Narrative:

Flight operating under far part 121 was being vectored for a visual approach for runway 24R at lax. ATC advised us to look for an MD80 turning base to final over the interstate-405 while we were on the downwind vector. Upon both crew members confirming visual contact with the preceding traffic, ATC was then advised that the aircraft was 'in sight.' ATC then promptly cleared our flight for a visual approach to runway 24 with right turn to heading 220 degrees to follow the aircraft on final. A fairly steep descending turn was established in order to minimize the time I was unable to maintain visual contact with the traffic, and most importantly, to avoid overshooting runway 24L final approach course. The steep bank angle coupled with a turn away from my seat position in the aircraft obviously presented a challenge to maintain visual contact while in the turn. During this time, I called for the before landing checks to be completed and ATC then instructed us to contact the tower. The ensuing high workload and distrs from completing landing checks and establishing radio contact with the tower diverted my first officer's attention from maintaining visual with the preceding aircraft. Upon completing the turn, I observed a low coastal stratus layer of clouds now obscuring the approach end of the runway 24 complex. Upon rolling out on the assigned heading, visual contact with our traffic was now lost as it entered the cloud deck approximately 1 NM from the threshold. As soon as radio contact with lax tower was established, the controller urgently warned that our flight was 'well south of course.' the runway our aircraft was pointing at happened to be the runway 25 complex. I immediately corrected our course back towards the runway 24 complex. But, the low clouds obscuring the threshold of runway 24R and the awkward alignment of our aircraft made it extremely difficult to land using 'normal maneuvering and a normal rate of descent.' a decision was made to abort the approach and go around. Tower instructed us to, 'fly runway heading and maintain 2000 ft.' I then advised the tower that they needed to call socal TRACON and inform them that visual were ill-advised. Our flight was then vectored for an ILS to runway 24R. Approach and landing were uneventful. Upon landing, I was expecting the tower to have us 'copy a number' for a call to TRACON. But, no call was required. My first officer and I reviewed the events that transpired and reasoned that the meteorological conditions, disorientation, and high workload during a night visual approach were the contributing factors leading to a breakdown in CRM, and the resultant deviation. It should be noted that while on the downwind, the obscuring phenomena that led to our disorientation with the planned runway was determined to be marginal for conducting visuals, but nonetheless possible as the threshold was still in view. Upon proceeding further away from the runway, the low visibility and different perspective now created the right conditions for losing sight of the runway environment. This was determined only after we rolled out on final. However, with the preceding aircraft in sight, requirements to conduct a visual approach were still met. This was our impetus for accepting the visual approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH TO WRONG RWY DURING A HDG TRACK DEV ON A NIGHT VISUAL APCH BY AN EMB120 FLC TO RWY 24R AT LAX, CA.

Narrative: FLT OPERATING UNDER FAR PART 121 WAS BEING VECTORED FOR A VISUAL APCH FOR RWY 24R AT LAX. ATC ADVISED US TO LOOK FOR AN MD80 TURNING BASE TO FINAL OVER THE INTERSTATE-405 WHILE WE WERE ON THE DOWNWIND VECTOR. UPON BOTH CREW MEMBERS CONFIRMING VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE PRECEDING TFC, ATC WAS THEN ADVISED THAT THE ACFT WAS 'IN SIGHT.' ATC THEN PROMPTLY CLRED OUR FLT FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24 WITH R TURN TO HDG 220 DEGS TO FOLLOW THE ACFT ON FINAL. A FAIRLY STEEP DSNDING TURN WAS ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE TIME I WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE TFC, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO AVOID OVERSHOOTING RWY 24L FINAL APCH COURSE. THE STEEP BANK ANGLE COUPLED WITH A TURN AWAY FROM MY SEAT POS IN THE ACFT OBVIOUSLY PRESENTED A CHALLENGE TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT WHILE IN THE TURN. DURING THIS TIME, I CALLED FOR THE BEFORE LNDG CHKS TO BE COMPLETED AND ATC THEN INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE ENSUING HIGH WORKLOAD AND DISTRS FROM COMPLETING LNDG CHKS AND ESTABLISHING RADIO CONTACT WITH THE TWR DIVERTED MY FO'S ATTN FROM MAINTAINING VISUAL WITH THE PRECEDING ACFT. UPON COMPLETING THE TURN, I OBSERVED A LOW COASTAL STRATUS LAYER OF CLOUDS NOW OBSCURING THE APCH END OF THE RWY 24 COMPLEX. UPON ROLLING OUT ON THE ASSIGNED HDG, VISUAL CONTACT WITH OUR TFC WAS NOW LOST AS IT ENTERED THE CLOUD DECK APPROX 1 NM FROM THE THRESHOLD. AS SOON AS RADIO CONTACT WITH LAX TWR WAS ESTABLISHED, THE CTLR URGENTLY WARNED THAT OUR FLT WAS 'WELL S OF COURSE.' THE RWY OUR ACFT WAS POINTING AT HAPPENED TO BE THE RWY 25 COMPLEX. I IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED OUR COURSE BACK TOWARDS THE RWY 24 COMPLEX. BUT, THE LOW CLOUDS OBSCURING THE THRESHOLD OF RWY 24R AND THE AWKWARD ALIGNMENT OF OUR ACFT MADE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO LAND USING 'NORMAL MANEUVERING AND A NORMAL RATE OF DSCNT.' A DECISION WAS MADE TO ABORT THE APCH AND GO AROUND. TWR INSTRUCTED US TO, 'FLY RWY HDG AND MAINTAIN 2000 FT.' I THEN ADVISED THE TWR THAT THEY NEEDED TO CALL SOCAL TRACON AND INFORM THEM THAT VISUAL WERE ILL-ADVISED. OUR FLT WAS THEN VECTORED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 24R. APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. UPON LNDG, I WAS EXPECTING THE TWR TO HAVE US 'COPY A NUMBER' FOR A CALL TO TRACON. BUT, NO CALL WAS REQUIRED. MY FO AND I REVIEWED THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED AND REASONED THAT THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS, DISORIENTATION, AND HIGH WORKLOAD DURING A NIGHT VISUAL APCH WERE THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS LEADING TO A BREAKDOWN IN CRM, AND THE RESULTANT DEV. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WHILE ON THE DOWNWIND, THE OBSCURING PHENOMENA THAT LED TO OUR DISORIENTATION WITH THE PLANNED RWY WAS DETERMINED TO BE MARGINAL FOR CONDUCTING VISUALS, BUT NONETHELESS POSSIBLE AS THE THRESHOLD WAS STILL IN VIEW. UPON PROCEEDING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RWY, THE LOW VISIBILITY AND DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE NOW CREATED THE RIGHT CONDITIONS FOR LOSING SIGHT OF THE RWY ENVIRONMENT. THIS WAS DETERMINED ONLY AFTER WE ROLLED OUT ON FINAL. HOWEVER, WITH THE PRECEDING ACFT IN SIGHT, REQUIREMENTS TO CONDUCT A VISUAL APCH WERE STILL MET. THIS WAS OUR IMPETUS FOR ACCEPTING THE VISUAL APCH.

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.