 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
ZSE controller clears E120 for approach without confirming what type approach the E120 planned. The controller questions the E120's intentions and is required to initiate an altitude change immediately.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 428202 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199902 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | msl single value : 7000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Weather Elements | Rain Turbulence |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zse.artcc |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Brasilia EMB-120 All Series |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | descent : intermediate altitude |
| Route In Use | enroute airway : v27.airway |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 5000 flight time type : 3500 |
| ASRS Report | 428262 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
En route from cec to acv, our aircraft X routing was cec-V27-fot-acv. About 30 mi from fot, the center controller cleared us for the approach to acv (no specific approach designated). We planned on continuing to fot via the transition to use the ILS runway 32, acv. The controller assumed we would use the VOR approach to runway 14, which started off V27, about 30 mi north of fot. When the controller asked if we had begun the approach, we told him of our intentions. He immediately canceled our approach clearance and asked us to start descending. Our plan of using the ILS runway 32 obviously was not what he expected from us and may have created a conflict with other aircraft. This problem could have been solved simply by more communication between the crew and the controller. The controller could have cleared us for a specific approach or the crew could have stated their intentions of which approach they would be using. Again, I do not know if a conflict of any kind occurred or not.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ZSE CTLR CLRS E120 FOR APCH WITHOUT CONFIRMING WHAT TYPE APCH THE E120 PLANNED. THE CTLR QUESTIONS THE E120'S INTENTIONS AND IS REQUIRED TO INITIATE AN ALT CHANGE IMMEDIATELY.
Narrative: ENRTE FROM CEC TO ACV, OUR ACFT X ROUTING WAS CEC-V27-FOT-ACV. ABOUT 30 MI FROM FOT, THE CTR CTLR CLRED US FOR THE APCH TO ACV (NO SPECIFIC APCH DESIGNATED). WE PLANNED ON CONTINUING TO FOT VIA THE TRANSITION TO USE THE ILS RWY 32, ACV. THE CTLR ASSUMED WE WOULD USE THE VOR APCH TO RWY 14, WHICH STARTED OFF V27, ABOUT 30 MI N OF FOT. WHEN THE CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD BEGUN THE APCH, WE TOLD HIM OF OUR INTENTIONS. HE IMMEDIATELY CANCELED OUR APCH CLRNC AND ASKED US TO START DSNDING. OUR PLAN OF USING THE ILS RWY 32 OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT WHAT HE EXPECTED FROM US AND MAY HAVE CREATED A CONFLICT WITH OTHER ACFT. THIS PROB COULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED SIMPLY BY MORE COM BTWN THE CREW AND THE CTLR. THE CTLR COULD HAVE CLRED US FOR A SPECIFIC APCH OR THE CREW COULD HAVE STATED THEIR INTENTIONS OF WHICH APCH THEY WOULD BE USING. AGAIN, I DO NOT KNOW IF A CONFLICT OF ANY KIND OCCURRED OR NOT.
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.