Narrative:

We were being vectored for an approach by san approach ATC. We have been flying the airbus for 3 yrs into san, yet ATC continues to try to clear us for the localizer 27 approach. On our airbuses, we can only do ILS or RNAV approachs. Our aircraft have the equipment for other non precision approachs, but our handbook says that procedurally and legally, we cannot do any other types of approachs. We do not even have the approach plates for any other approachs issued to us, which causes consternation and more communications at a critical time of the approach. The WX in san was 2 mi in mist and clouds scattered at 900 ft and the ceiling at 1200 ft with light winds from the southwest. Our visibility requirements for the RNAV 27 are 2 1/4 mi and with the MDA at 800 ft. We decided to continue the approach with the idea that around 4-5 mi out we would ask for the current visibility and if the tower visibility was 2 1/4 mi or above we would land. Prior to being cleared to intercept and commence the approach, we were on a long vector and kept high by ATC. Our fuel load was adequate for 2 approachs and a short diversion to the alternate. But, we did not have a lot of extra fuel. Finally we were cleared for the localizer 27 approach. After a short discussion, we were reclred for the RNAV 27 approach. We selected 'app' for the autoplt RNAV 27. The autoplt did not capture the final approach course and now we were high. We steered back to the course, reconnected the 'app' for the autoplt RNAV. The course captured, but we were too high to capture the vertical path. As we attempted to intercept the path from above, tower told us to slow down due to traffic ahead. High and told to slow, sounds like the scenario for a go around. We should have gone around at that time, but we continued. At about 1300 ft, tower told us to go around due to an aircraft on the runway and to climb to 2500 ft. We commenced the go around, but the autoplt did not capture the 2500 ft altitude due to the excessive thrust. We finally disconnected the autoplt and stopped at 3600 ft then descended to the 2500 ft go around altitude. Unfortunately, the excessive climb and descent rate caused passenger discomfort due to high g-loads. Since the visibility for RNAV 27 was still below our requirements, we were offered by ATC the ILS approach to runway 9. During the vectoring there was some consternation and confusion with ATC and the tower as to whether we were going to do the RNAV or ILS to runway 9. I found out later that there was a lot of confusion between ATC approach and the san tower. However, the eventual ILS approach and landing were uneventful. Contributors to the events: 1) san ATC's lack of understanding of our requirements and constraints for the RNAV approach. 2) we were intent upon commencing the approach and should have made the decision to go around much earlier. 3) the RNAV approach although a GPS approach still lacks versatility. The glide path should be capable of intercept outside of the FAF just as an ILS approach. Currently, you must be at your FAF altitude to capture the glide path, otherwise the autoplt will never capture. It is a matter of computer programming. My experience has been that in the 'real world' the VOR or localizer approachs on the autoplt are more accurate than the RNAV approachs. The RNAV approachs (GPS) are to be the non precision approachs of the future. But, the 'capture' requirements for the RNAV work only if all the elements are perfect as in a simulator situation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that his company has implemented a policy to only conduct approachs that have a complete and fully operable ILS system, published RNAV or augmented GPS approach segment. Therefore, all other approachs, and the applicable approach plates, have been removed from the flight crew inventory. That is why the flight crew entered into a conversation with sct approach control about which approach they could and could not shoot. Without an appropriate and authority/authorized company approach chart, they theoretically could not even conduct an instrument approach. Complicating this company procedure is the software based and driven airbus autoflt system. The reporter advised that in order to conduct an RNAV approach, the computer has to recognizethat the aircraft is not above the GS -- horizontal course corrections can be conducted anywhere along the instrument route of flight. The pilot must fly the aircraft into a position at or below the GS or enter an intersection that is behind the aircraft and that has an altitude below the projected GS. Then the aircraft software will 'catch' the approach and continue a normal descent. The reporter advised that company appears to be behind in notifying the FAA of its procedural change. The reporter has had to call the air traffic facilities himself occasionally to brief the 'what and why' of their company procedures.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 FLC, TRYING TO CLARIFY THE TYPE OF COMPANY ACCEPTABLE APCH PROC AT SAN, IS ISSUED A GAR DUE TO TFC ON THE RWY AND OVERSHOOTS ASSIGNED ALT.

Narrative: WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR AN APCH BY SAN APCH ATC. WE HAVE BEEN FLYING THE AIRBUS FOR 3 YRS INTO SAN, YET ATC CONTINUES TO TRY TO CLR US FOR THE LOC 27 APCH. ON OUR AIRBUSES, WE CAN ONLY DO ILS OR RNAV APCHS. OUR ACFT HAVE THE EQUIP FOR OTHER NON PRECISION APCHS, BUT OUR HANDBOOK SAYS THAT PROCEDURALLY AND LEGALLY, WE CANNOT DO ANY OTHER TYPES OF APCHS. WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE THE APCH PLATES FOR ANY OTHER APCHS ISSUED TO US, WHICH CAUSES CONSTERNATION AND MORE COMS AT A CRITICAL TIME OF THE APCH. THE WX IN SAN WAS 2 MI IN MIST AND CLOUDS SCATTERED AT 900 FT AND THE CEILING AT 1200 FT WITH LIGHT WINDS FROM THE SW. OUR VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RNAV 27 ARE 2 1/4 MI AND WITH THE MDA AT 800 FT. WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE THE APCH WITH THE IDEA THAT AROUND 4-5 MI OUT WE WOULD ASK FOR THE CURRENT VISIBILITY AND IF THE TWR VISIBILITY WAS 2 1/4 MI OR ABOVE WE WOULD LAND. PRIOR TO BEING CLRED TO INTERCEPT AND COMMENCE THE APCH, WE WERE ON A LONG VECTOR AND KEPT HIGH BY ATC. OUR FUEL LOAD WAS ADEQUATE FOR 2 APCHS AND A SHORT DIVERSION TO THE ALTERNATE. BUT, WE DID NOT HAVE A LOT OF EXTRA FUEL. FINALLY WE WERE CLRED FOR THE LOC 27 APCH. AFTER A SHORT DISCUSSION, WE WERE RECLRED FOR THE RNAV 27 APCH. WE SELECTED 'APP' FOR THE AUTOPLT RNAV 27. THE AUTOPLT DID NOT CAPTURE THE FINAL APCH COURSE AND NOW WE WERE HIGH. WE STEERED BACK TO THE COURSE, RECONNECTED THE 'APP' FOR THE AUTOPLT RNAV. THE COURSE CAPTURED, BUT WE WERE TOO HIGH TO CAPTURE THE VERT PATH. AS WE ATTEMPTED TO INTERCEPT THE PATH FROM ABOVE, TWR TOLD US TO SLOW DOWN DUE TO TFC AHEAD. HIGH AND TOLD TO SLOW, SOUNDS LIKE THE SCENARIO FOR A GAR. WE SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AT THAT TIME, BUT WE CONTINUED. AT ABOUT 1300 FT, TWR TOLD US TO GO AROUND DUE TO AN ACFT ON THE RWY AND TO CLB TO 2500 FT. WE COMMENCED THE GAR, BUT THE AUTOPLT DID NOT CAPTURE THE 2500 FT ALT DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE THRUST. WE FINALLY DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND STOPPED AT 3600 FT THEN DSNDED TO THE 2500 FT GAR ALT. UNFORTUNATELY, THE EXCESSIVE CLB AND DSCNT RATE CAUSED PAX DISCOMFORT DUE TO HIGH G-LOADS. SINCE THE VISIBILITY FOR RNAV 27 WAS STILL BELOW OUR REQUIREMENTS, WE WERE OFFERED BY ATC THE ILS APCH TO RWY 9. DURING THE VECTORING THERE WAS SOME CONSTERNATION AND CONFUSION WITH ATC AND THE TWR AS TO WHETHER WE WERE GOING TO DO THE RNAV OR ILS TO RWY 9. I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION BTWN ATC APCH AND THE SAN TWR. HOWEVER, THE EVENTUAL ILS APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EVENTS: 1) SAN ATC'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS FOR THE RNAV APCH. 2) WE WERE INTENT UPON COMMENCING THE APCH AND SHOULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO GO AROUND MUCH EARLIER. 3) THE RNAV APCH ALTHOUGH A GPS APCH STILL LACKS VERSATILITY. THE GLIDE PATH SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF INTERCEPT OUTSIDE OF THE FAF JUST AS AN ILS APCH. CURRENTLY, YOU MUST BE AT YOUR FAF ALT TO CAPTURE THE GLIDE PATH, OTHERWISE THE AUTOPLT WILL NEVER CAPTURE. IT IS A MATTER OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING. MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT IN THE 'REAL WORLD' THE VOR OR LOC APCHS ON THE AUTOPLT ARE MORE ACCURATE THAN THE RNAV APCHS. THE RNAV APCHS (GPS) ARE TO BE THE NON PRECISION APCHS OF THE FUTURE. BUT, THE 'CAPTURE' REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RNAV WORK ONLY IF ALL THE ELEMENTS ARE PERFECT AS IN A SIMULATOR SIT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT HIS COMPANY HAS IMPLEMENTED A POLICY TO ONLY CONDUCT APCHS THAT HAVE A COMPLETE AND FULLY OPERABLE ILS SYS, PUBLISHED RNAV OR AUGMENTED GPS APCH SEGMENT. THEREFORE, ALL OTHER APCHS, AND THE APPLICABLE APCH PLATES, HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FLC INVENTORY. THAT IS WHY THE FLC ENTERED INTO A CONVERSATION WITH SCT APCH CTL ABOUT WHICH APCH THEY COULD AND COULD NOT SHOOT. WITHOUT AN APPROPRIATE AND AUTH COMPANY APCH CHART, THEY THEORETICALLY COULD NOT EVEN CONDUCT AN INST APCH. COMPLICATING THIS COMPANY PROC IS THE SOFTWARE BASED AND DRIVEN AIRBUS AUTOFLT SYS. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT AN RNAV APCH, THE COMPUTER HAS TO RECOGNIZETHAT THE ACFT IS NOT ABOVE THE GS -- HORIZ COURSE CORRECTIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED ANYWHERE ALONG THE INST RTE OF FLT. THE PLT MUST FLY THE ACFT INTO A POS AT OR BELOW THE GS OR ENTER AN INTXN THAT IS BEHIND THE ACFT AND THAT HAS AN ALT BELOW THE PROJECTED GS. THEN THE ACFT SOFTWARE WILL 'CATCH' THE APCH AND CONTINUE A NORMAL DSCNT. THE RPTR ADVISED THAT COMPANY APPEARS TO BE BEHIND IN NOTIFYING THE FAA OF ITS PROCEDURAL CHANGE. THE RPTR HAS HAD TO CALL THE AIR TFC FACILITIES HIMSELF OCCASIONALLY TO BRIEF THE 'WHAT AND WHY' OF THEIR COMPANY PROCS.

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.