Radar controller at bay approach vectored a B757 for a runway different than was broadcast on the cu...

Attributes
ACN	551945
Time
Date	200206
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 3000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : o90.tracon tower : zzz.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other other vortac
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument non precision arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
ASRS Report	551945
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance none taken : detected after the fact other
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

As we approached landfall, sjc ATIS called for either a VOR or visual approach to runway 30R. At landfall, it was evident that a visual approach could not be conducted, so we set up for the VOR runway 30R approach. ATIS was rechked and still found to be the same. Bay approach gave us a heading of 030 degrees which we assumed was a delay vector. Bay then gave us a heading of 300 degrees and then 290 degrees. Both of these were assumed to delay vectors. Bay approach never at any time mentioned the runway or approach to be used. At about 8 mi from the sjc VOR we were turned to 090 degrees, cleared to 3000 ft and cleared for the VOR-a approach to runway 12L. This was quite a surprise, but due to having the sjc charts out, and quickly setting up the FMC, radio altimeter, MDA, and VOR settings a normal approach was conducted. ATC should have told us of the change in runway and approach. Upon being handed over to a strange approach frequency (normal is 120.1) and being issued non normal headings, we should have queried bay approach as to what was going on. Example: 'is this a delay vector?' 'is this for runway 30R?' in a strange environment, refusal of the approach clearance would have been proper action.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RADAR CTLR AT BAY APCH VECTORED A B757 FOR A RWY DIFFERENT THAN WAS BROADCAST ON THE CURRENT ATIS.

Narrative: AS WE APCHED LANDFALL, SJC ATIS CALLED FOR EITHER A VOR OR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 30R. AT LANDFALL, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT A VISUAL APCH COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED, SO WE SET UP FOR THE VOR RWY 30R APCH. ATIS WAS RECHKED AND STILL FOUND TO BE THE SAME. BAY APCH GAVE US A HDG OF 030 DEGS WHICH WE ASSUMED WAS A DELAY VECTOR. BAY THEN GAVE US A HDG OF 300 DEGS AND THEN 290 DEGS. BOTH OF THESE WERE ASSUMED TO DELAY VECTORS. BAY APCH NEVER AT ANY TIME MENTIONED THE RWY OR APCH TO BE USED. AT ABOUT 8 MI FROM THE SJC VOR WE WERE TURNED TO 090 DEGS, CLRED TO 3000 FT AND CLRED FOR THE VOR-A APCH TO RWY 12L. THIS WAS QUITE A SURPRISE, BUT DUE TO HAVING THE SJC CHARTS OUT, AND QUICKLY SETTING UP THE FMC, RADIO ALTIMETER, MDA, AND VOR SETTINGS A NORMAL APCH WAS CONDUCTED. ATC SHOULD HAVE TOLD US OF THE CHANGE IN RWY AND APCH. UPON BEING HANDED OVER TO A STRANGE APCH FREQ (NORMAL IS 120.1) AND BEING ISSUED NON NORMAL HDGS, WE SHOULD HAVE QUERIED BAY APCH AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON. EXAMPLE: 'IS THIS A DELAY VECTOR?' 'IS THIS FOR RWY 30R?' IN A STRANGE ENVIRONMENT, REFUSAL OF THE APCH CLRNC WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER ACTION.

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.

Radar controller at bay approach vectored a B757 for a runway different than was broadcast on the current ATIS.