DC9-30 reports poor coordination between approach controller and tower controller at mia. Approach says to expect one approach and tower vectors for a different runway with no apparent communication between controllers.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	449932
Time
Date	199909
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mia.airport
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl single value : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mia.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : intermediate altitude descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision approach : traffic pattern arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 13000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	449932
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter other non adherence other other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Environmental Factor ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure

Narrative:

Told to expect runway 9R approach, assigned 3000 ft, 120 degree heading to intercept runway 9R ILS. Read back runway 9R. Then cleared to 2000 ft and 100 degree heading. Had not intercepted localizer when tower contacted. Controller cleared us to land runway 12, hold short of runway 9R. We told her we were cleared for runway 9R ILS approach. She indicated we were set up for runway 12. At that time we began to pick up the airport in the haze and proceeded visually to runway 12 with tower clearance. It was obvious the final controller had set us up for runway 12, but never communicated this to us. He also did not correct my readback of accepting runway 9R clearance. All indications and headings in the cockpit made sense for a runway 9R intercept, even after he shallowed the intercept to 100 degree heading. In view of the new pending regulations putting the responsibility on the pilot in a readback, we especially need the controller to monitor our readback.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DC9-30 RPTS POOR COORD BTWN APCH CTLR AND TWR CTLR AT MIA. APCH SAYS TO EXPECT ONE APCH AND TWR VECTORS FOR A DIFFERENT RWY WITH NO APPARENT COM BTWN CTLRS.

Narrative: TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 9R APCH, ASSIGNED 3000 FT, 120 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT RWY 9R ILS. READ BACK RWY 9R. THEN CLRED TO 2000 FT AND 100 DEG HDG. HAD NOT INTERCEPTED LOC WHEN TWR CONTACTED. CTLR CLRED US TO LAND RWY 12, HOLD SHORT OF RWY 9R. WE TOLD HER WE WERE CLRED FOR RWY 9R ILS APCH. SHE INDICATED WE WERE SET UP FOR RWY 12. AT THAT TIME WE BEGAN TO PICK UP THE ARPT IN THE HAZE AND PROCEEDED VISUALLY TO RWY 12 WITH TWR CLRNC. IT WAS OBVIOUS THE FINAL CTLR HAD SET US UP FOR RWY 12, BUT NEVER COMMUNICATED THIS TO US. HE ALSO DID NOT CORRECT MY READBACK OF ACCEPTING RWY 9R CLRNC. ALL INDICATIONS AND HDGS IN THE COCKPIT MADE SENSE FOR A RWY 9R INTERCEPT, EVEN AFTER HE SHALLOWED THE INTERCEPT TO 100 DEG HDG. IN VIEW OF THE NEW PENDING REGS PUTTING THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PLT IN A READBACK, WE ESPECIALLY NEED THE CTLR TO MONITOR OUR READBACK.

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.