 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A230 flight crew execute go around due to an unstable approach caused by L30 approach sequence and runway change and potential conflict with another air carrier on approach to another runway.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 590977 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200308 |
| Day | Sun |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : las.airport |
| State Reference | NV |
| Altitude | msl single value : 5100 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : l30.tracon |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | A320 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing : go around |
| Route In Use | arrival star : ksino |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : l30.tracon |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| ASRS Report | 590977 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | conflict : airborne less severe inflight encounter : weather other anomaly |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : executed go around |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Weather Environmental Factor Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
Narrative:
Upon arrival to las via the ksino STAR, we were planning runway 25L. Approaching luxor, we were changed to runway 19L, which has no approach guidance. We loaded the runway in the FMGC and planned a visual approach. Since neither one of us had done this arrival, we planned an entrance over the runway with a right downwind. What we got was a slam-dunk left base. They had kept our speed up and we had to cross over a mountain range at 5100 ft (MVA is 5000 ft, we were at 210 KTS). Trying to slow to configure the airplane and get the gear down for our slam-dunk (gear down, flaps 3 degrees and speed 170 KTS), we realized that we were unable to be stable and the approach was abandoned. Now we were being vectored to the right downwind, however, now we had conflicting traffic overhead (air carrier landing runway 19L). ATC did a good job vectoring us around him. We were then cleared for the visual approach to runway 19L. The problem I see here is not the arrival to runway 19L (which now I know that I have to be configured and slowed over the mountain to get down), but the use of runway 7 for departures while the primary runway is 25. During the numerous arrs over the 3 days that flew into las, the operation of departing runway 7 while the primary departures were going off runway 25 seemed dangerous and caused delays for departing and arriving traffic. I only noticed one carrier using runway 7 a lot. I did a pull up of our weights each time I saw a departure off runway 7 and we were unable to depart runway 7, mainly because of the tailwind factor that was taking place. I know we have a 10 KT limit -- I am real curious what their limit is? I did call the tower and inquired about the procedure. They were real helpful and explained that it happens a lot and they are not happy about it, but if a carrier asks for the runway, they try to accommodate them. However, it causes delays for other departures and arrs.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A230 FLT CREW EXECUTE GAR DUE TO AN UNSTABLE APCH CAUSED BY L30 APCH SEQUENCE AND RWY CHANGE AND POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACR ON APCH TO ANOTHER RWY.
Narrative: UPON ARR TO LAS VIA THE KSINO STAR, WE WERE PLANNING RWY 25L. APCHING LUXOR, WE WERE CHANGED TO RWY 19L, WHICH HAS NO APCH GUIDANCE. WE LOADED THE RWY IN THE FMGC AND PLANNED A VISUAL APCH. SINCE NEITHER ONE OF US HAD DONE THIS ARR, WE PLANNED AN ENTRANCE OVER THE RWY WITH A R DOWNWIND. WHAT WE GOT WAS A SLAM-DUNK L BASE. THEY HAD KEPT OUR SPD UP AND WE HAD TO CROSS OVER A MOUNTAIN RANGE AT 5100 FT (MVA IS 5000 FT, WE WERE AT 210 KTS). TRYING TO SLOW TO CONFIGURE THE AIRPLANE AND GET THE GEAR DOWN FOR OUR SLAM-DUNK (GEAR DOWN, FLAPS 3 DEGS AND SPD 170 KTS), WE REALIZED THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO BE STABLE AND THE APCH WAS ABANDONED. NOW WE WERE BEING VECTORED TO THE R DOWNWIND, HOWEVER, NOW WE HAD CONFLICTING TFC OVERHEAD (ACR LNDG RWY 19L). ATC DID A GOOD JOB VECTORING US AROUND HIM. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19L. THE PROB I SEE HERE IS NOT THE ARR TO RWY 19L (WHICH NOW I KNOW THAT I HAVE TO BE CONFIGURED AND SLOWED OVER THE MOUNTAIN TO GET DOWN), BUT THE USE OF RWY 7 FOR DEPS WHILE THE PRIMARY RWY IS 25. DURING THE NUMEROUS ARRS OVER THE 3 DAYS THAT FLEW INTO LAS, THE OP OF DEPARTING RWY 7 WHILE THE PRIMARY DEPS WERE GOING OFF RWY 25 SEEMED DANGEROUS AND CAUSED DELAYS FOR DEPARTING AND ARRIVING TFC. I ONLY NOTICED ONE CARRIER USING RWY 7 A LOT. I DID A PULL UP OF OUR WTS EACH TIME I SAW A DEP OFF RWY 7 AND WE WERE UNABLE TO DEPART RWY 7, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE TAILWIND FACTOR THAT WAS TAKING PLACE. I KNOW WE HAVE A 10 KT LIMIT -- I AM REAL CURIOUS WHAT THEIR LIMIT IS? I DID CALL THE TWR AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROC. THEY WERE REAL HELPFUL AND EXPLAINED THAT IT HAPPENS A LOT AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT IF A CARRIER ASKS FOR THE RWY, THEY TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM. HOWEVER, IT CAUSES DELAYS FOR OTHER DEPS AND ARRS.
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.