 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Spacing problem occurs at ewr when an A320 makes a circling approach and a B777 makes a straight-in approach resulting in a simultaneous go around situation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 547264 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200205 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : ewr.airport |
| State Reference | NJ |
| Altitude | agl single value : 800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : ewr.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B777-200 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 22l other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : ewr.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | A320 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 22l other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : circling |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 185 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 875 |
| ASRS Report | 547264 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne critical incursion : landing without clearance inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter other non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb other other : 3 |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued advisory flight crew : took precautionary avoidance action flight crew : landed as precaution flight crew : executed go around flight crew : took evasive action other |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 10000 vertical : 200 |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Operational Error |
Narrative:
Ewr approach control offered us runway 22L or the shorter runway 29 (6500 ft) for landing. We chose runway 22L. We were assigned 180 KTS until the OM by approach control. A320 ahead of us was flying an ILS runway 22L circle to land runway 29. Winds were 310 degrees at 15 KTS gusting to 25 KTS. We switched to ewr tower frequency and slowed to approach speed at OM. Ewr tower told us to continue the visual ILS runway 22L, but that we were not cleared to land. Tower then said that we may have to go around if the converging visual approach didn't have spacing. We said ok and that we had the A320 in sight. I told the flying first officer to prepare for a go around as the spacing did not look good to me. Ewr tower then asked us to do an s-turn (at about 3 mi final) so 'that should make the spacing work out.' first officer did an s-turn to the right and then back towards the ILS course. Spacing still did not look good so I told first officer to go around. As he advanced throttles and began to pitch up, we noticed that the A320 had already begun to go around and was turning with his belly to us into our go around path. I then told the first officer to go back to the approach and continue to a landing, as this seemed the safest procedure. Radio was cluttered with go around calls from A320, directions to A320 from tower and possible 1 other aircraft. I called on short final to tower to 'confirm that we are cleared to land on runway 22L.' tower was still busy talking to other aircraft and did not respond. We elected to land as the safest procedure, rather than a go around in close proximity to the A320. After parking at the gate, I called the ewr tower supervisor on the phone and talked to him about the approach. He concurred that we made the right decision and was glad that we landed, rather than going around. In the future, I will try to anticipate the ground speed differences between aircraft (in our case approximately 50 KTS difference) and plan to go around earlier when 'it just doesn't look like it will work.'
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SPACING PROB OCCURS AT EWR WHEN AN A320 MAKES A CIRCLING APCH AND A B777 MAKES A STRAIGHT-IN APCH RESULTING IN A SIMULTANEOUS GAR SIT.
Narrative: EWR APCH CTL OFFERED US RWY 22L OR THE SHORTER RWY 29 (6500 FT) FOR LNDG. WE CHOSE RWY 22L. WE WERE ASSIGNED 180 KTS UNTIL THE OM BY APCH CTL. A320 AHEAD OF US WAS FLYING AN ILS RWY 22L CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 29. WINDS WERE 310 DEGS AT 15 KTS GUSTING TO 25 KTS. WE SWITCHED TO EWR TWR FREQ AND SLOWED TO APCH SPD AT OM. EWR TWR TOLD US TO CONTINUE THE VISUAL ILS RWY 22L, BUT THAT WE WERE NOT CLRED TO LAND. TWR THEN SAID THAT WE MAY HAVE TO GO AROUND IF THE CONVERGING VISUAL APCH DIDN'T HAVE SPACING. WE SAID OK AND THAT WE HAD THE A320 IN SIGHT. I TOLD THE FLYING FO TO PREPARE FOR A GAR AS THE SPACING DID NOT LOOK GOOD TO ME. EWR TWR THEN ASKED US TO DO AN S-TURN (AT ABOUT 3 MI FINAL) SO 'THAT SHOULD MAKE THE SPACING WORK OUT.' FO DID AN S-TURN TO THE R AND THEN BACK TOWARDS THE ILS COURSE. SPACING STILL DID NOT LOOK GOOD SO I TOLD FO TO GO AROUND. AS HE ADVANCED THROTTLES AND BEGAN TO PITCH UP, WE NOTICED THAT THE A320 HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO GO AROUND AND WAS TURNING WITH HIS BELLY TO US INTO OUR GAR PATH. I THEN TOLD THE FO TO GO BACK TO THE APCH AND CONTINUE TO A LNDG, AS THIS SEEMED THE SAFEST PROC. RADIO WAS CLUTTERED WITH GAR CALLS FROM A320, DIRECTIONS TO A320 FROM TWR AND POSSIBLE 1 OTHER ACFT. I CALLED ON SHORT FINAL TO TWR TO 'CONFIRM THAT WE ARE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 22L.' TWR WAS STILL BUSY TALKING TO OTHER ACFT AND DID NOT RESPOND. WE ELECTED TO LAND AS THE SAFEST PROC, RATHER THAN A GAR IN CLOSE PROX TO THE A320. AFTER PARKING AT THE GATE, I CALLED THE EWR TWR SUPVR ON THE PHONE AND TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE APCH. HE CONCURRED THAT WE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND WAS GLAD THAT WE LANDED, RATHER THAN GOING AROUND. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL TRY TO ANTICIPATE THE GND SPD DIFFERENCES BTWN ACFT (IN OUR CASE APPROX 50 KTS DIFFERENCE) AND PLAN TO GO AROUND EARLIER WHEN 'IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT WILL WORK.'
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.