and if so, what is the distance or time requirements between threshold xings? What are the separation requirements?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B757 AND A B727 HAD THEIR FINAL APCHS CROSS EACH OTHER WHILE ON SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 12 AND RWY 9L AT MIA.
Narrative: QUESTION REGARDING ZMA. AFTER HAVING BEEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 12 AT MIA, WE TURNED TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE AND CONFIGURED TO LAND. AFTER PASSING 1500 FT MSL, WE NOTICED A B727 MAKING A FINAL APCH TO WHAT AT FIRST APPEARED TO BE RWY 9R. AS WE NEARED THE FIELD, AND WHEN APPROX 500 FT MSL, IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO US THAT THE B727 WAS LNDG ON RWY 9L, JUST IN FRONT OF US. NO ONE HAD POINTED OUT THIS ACFT TO US. WE HAD ONLY BEEN TOLD TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9R UPON LNDG. WE ASKED TWR ABOUT THE B727, AND WERE ONLY TOLD THAT HE WAS LNDG RWY 9L. QUESTION 1) ARE WE NOT REQUIRED TO BE TOLD OF THIS TYPE OF CONFLICTING TFC? QUESTION 2) WOULDN'T WAKE TURB BE A FACTOR? QUESTION 3) IF BOTH ACFT HAD TO EXECUTE A GAR WOULDN'T THERE BE A CONFLICT? QUESTION 4) IS IT LEGAL FOR ATC TO ISSUE CLRNCS FOR BOTH ACFT TO LAND AT THE SAME TIME ON THESE RWYS AND IF SO, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE OR TIME REQUIREMENTS BTWN THRESHOLD XINGS? WHAT ARE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS?
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.