Narrative:

I was flying the visual to runway 30R at msp. We turned toward the airport with autoplt on and selected the ILS just outside bonna intersection, shortly after the airplane took an abrupt 90 degree left turn. The GS was showing intermittently also. The flight director also commanded a left turn. I disconnected the autoplt and we went around. While being vectored for another approach to runway 30R, another aircraft reported problems with runway 30R localizer and GS. I flew another approach and the same thing happened. We went around again. We had the msp VOR inhibited as per NOTAM. We did not know if there was ground or air interference, so we tried an approach to runway 30L. The captain flew this approach and the same thing happened, but prior to the approach we asked for a little longer approach. The same thing happened, but since we were more prepared we disconnected the autoplt and flew raw data. I do not believe any FARS were violated, but to rectify this problem you should be turned onto the localizer a little sooner. Both the first 2 approachs to runway 30R we had a 90 degree turn on at GS intercept altitude, which gave us no time to rectify the situation and be able to fly the airplane manually. On approach to runway 30L we broke out of clouds at 2500 ft MSL and reported we had the runway, so we continued visually to the runway. As I stated earlier, I do not feel we violated any FARS. But I do feel to help alleviate sits like this in the future, you should never be vectored onto a localizer final from a 90 degree turn and also above the GS. This happens too much at msp. I do not know why, if it is because noise abatement or trying to put a plane in between 2 others already on final. Both gars were initiated between 4000-5000 ft mainly because we could have never recovered back to a stabilized approach by FAF. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: crew was flying a B757-200 aircraft. The reporter considered this incident an aircraft problem. It was written up in the aircraft logbook. He does not know what maintenance did to the aircraft. He has flown similar intercepts in other aircraft and had no problem. ATC could provide a more friendly intercept angle, however, the aircraft should be able to handle the vector they were given.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 CREW WAS GIVEN VECTORS FOR A 90 DEG INTERCEPT FOR THE ILS RWY 30R AND RWY 30L AT MSP. THE CREW ATTEMPTED AN AUTO COUPLED APCH WHICH WAS UNSUCCESSFUL 3 TIMES.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING THE VISUAL TO RWY 30R AT MSP. WE TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT WITH AUTOPLT ON AND SELECTED THE ILS JUST OUTSIDE BONNA INTXN, SHORTLY AFTER THE AIRPLANE TOOK AN ABRUPT 90 DEG L TURN. THE GS WAS SHOWING INTERMITTENTLY ALSO. THE FLT DIRECTOR ALSO COMMANDED A L TURN. I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND WE WENT AROUND. WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR ANOTHER APCH TO RWY 30R, ANOTHER ACFT RPTED PROBS WITH RWY 30R LOC AND GS. I FLEW ANOTHER APCH AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED. WE WENT AROUND AGAIN. WE HAD THE MSP VOR INHIBITED AS PER NOTAM. WE DID NOT KNOW IF THERE WAS GND OR AIR INTERFERENCE, SO WE TRIED AN APCH TO RWY 30L. THE CAPT FLEW THIS APCH AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED, BUT PRIOR TO THE APCH WE ASKED FOR A LITTLE LONGER APCH. THE SAME THING HAPPENED, BUT SINCE WE WERE MORE PREPARED WE DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND FLEW RAW DATA. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY FARS WERE VIOLATED, BUT TO RECTIFY THIS PROB YOU SHOULD BE TURNED ONTO THE LOC A LITTLE SOONER. BOTH THE FIRST 2 APCHS TO RWY 30R WE HAD A 90 DEG TURN ON AT GS INTERCEPT ALT, WHICH GAVE US NO TIME TO RECTIFY THE SIT AND BE ABLE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE MANUALLY. ON APCH TO RWY 30L WE BROKE OUT OF CLOUDS AT 2500 FT MSL AND RPTED WE HAD THE RWY, SO WE CONTINUED VISUALLY TO THE RWY. AS I STATED EARLIER, I DO NOT FEEL WE VIOLATED ANY FARS. BUT I DO FEEL TO HELP ALLEVIATE SITS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE, YOU SHOULD NEVER BE VECTORED ONTO A LOC FINAL FROM A 90 DEG TURN AND ALSO ABOVE THE GS. THIS HAPPENS TOO MUCH AT MSP. I DO NOT KNOW WHY, IF IT IS BECAUSE NOISE ABATEMENT OR TRYING TO PUT A PLANE IN BTWN 2 OTHERS ALREADY ON FINAL. BOTH GARS WERE INITIATED BTWN 4000-5000 FT MAINLY BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE NEVER RECOVERED BACK TO A STABILIZED APCH BY FAF. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CREW WAS FLYING A B757-200 ACFT. THE RPTR CONSIDERED THIS INCIDENT AN ACFT PROB. IT WAS WRITTEN UP IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK. HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT MAINT DID TO THE ACFT. HE HAS FLOWN SIMILAR INTERCEPTS IN OTHER ACFT AND HAD NO PROB. ATC COULD PROVIDE A MORE FRIENDLY INTERCEPT ANGLE, HOWEVER, THE ACFT SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE VECTOR THEY WERE GIVEN.

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.