Narrative:

Inbound to land in myr. I was acting as the PNF, but the captain of the ship. We were being vectored by approach control. They kept us up at altitude for too long. 14 mi out, descending through 10000 ft we were cleared for the ILS to runway 17 in myr. This airplane was fully automatic, and the ILS function of the autoplt was armed. Descending at the airplane's maximum rate, we were quite busy trying to get descended, slowed and configured, prior to reaching the IAF. The sky was clear with 2 mi in haze. We reached the IAF at the initial altitude of 1600 ft, still very busy trying to slow the aircraft down. The autoplt did not couple, but it disarmed the altitude hold function, which should have engaged at 1600 ft. As the aircraft descended through 1600 ft, I grabbed the yoke, turned off the autoplt, and the autothrottles, informed my first officer that I had control of the aircraft. I intended to execute a missed approach. At this time we were 200-300 ft below initial altitude for the ILS, and to the right of centerline, 1 1/2 mi inside the IAF. My first officer called airport in sight, we had approximately 3 1/2 mi in-flight visibility. I xferred control to the first officer, and we proceeded with an uneventful landing. After landing we were informed by the tower that there had been several reports of problems with both the localizer and the GS all afternoon. 1) approach control failed to vector us to the approach gate at an altitude and heading that would give us time to slow and descend in a normal fashion. 2) approach control failed to inform us of failing/intermittent ground equipment, localizer and GS. 3) I failed to recognize that we were in a situation where I should have asked for new vectors, or a box pattern to lose altitude and speed. I did not see it as a problem due to the clear skies and pretty good visibility, 3 1/2 mi in-flight, 2 mi reported on the ground. 4) due to the fully automatic airplane, both the first officer and I failed to recognize, in time, that the airplane was not going to couple on the ILS. We also failed, due to the high workload, to see that the airplane did not catch the initial altitude, in altitude hold. Complacent? As normal when things go wrong, there is always a compiling of problems. If we had been established, speed and altitude, prior to the marker, there would not have been a problem, we would easily recognize a localizer GS inaccuracy. If localizer and GS had been in normal working order, the airplane would have captured and made a normal approach. Speed and altitude would not have been a problem, the aircraft would have been on speed 1 mi inside the marker. If the airplane had not been fully automatic, I would think the PF would have caught the problem sooner, where this situation would have been avoided. In closing, I would like to point out that if the WX had been marginal, or that it had been a high density airport, I never would have accepted the vectors, and the approach clearance at the altitude, speed and confign of the aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FLC MAKES A DESTABILIZED APCH INTO MYR AFTER THE APCH CTLR HAD KEPT THEM TOO HIGH FOR A NORMAL GS INTERCEPT AT MYR, SC.

Narrative: INBOUND TO LAND IN MYR. I WAS ACTING AS THE PNF, BUT THE CAPT OF THE SHIP. WE WERE BEING VECTORED BY APCH CTL. THEY KEPT US UP AT ALT FOR TOO LONG. 14 MI OUT, DSNDING THROUGH 10000 FT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS TO RWY 17 IN MYR. THIS AIRPLANE WAS FULLY AUTOMATIC, AND THE ILS FUNCTION OF THE AUTOPLT WAS ARMED. DSNDING AT THE AIRPLANE'S MAX RATE, WE WERE QUITE BUSY TRYING TO GET DSNDED, SLOWED AND CONFIGURED, PRIOR TO REACHING THE IAF. THE SKY WAS CLR WITH 2 MI IN HAZE. WE REACHED THE IAF AT THE INITIAL ALT OF 1600 FT, STILL VERY BUSY TRYING TO SLOW THE ACFT DOWN. THE AUTOPLT DID NOT COUPLE, BUT IT DISARMED THE ALT HOLD FUNCTION, WHICH SHOULD HAVE ENGAGED AT 1600 FT. AS THE ACFT DSNDED THROUGH 1600 FT, I GRABBED THE YOKE, TURNED OFF THE AUTOPLT, AND THE AUTOTHROTTLES, INFORMED MY FO THAT I HAD CTL OF THE ACFT. I INTENDED TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH. AT THIS TIME WE WERE 200-300 FT BELOW INITIAL ALT FOR THE ILS, AND TO THE R OF CTRLINE, 1 1/2 MI INSIDE THE IAF. MY FO CALLED ARPT IN SIGHT, WE HAD APPROX 3 1/2 MI INFLT VISIBILITY. I XFERRED CTL TO THE FO, AND WE PROCEEDED WITH AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. AFTER LNDG WE WERE INFORMED BY THE TWR THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL RPTS OF PROBS WITH BOTH THE LOC AND THE GS ALL AFTERNOON. 1) APCH CTL FAILED TO VECTOR US TO THE APCH GATE AT AN ALT AND HDG THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME TO SLOW AND DSND IN A NORMAL FASHION. 2) APCH CTL FAILED TO INFORM US OF FAILING/INTERMITTENT GND EQUIP, LOC AND GS. 3) I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE WERE IN A SIT WHERE I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR NEW VECTORS, OR A BOX PATTERN TO LOSE ALT AND SPD. I DID NOT SEE IT AS A PROB DUE TO THE CLR SKIES AND PRETTY GOOD VISIBILITY, 3 1/2 MI INFLT, 2 MI RPTED ON THE GND. 4) DUE TO THE FULLY AUTOMATIC AIRPLANE, BOTH THE FO AND I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE, IN TIME, THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS NOT GOING TO COUPLE ON THE ILS. WE ALSO FAILED, DUE TO THE HIGH WORKLOAD, TO SEE THAT THE AIRPLANE DID NOT CATCH THE INITIAL ALT, IN ALT HOLD. COMPLACENT? AS NORMAL WHEN THINGS GO WRONG, THERE IS ALWAYS A COMPILING OF PROBS. IF WE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED, SPD AND ALT, PRIOR TO THE MARKER, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROB, WE WOULD EASILY RECOGNIZE A LOC GS INACCURACY. IF LOC AND GS HAD BEEN IN NORMAL WORKING ORDER, THE AIRPLANE WOULD HAVE CAPTURED AND MADE A NORMAL APCH. SPD AND ALT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROB, THE ACFT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON SPD 1 MI INSIDE THE MARKER. IF THE AIRPLANE HAD NOT BEEN FULLY AUTOMATIC, I WOULD THINK THE PF WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THE PROB SOONER, WHERE THIS SIT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IF THE WX HAD BEEN MARGINAL, OR THAT IT HAD BEEN A HIGH DENSITY ARPT, I NEVER WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE VECTORS, AND THE APCH CLRNC AT THE ALT, SPD AND CONFIGN OF THE ACFT.

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.