 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew of MD80 mistakenly identify edf as hou and initiate visual approach. Approach abandoned when mistake realized.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 602772 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200312 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : hou.airport |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl single value : 3000 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : hou&.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : 12 other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual approach : traffic pattern |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| ASRS Report | 602772 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial |
| ASRS Report | 602774 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : clearance other anomaly other spatial deviation |
| Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : fmc ins other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : overrode automation flight crew : executed go around flight crew : overcame equipment problem |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Navigational Facility Flight Crew Human Performance Environmental Factor Chart Or Publication ATC Human Performance Airport |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Flight was cleared from a right base for the visual to runway 30L at houston hobby. The hobby VOR (hub) was OTS and the aircraft had a 2 NM position INS error. We started to fly to ellington before executing a missed approach because both the captain and first officer thought it didn't look right. We asked for position confirmation and approach vectors from ATC. The landing was uneventful. 1) to prevent other aircrews from mistaking ellington for houston hobby while landing runway 30L, please put a cautionary note in our approach airport pages. I discussed this in great detail with hou tower and they said ellington is mistaken for hou runway 30L on a regular basis. 2) the S80 INS aircraft has an FMC that does not allow the pilot to verify the reasonableness of a navigational fix before executing the fix. The ILS, DME, iupu, runway 20L did not agree with the FMC information. When a fix is entered into the FMC, the FMC shows the course to the point, but not the distance. It is therefore not possible to continuously monitor the course and distance to a fix. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the captain stressed the issue he feels exists with the FMS on these aircraft. He states it differs in function from other system when a 'direct to' command is inserted but not activated. Specifically stressing the lack of 'distance to' display to the modified but unexecuted waypoint.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLT CREW OF MD80 MISTAKENLY IDENT EDF AS HOU AND INITIATE VISUAL APCH. APCH ABANDONED WHEN MISTAKE REALIZED.
Narrative: FLT WAS CLRED FROM A R BASE FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 30L AT HOUSTON HOBBY. THE HOBBY VOR (HUB) WAS OTS AND THE ACFT HAD A 2 NM POS INS ERROR. WE STARTED TO FLY TO ELLINGTON BEFORE EXECUTING A MISSED APCH BECAUSE BOTH THE CAPT AND FO THOUGHT IT DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT. WE ASKED FOR POS CONFIRMATION AND APCH VECTORS FROM ATC. THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. 1) TO PREVENT OTHER AIRCREWS FROM MISTAKING ELLINGTON FOR HOUSTON HOBBY WHILE LNDG RWY 30L, PLEASE PUT A CAUTIONARY NOTE IN OUR APCH ARPT PAGES. I DISCUSSED THIS IN GREAT DETAIL WITH HOU TWR AND THEY SAID ELLINGTON IS MISTAKEN FOR HOU RWY 30L ON A REGULAR BASIS. 2) THE S80 INS ACFT HAS AN FMC THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THE PLT TO VERIFY THE REASONABLENESS OF A NAVIGATIONAL FIX BEFORE EXECUTING THE FIX. THE ILS, DME, IUPU, RWY 20L DID NOT AGREE WITH THE FMC INFO. WHEN A FIX IS ENTERED INTO THE FMC, THE FMC SHOWS THE COURSE TO THE POINT, BUT NOT THE DISTANCE. IT IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE TO CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR THE COURSE AND DISTANCE TO A FIX. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CAPT STRESSED THE ISSUE HE FEELS EXISTS WITH THE FMS ON THESE ACFT. HE STATES IT DIFFERS IN FUNCTION FROM OTHER SYS WHEN A 'DIRECT TO' COMMAND IS INSERTED BUT NOT ACTIVATED. SPECIFICALLY STRESSING THE LACK OF 'DISTANCE TO' DISPLAY TO THE MODIFIED BUT UNEXECUTED WAYPOINT.
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.