37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 501013 |
Time | |
Date | 200102 |
Day | Sat |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : ord.airport |
State Reference | IL |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1800 msl bound upper : 2000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : c90.tracon tower : ord.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B737-500 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | approach : instrument precision approach : visual arrival : on vectors arrival star : pullman |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : multi engine |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 7500 flight time type : 2700 |
ASRS Report | 501013 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | inflight encounter : weather non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : radar other controllera |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance controller : issued advisory flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course |
Consequence | faa : investigated faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Weather Flight Crew Human Performance Airport |
Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Intra Facility Coordination Failure Inter Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
The first officer was flying the aircraft with the autoplt on. An FAA inspector was conducting an en route check and was monitoring ATC communications from the jump seat. We had previously briefed a visual approach to runway 27R, backed up by the ILS, as this seemed the most likely runway from our arrival (the pullman 4 arrival ord). Upon first call to ord approach, the controller told us our landing runway would be runway 27L. I read back the runway and first officer set up and briefed the approach to runway 27L. Approach then queried us to see if we had visual contact with the airport. I responded 'negative.' approach said 'no problem, descend to 3000 ft heading 190 degrees.' this heading was a logical heading, as it looked to put us on about a 5 mi intercept to runway 27L. Approach again asked us if we had the runway. I again responded 'negative.' approach then said 'intercept the localizer on your present heading.' I responded 'roger' and we did so. Approach then told us to contact tower. I checked on with tower and told him we had the runway in sight. Tower responded 'it appears you are lined up for runway 27L.' I responded that it was our cleared runway. Tower responded to the negative and gave us a 90 degree right turn at about 1800-2000 ft. I then asked tower if we were landing or going around. He responded by clearing us for the visual to runway 27R. The rest of the approach and landing were normal and the approach was stable well prior to 500 ft. Upon landing, I spoke to the TRACON supervisor by telephone. TRACON confirmed that there was no one on runway 27L or runway 27R and there had been no loss of separation. I attribute this problem to miscom between approach control and tower, pushing of the visual approach by approach control and failure to confirm the assigned runway on each radio call. (On at least one occasion I was told to intercept the localizer without a runway stated and I responded to the affirmative without reconfirming the assigned runway.)
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: C90 CHANGES ORD RWY APCH WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY TWR. NO PROB WITH FLC SPECIFIED DURING TWR SUPVR CALL.
Narrative: THE FO WAS FLYING THE ACFT WITH THE AUTOPLT ON. AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS CONDUCTING AN ENRTE CHK AND WAS MONITORING ATC COMS FROM THE JUMP SEAT. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R, BACKED UP BY THE ILS, AS THIS SEEMED THE MOST LIKELY RWY FROM OUR ARR (THE PULLMAN 4 ARR ORD). UPON FIRST CALL TO ORD APCH, THE CTLR TOLD US OUR LNDG RWY WOULD BE RWY 27L. I READ BACK THE RWY AND FO SET UP AND BRIEFED THE APCH TO RWY 27L. APCH THEN QUERIED US TO SEE IF WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE ARPT. I RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE.' APCH SAID 'NO PROB, DSND TO 3000 FT HDG 190 DEGS.' THIS HDG WAS A LOGICAL HDG, AS IT LOOKED TO PUT US ON ABOUT A 5 MI INTERCEPT TO RWY 27L. APCH AGAIN ASKED US IF WE HAD THE RWY. I AGAIN RESPONDED 'NEGATIVE.' APCH THEN SAID 'INTERCEPT THE LOC ON YOUR PRESENT HDG.' I RESPONDED 'ROGER' AND WE DID SO. APCH THEN TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. I CHKED ON WITH TWR AND TOLD HIM WE HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT. TWR RESPONDED 'IT APPEARS YOU ARE LINED UP FOR RWY 27L.' I RESPONDED THAT IT WAS OUR CLRED RWY. TWR RESPONDED TO THE NEGATIVE AND GAVE US A 90 DEG R TURN AT ABOUT 1800-2000 FT. I THEN ASKED TWR IF WE WERE LNDG OR GOING AROUND. HE RESPONDED BY CLRING US FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 27R. THE REST OF THE APCH AND LNDG WERE NORMAL AND THE APCH WAS STABLE WELL PRIOR TO 500 FT. UPON LNDG, I SPOKE TO THE TRACON SUPVR BY TELEPHONE. TRACON CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO ONE ON RWY 27L OR RWY 27R AND THERE HAD BEEN NO LOSS OF SEPARATION. I ATTRIBUTE THIS PROB TO MISCOM BTWN APCH CTL AND TWR, PUSHING OF THE VISUAL APCH BY APCH CTL AND FAILURE TO CONFIRM THE ASSIGNED RWY ON EACH RADIO CALL. (ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION I WAS TOLD TO INTERCEPT THE LOC WITHOUT A RWY STATED AND I RESPONDED TO THE AFFIRMATIVE WITHOUT RECONFIRMING THE ASSIGNED RWY.)
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.