Narrative:

I was scheduled to deadhead to sfo to meet an sfo based captain, and to then ferry an aircraft to ord. Upon arriving at the aircraft I learned that we were now scheduled to ferry the aircraft to lax and then to ferry an aircraft to ord. The captain pulled up the lax area WX from the ACARS prior to our pushback. I do recall seeing the NOTAM about the runway 25L ILS 'llz' OTS, but was not aware 'llz' was the ICAO abbreviation for the localizer. I ran several acronyms through my mind and nothing matched 'llz' and I dismissed it. I also pulled up the ATIS for lax on the ACARS. Because I already reviewed the NOTAMS separately, I did not look in detail at any more than the first page of the ACARS data. Looking back now at the ATIS, it is misleading. The way in interpreted it, lax was using simultaneous ILS approachs to runway 24R and runway 25L. Coming in from the north, we briefed that we would probably be assigned the north complex. We requested the south complex from socal if it became available. We eventually received a vector west of lax to the south. I set in 109.9 for the localizer for runway 25L. We were initially given a 90 degree base turn, followed shortly by a dogleg intercept for final. We were with the tower at this time and we were instructed to maintain this heading until intercepting the localizer, and cleared to land runway 25L. I definitely know that the word 'sidestep' was not used in this clearance, and I am pretty sure we weren't instructed to intercept the localizer for runway 25R. We were being vectored from the south, on a dogleg to runway 25L at lax. We were instructed to maintain the dogleg heading until intercepting the localizer, and then cleared to land runway 25L. We did not receive the localizer for runway 25L, and shortly thereafter the tower controller asked us if we were on the localizer. We were told we were approaching the runway 24L arrival corridor, and we were then given a vector back to the south and we performed a go around. Contributing factors/human performance considerations: 1) fatigue. Being on reserve, I was up since XA00 mdt. Although I didn't do anything strenuous throughout the day, by the time we were shooting the approach into lax it was quite late (XR30 mdt). I was notified of the trip at xhpm with XI55 report to deadhead to sfo. 2) although the captain had the opportunity to review the necessary preflight information in operations, the necessary information wasn't available. When he left the operations area he had prepared for an sfo-ord ferry mission. He was not aware of the lax turn prior to arriving at the aircraft. The itinerary was changed within 30 mins of our scheduled pushback. 3) NOTAM abbreviation unfamiliarity. I have never seen 'llz' used as an abbreviation for the localizer. Generally 'localizer' is used as an abbreviation for the localizer. Approach plates use localizer and GS as abbreviations for the localizer and glide slope. Had the NOTAM used localizer instead of llz, this situation would not have occurred. 4) unclr ATIS landing information. Unfortunately, because I had reviewed the NOTAMS separately, I didn't read beyond the landing information of the ATIS. 5) because we weren't aware of the localizer for runway 25L being OTS, we fully expected to receive the localizer. A) although I don't believe we received a clearance to intercept the runway 25R localizer for a runway 25L landing, it is possible that I heard what I expected -- a clearance to intercept the localizer for runway 25L. B) it is also possible that the controller assumed we were aware the runway 25L localizer was OTS and that we would need to use the runway 25R localizer to get the visual. C) keyword expectations should also be considered. During our second approach into lax, the controller clearly stated a clearance to intercept the runway 25R localizer, sidestep to runway 25L. That keyword (sidestep) is a large expectation for such an approach. 6) night and short flight duration. Because the flight was conducted at night and we had very little time at cruise altitude, I believe it affected my review of the NOTAMS and ATIS on the ACARS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FERRY FLC HAS SOME DIFFICULTIES IN MAKING AN ILS APCH TO RWY 25L AT LAX.

Narrative: I WAS SCHEDULED TO DEADHEAD TO SFO TO MEET AN SFO BASED CAPT, AND TO THEN FERRY AN ACFT TO ORD. UPON ARRIVING AT THE ACFT I LEARNED THAT WE WERE NOW SCHEDULED TO FERRY THE ACFT TO LAX AND THEN TO FERRY AN ACFT TO ORD. THE CAPT PULLED UP THE LAX AREA WX FROM THE ACARS PRIOR TO OUR PUSHBACK. I DO RECALL SEEING THE NOTAM ABOUT THE RWY 25L ILS 'LLZ' OTS, BUT WAS NOT AWARE 'LLZ' WAS THE ICAO ABBREVIATION FOR THE LOC. I RAN SEVERAL ACRONYMS THROUGH MY MIND AND NOTHING MATCHED 'LLZ' AND I DISMISSED IT. I ALSO PULLED UP THE ATIS FOR LAX ON THE ACARS. BECAUSE I ALREADY REVIEWED THE NOTAMS SEPARATELY, I DID NOT LOOK IN DETAIL AT ANY MORE THAN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ACARS DATA. LOOKING BACK NOW AT THE ATIS, IT IS MISLEADING. THE WAY IN INTERPED IT, LAX WAS USING SIMULTANEOUS ILS APCHS TO RWY 24R AND RWY 25L. COMING IN FROM THE N, WE BRIEFED THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY BE ASSIGNED THE N COMPLEX. WE REQUESTED THE S COMPLEX FROM SOCAL IF IT BECAME AVAILABLE. WE EVENTUALLY RECEIVED A VECTOR W OF LAX TO THE S. I SET IN 109.9 FOR THE LOC FOR RWY 25L. WE WERE INITIALLY GIVEN A 90 DEG BASE TURN, FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY A DOGLEG INTERCEPT FOR FINAL. WE WERE WITH THE TWR AT THIS TIME AND WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN THIS HDG UNTIL INTERCEPTING THE LOC, AND CLRED TO LAND RWY 25L. I DEFINITELY KNOW THAT THE WORD 'SIDESTEP' WAS NOT USED IN THIS CLRNC, AND I AM PRETTY SURE WE WEREN'T INSTRUCTED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC FOR RWY 25R. WE WERE BEING VECTORED FROM THE S, ON A DOGLEG TO RWY 25L AT LAX. WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN THE DOGLEG HDG UNTIL INTERCEPTING THE LOC, AND THEN CLRED TO LAND RWY 25L. WE DID NOT RECEIVE THE LOC FOR RWY 25L, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE TWR CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE ON THE LOC. WE WERE TOLD WE WERE APCHING THE RWY 24L ARR CORRIDOR, AND WE WERE THEN GIVEN A VECTOR BACK TO THE S AND WE PERFORMED A GAR. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS/HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: 1) FATIGUE. BEING ON RESERVE, I WAS UP SINCE XA00 MDT. ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING STRENUOUS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, BY THE TIME WE WERE SHOOTING THE APCH INTO LAX IT WAS QUITE LATE (XR30 MDT). I WAS NOTIFIED OF THE TRIP AT XHPM WITH XI55 RPT TO DEADHEAD TO SFO. 2) ALTHOUGH THE CAPT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE NECESSARY PREFLT INFO IN OPS, THE NECESSARY INFO WASN'T AVAILABLE. WHEN HE LEFT THE OPS AREA HE HAD PREPARED FOR AN SFO-ORD FERRY MISSION. HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LAX TURN PRIOR TO ARRIVING AT THE ACFT. THE ITINERARY WAS CHANGED WITHIN 30 MINS OF OUR SCHEDULED PUSHBACK. 3) NOTAM ABBREVIATION UNFAMILIARITY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN 'LLZ' USED AS AN ABBREVIATION FOR THE LOC. GENERALLY 'LOC' IS USED AS AN ABBREVIATION FOR THE LOCALIZER. APCH PLATES USE LOC AND GS AS ABBREVIATIONS FOR THE LOCALIZER AND GLIDE SLOPE. HAD THE NOTAM USED LOC INSTEAD OF LLZ, THIS SIT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. 4) UNCLR ATIS LNDG INFO. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE I HAD REVIEWED THE NOTAMS SEPARATELY, I DIDN'T READ BEYOND THE LNDG INFO OF THE ATIS. 5) BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THE LOC FOR RWY 25L BEING OTS, WE FULLY EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THE LOC. A) ALTHOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 25R LOC FOR A RWY 25L LNDG, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I HEARD WHAT I EXPECTED -- A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE LOC FOR RWY 25L. B) IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THE CTLR ASSUMED WE WERE AWARE THE RWY 25L LOC WAS OTS AND THAT WE WOULD NEED TO USE THE RWY 25R LOC TO GET THE VISUAL. C) KEYWORD EXPECTATIONS SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED. DURING OUR SECOND APCH INTO LAX, THE CTLR CLRLY STATED A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 25R LOC, SIDESTEP TO RWY 25L. THAT KEYWORD (SIDESTEP) IS A LARGE EXPECTATION FOR SUCH AN APCH. 6) NIGHT AND SHORT FLT DURATION. BECAUSE THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED AT NIGHT AND WE HAD VERY LITTLE TIME AT CRUISE ALT, I BELIEVE IT AFFECTED MY REVIEW OF THE NOTAMS AND ATIS ON THE ACARS.

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.