37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 542892 |
Time | |
Date | 200203 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : pit.airport |
State Reference | PA |
Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : pit.tracon |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B717 (Formerly MD-95) |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | other |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Aircraft 2 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : syr.tracon |
Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
Flight Phase | descent : approach |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 17000 flight time type : 1000 |
ASRS Report | 542892 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : clearance other anomaly other other spatial deviation |
Independent Detector | atc equipment other atc equipment : radar other controllera other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance |
Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
Miss Distance | horizontal : 6000 vertical : 1000 |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Airport Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation Intra Facility Coordination Failure |
Narrative:
Approached field on vector at 5000 ft. Given easterly heading until about 4-5 mi east of field. Had been told by initial approach frequency to expect visual to runway 32. Over field, frequency change made, and when east of field, a turn to south and descent to 3000 ft given. When field called in sight, given a heading of 250 degrees and cleared visual runway 28R. I was the captain and flying the aircraft. I believe the loud aural alert for altitude change (4000 ft for 3000 ft) obscured the runway assignment, and I did not pick it up. The first officer read it back, but due to being new on the airplane, and unsure of the relationship to field, particularly since we had been given a heading of 250 degrees said nothing for a while. I had visual contact with an aircraft to the left, and stayed clear of him. Finally the first officer asked if we were going to runway 28R about the time approach asked us the same thing. We were given a heading change, and climb for resequencing to the airport. Given a frequency change, we were told to expect runway 28L, and set the navigation gear up appropriately. After being vectored to base leg, we were cleared visual approach runway 28R. This is not the first time I have been surprised by this approach control. They do not routinely verify assigned runway when given approach frequency change, and it is common to be told to expect runway 'a' by one frequency, then change to another controller and be vectored and cleared, in a routine voice, approach to runway 'B.' it can be very confusing. As alluded to in the narrative, the aural altitude alert and stabilizer trim alert are very loud and tend to block communication.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B712 CREW, ARRIVING PIT, PLANNED AN APCH TO THEIR EXPECTED RWY, INSTEAD OF THEIR ASSIGNED RWY.
Narrative: APCHED FIELD ON VECTOR AT 5000 FT. GIVEN EASTERLY HDG UNTIL ABOUT 4-5 MI E OF FIELD. HAD BEEN TOLD BY INITIAL APCH FREQ TO EXPECT VISUAL TO RWY 32. OVER FIELD, FREQ CHANGE MADE, AND WHEN E OF FIELD, A TURN TO S AND DSCNT TO 3000 FT GIVEN. WHEN FIELD CALLED IN SIGHT, GIVEN A HDG OF 250 DEGS AND CLRED VISUAL RWY 28R. I WAS THE CAPT AND FLYING THE ACFT. I BELIEVE THE LOUD AURAL ALERT FOR ALT CHANGE (4000 FT FOR 3000 FT) OBSCURED THE RWY ASSIGNMENT, AND I DID NOT PICK IT UP. THE FO READ IT BACK, BUT DUE TO BEING NEW ON THE AIRPLANE, AND UNSURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP TO FIELD, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HAD BEEN GIVEN A HDG OF 250 DEGS SAID NOTHING FOR A WHILE. I HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH AN ACFT TO THE L, AND STAYED CLR OF HIM. FINALLY THE FO ASKED IF WE WERE GOING TO RWY 28R ABOUT THE TIME APCH ASKED US THE SAME THING. WE WERE GIVEN A HDG CHANGE, AND CLB FOR RESEQUENCING TO THE ARPT. GIVEN A FREQ CHANGE, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 28L, AND SET THE NAV GEAR UP APPROPRIATELY. AFTER BEING VECTORED TO BASE LEG, WE WERE CLRED VISUAL APCH RWY 28R. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE BEEN SURPRISED BY THIS APCH CTL. THEY DO NOT ROUTINELY VERIFY ASSIGNED RWY WHEN GIVEN APCH FREQ CHANGE, AND IT IS COMMON TO BE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 'A' BY ONE FREQ, THEN CHANGE TO ANOTHER CTLR AND BE VECTORED AND CLRED, IN A ROUTINE VOICE, APCH TO RWY 'B.' IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING. AS ALLUDED TO IN THE NARRATIVE, THE AURAL ALT ALERT AND STABILIZER TRIM ALERT ARE VERY LOUD AND TEND TO BLOCK COM.
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.