37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 577532 |
Time | |
Date | 200303 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : gon.airport |
State Reference | CT |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | IMC |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : pvd.tracon tower : gon.tower |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | Duchess 76 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 5 |
Flight Phase | descent : approach landing : go around |
Route In Use | approach : instrument precision |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | other |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : multi engine |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 45 flight time total : 1150 flight time type : 53 |
ASRS Report | 577532 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | other |
Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : cfi pilot : commercial |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 2041.3 flight time type : 70 |
ASRS Report | 577535 |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other controllerb |
Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance controller : issued alert flight crew : executed go around |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Narrative:
In IMC, we wre being vectored for the ILS runway 5 approach at groton, ct. At a distance of 10 NM from the field, we were expecting a descent to a lower altitude. We were just about to ask for a descent when ATC instructed us to climb to 5000 ft. This was to keep us clear of aircraft in the holding pattern waiting to shoot the approach. On the downwind leg, ATC clears us to 3000 ft and begins vectoring us for the approach. As we were descending, the PF called for the approach checklist. As we finished this checklist, we were cleared to 2500 ft and vectored for the base. Before we could finish the turn to heading, we received a further vector to intercept the final approach course and a descent to 2000 ft. We were cleared for the ILS runway 5, but received no instructions to contact the tower. Also, while on base, the PF discovered that the GS was inoperative. The vector for the final approach course put us very close to the FAF. We called ATC and asked for a frequency change. As we were going past the FAF, a frequency change was approved. Approximately 1 mi from the FAF, we tried to contact tower on the #2 communication, which had been working prior to our departure, but we were unable. We tried #1 and still nothing. It was during our first attempt at reaching the tower that we reported the GS failure. The PF at this point became aware of our communication problem. We did eventually, after several attempts on both radios, reach the tower and received our clearance to land. Due to the diversion of attention, however, the final approach checklist was not called for. We were on the approach and did not have the landing gear down. During the landing flare, the tower instructed us to go around because our gear was not down. The PF initiated the go around procedure immediately. The tower instructed us to fly the published missed and to contact pvd approach. Upon reaching pvd approach, we received vectors back to the final approach course. While being vectored to the base leg, we again experienced radio communication failure. The #1 communication again appeared to fail. We tried #2, and after a few attempts, resumed contact with ATC. Prior to this resumption of communications, approach instructed us to identify if we could hear the instructions, which we were able T comply with. The second approach was uneventful. All checklists were called for and completed. Upon reflection, the PF's attention to the radio problem caused him to not call for the final approach checklist which had the gear down call. My attention to the radio problem caused me not to give the PF the final approach checklist. We should not have allowed our inability to get the tower and receive a clearance to land to distract us. We should have simply initiated the missed approach procedure. Supplemental information from acn 577535: my attention to the radio problem caused me to divert my attention and not call for the final approach checklist. I should have went missed so I could troubleshoot the problem.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: DISTRS DURING AN INST APCH TO GROTON, CT, LEAD TO A TWR ORDERED GAR DURING THE LNDG GLARE BECAUSE THE LNDG GEAR IS NOT DOWN.
Narrative: IN IMC, WE WRE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 5 APCH AT GROTON, CT. AT A DISTANCE OF 10 NM FROM THE FIELD, WE WERE EXPECTING A DSCNT TO A LOWER ALT. WE WERE JUST ABOUT TO ASK FOR A DSCNT WHEN ATC INSTRUCTED US TO CLB TO 5000 FT. THIS WAS TO KEEP US CLR OF ACFT IN THE HOLDING PATTERN WAITING TO SHOOT THE APCH. ON THE DOWNWIND LEG, ATC CLRS US TO 3000 FT AND BEGINS VECTORING US FOR THE APCH. AS WE WERE DSNDING, THE PF CALLED FOR THE APCH CHKLIST. AS WE FINISHED THIS CHKLIST, WE WERE CLRED TO 2500 FT AND VECTORED FOR THE BASE. BEFORE WE COULD FINISH THE TURN TO HDG, WE RECEIVED A FURTHER VECTOR TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE AND A DSCNT TO 2000 FT. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 5, BUT RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTACT THE TWR. ALSO, WHILE ON BASE, THE PF DISCOVERED THAT THE GS WAS INOP. THE VECTOR FOR THE FINAL APCH COURSE PUT US VERY CLOSE TO THE FAF. WE CALLED ATC AND ASKED FOR A FREQ CHANGE. AS WE WERE GOING PAST THE FAF, A FREQ CHANGE WAS APPROVED. APPROX 1 MI FROM THE FAF, WE TRIED TO CONTACT TWR ON THE #2 COM, WHICH HAD BEEN WORKING PRIOR TO OUR DEP, BUT WE WERE UNABLE. WE TRIED #1 AND STILL NOTHING. IT WAS DURING OUR FIRST ATTEMPT AT REACHING THE TWR THAT WE RPTED THE GS FAILURE. THE PF AT THIS POINT BECAME AWARE OF OUR COM PROB. WE DID EVENTUALLY, AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS ON BOTH RADIOS, REACH THE TWR AND RECEIVED OUR CLRNC TO LAND. DUE TO THE DIVERSION OF ATTN, HOWEVER, THE FINAL APCH CHKLIST WAS NOT CALLED FOR. WE WERE ON THE APCH AND DID NOT HAVE THE LNDG GEAR DOWN. DURING THE LNDG FLARE, THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO GO AROUND BECAUSE OUR GEAR WAS NOT DOWN. THE PF INITIATED THE GAR PROC IMMEDIATELY. THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO FLY THE PUBLISHED MISSED AND TO CONTACT PVD APCH. UPON REACHING PVD APCH, WE RECEIVED VECTORS BACK TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE. WHILE BEING VECTORED TO THE BASE LEG, WE AGAIN EXPERIENCED RADIO COM FAILURE. THE #1 COM AGAIN APPEARED TO FAIL. WE TRIED #2, AND AFTER A FEW ATTEMPTS, RESUMED CONTACT WITH ATC. PRIOR TO THIS RESUMPTION OF COMS, APCH INSTRUCTED US TO IDENT IF WE COULD HEAR THE INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH WE WERE ABLE T COMPLY WITH. THE SECOND APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL. ALL CHKLISTS WERE CALLED FOR AND COMPLETED. UPON REFLECTION, THE PF'S ATTN TO THE RADIO PROB CAUSED HIM TO NOT CALL FOR THE FINAL APCH CHKLIST WHICH HAD THE GEAR DOWN CALL. MY ATTN TO THE RADIO PROB CAUSED ME NOT TO GIVE THE PF THE FINAL APCH CHKLIST. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED OUR INABILITY TO GET THE TWR AND RECEIVE A CLRNC TO LAND TO DISTRACT US. WE SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY INITIATED THE MISSED APCH PROC. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 577535: MY ATTN TO THE RADIO PROB CAUSED ME TO DIVERT MY ATTN AND NOT CALL FOR THE FINAL APCH CHKLIST. I SHOULD HAVE WENT MISSED SO I COULD TROUBLESHOOT THE PROB.
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.