Potential conflict on final approach between a B757-200 and a learjet when the B757 overshoots the t...

Attributes
ACN	620660
Time
Date	200406
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2500 msl bound upper : 3500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Weather Elements	other
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : sct.tracon tower : lax.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 24r
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : traffic pattern arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : lax.tower
Make Model Name	Gates Learjet Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
ASRS Report	620660
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
ASRS Report	620511
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical inflight encounter : weather non adherence : published procedure other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : returned to intended or assigned course
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	vertical : 700
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Airspace Structure Weather Flight Crew Human Performance Environmental Factor
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

On base leg, radar vectors to runway 24R ILS. Heading 160 degrees, controller called out a learjet south of our position for a landing on south runways and asked us to let him know when field in sight. I repeated instructions and I did not see learjet. I asked controller of traffic again. Controller came back and asked me to repeat. I repeated my request for traffic position again. Controller came back and asked if we had field in sight. Conditions were haze at night and the runway was difficult to see -- especially for captain who was on the left side on a right base for the runway. A few moments passed and then the captain saw the field. We then called it. At this time, the controller cleared us for a visual to runway 24R. We began an immediate right turn, but it was apparent that we would have a large overshoot of the runway. Controller, in an urgent voice, then told us to immediately turn back to runway 24R and then called out the learjet off our left side at 1800 ft. Supplemental information from acn 620511: on right downwind for runway 24R, we were told to expect a visual approach. We were given a base turn and told to look for a learjet at 12 O'clock position on final for the south complex. The base leg was short. Our angle to the facility was 190 degrees and, as I mentioned, the base leg was already short. First officer asked where our traffic was. As controller was answering, I got the field in sight and the localizer came alive -- all this at once. Controller said 'do you have the airport in sight?' when we answered in the affirmative, he cleared us for the visual. Of course, we overshot the final approach course in spite of my best efforts not to. The controller pointed this out as though we had controled this particular pattern. I called approach control on the phone after gate arrival and the supervisor said 'they may have had something to do with it.' that is an understatement as we did not design the short base, did not make the decision to keep us on a heading toward inbound traffic prior to turning us inbound.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT ON FINAL APCH BTWN A B757-200 AND A LEARJET WHEN THE B757 OVERSHOOTS THE TURN ONTO LOC RWY 27R, 7 MI E OF LAX, CA.

Narrative: ON BASE LEG, RADAR VECTORS TO RWY 24R ILS. HDG 160 DEGS, CTLR CALLED OUT A LEARJET S OF OUR POS FOR A LNDG ON S RWYS AND ASKED US TO LET HIM KNOW WHEN FIELD IN SIGHT. I REPEATED INSTRUCTIONS AND I DID NOT SEE LEARJET. I ASKED CTLR OF TFC AGAIN. CTLR CAME BACK AND ASKED ME TO REPEAT. I REPEATED MY REQUEST FOR TFC POS AGAIN. CTLR CAME BACK AND ASKED IF WE HAD FIELD IN SIGHT. CONDITIONS WERE HAZE AT NIGHT AND THE RWY WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE -- ESPECIALLY FOR CAPT WHO WAS ON THE L SIDE ON A R BASE FOR THE RWY. A FEW MOMENTS PASSED AND THEN THE CAPT SAW THE FIELD. WE THEN CALLED IT. AT THIS TIME, THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 24R. WE BEGAN AN IMMEDIATE R TURN, BUT IT WAS APPARENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE A LARGE OVERSHOOT OF THE RWY. CTLR, IN AN URGENT VOICE, THEN TOLD US TO IMMEDIATELY TURN BACK TO RWY 24R AND THEN CALLED OUT THE LEARJET OFF OUR L SIDE AT 1800 FT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 620511: ON R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 24R, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT A VISUAL APCH. WE WERE GIVEN A BASE TURN AND TOLD TO LOOK FOR A LEARJET AT 12 O'CLOCK POS ON FINAL FOR THE S COMPLEX. THE BASE LEG WAS SHORT. OUR ANGLE TO THE FACILITY WAS 190 DEGS AND, AS I MENTIONED, THE BASE LEG WAS ALREADY SHORT. FO ASKED WHERE OUR TFC WAS. AS CTLR WAS ANSWERING, I GOT THE FIELD IN SIGHT AND THE LOC CAME ALIVE -- ALL THIS AT ONCE. CTLR SAID 'DO YOU HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT?' WHEN WE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL. OF COURSE, WE OVERSHOT THE FINAL APCH COURSE IN SPITE OF MY BEST EFFORTS NOT TO. THE CTLR POINTED THIS OUT AS THOUGH WE HAD CTLED THIS PARTICULAR PATTERN. I CALLED APCH CTL ON THE PHONE AFTER GATE ARR AND THE SUPVR SAID 'THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.' THAT IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT AS WE DID NOT DESIGN THE SHORT BASE, DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO KEEP US ON A HDG TOWARD INBOUND TFC PRIOR TO TURNING US INBOUND.

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.

Potential conflict on final approach between a B757-200 and a learjet when the B757 overshoots the turn onto localizer runway 27R, 7 mi east of lax, ca.