Air crew believed that they were cleared for an ILS approach and began descent on the GS, when approach controller cleared them to descend to 5000 ft.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	431518
Time
Date	199903
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 8000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sct.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 24r other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision arrival star : mitts 1
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	431518
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : excursion from assigned altitude non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On mitts 1 arrival just after denay intersection, started to descend via ILS to runway 24R per what we believed was clearance by previous controller. On check-in with new approach controller, we were instructed to descend to 5000 ft. It became apparent that previous controller should not have, or did not clear us for approach to runway 24R. Prior to the mitts 1, we had received 2 other stars to different runways, plus numerous speed restrs and altitude restrs that did not conform with stars issued. These changes were due to large number of aircraft inbound to lax. Radio chatter was heavy and many communications were blocked, and we were handed off later than normal. Because of this, the only way controllers were able to separate traffic was through speed control of traffic due to parallel aircraft inbound. The new STAR pdz 2 has helped in arrs in lax due to the heading changes allowing more horizontal separation, a more stabilized descent rate for aircraft. I believe a similar STAR on the north side would provide needed relief to controllers and pilots landing during very high workload times.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR CREW BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE CLRED FOR AN ILS APCH AND BEGAN DSCNT ON THE GS, WHEN APCH CTLR CLRED THEM TO DSND TO 5000 FT.

Narrative: ON MITTS 1 ARR JUST AFTER DENAY INTXN, STARTED TO DSND VIA ILS TO RWY 24R PER WHAT WE BELIEVED WAS CLRNC BY PREVIOUS CTLR. ON CHK-IN WITH NEW APCH CTLR, WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO DSND TO 5000 FT. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT PREVIOUS CTLR SHOULD NOT HAVE, OR DID NOT CLR US FOR APCH TO RWY 24R. PRIOR TO THE MITTS 1, WE HAD RECEIVED 2 OTHER STARS TO DIFFERENT RWYS, PLUS NUMEROUS SPD RESTRS AND ALT RESTRS THAT DID NOT CONFORM WITH STARS ISSUED. THESE CHANGES WERE DUE TO LARGE NUMBER OF ACFT INBOUND TO LAX. RADIO CHATTER WAS HVY AND MANY COMS WERE BLOCKED, AND WE WERE HANDED OFF LATER THAN NORMAL. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE ONLY WAY CTLRS WERE ABLE TO SEPARATE TFC WAS THROUGH SPD CTL OF TFC DUE TO PARALLEL ACFT INBOUND. THE NEW STAR PDZ 2 HAS HELPED IN ARRS IN LAX DUE TO THE HDG CHANGES ALLOWING MORE HORIZ SEPARATION, A MORE STABILIZED DSCNT RATE FOR ACFT. I BELIEVE A SIMILAR STAR ON THE N SIDE WOULD PROVIDE NEEDED RELIEF TO CTLRS AND PLTS LNDG DURING VERY HIGH WORKLOAD TIMES.

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.