FA50 flight crew, on final approach to runway 17L at dfw, listened to their boss instead of local an...

Attributes
ACN	625346
Time
Date	200407
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw.airport
State Reference	TX
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : dfw.tower
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Falcon 50
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 17l other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : captain observation : company check pilot oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 14000 flight time type : 250
ASRS Report	625346
Person 2
Affiliation	company : corporate
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 60 flight time total : 15000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	625502
Events
Anomaly	altitude deviation : undershoot non adherence : clearance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance Passenger Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Problem arose when our boss decided he did not want to land at dfw. His plans changed and he failed to inform us until on short final at dfw, runway 17L. We asked the tower if we could get a clearance to bmq because our boss had changed his plans. I told her we had a flight plan on file. We were told to continue. We shallowed our descent in expectation of a clearance out of the airspace. I told the tower a few seconds later that we would like to overfly the airport. The tower then said she would like for us to land if we could. We were too high at this time and told her we could not land, but to send us in any direction to get out of her traffic. Looking back, we should have stayed on the GS and continued to land until we were cleared on or not. I perceived it would be ok to continue in a missed approach. I really think the tower controller was trying to be helpful and gave the feeling it was ok to continue on a go around. We were given the number to call and did so on return to home base. We gave the information to the tower, as soon as we knew of the need for the change of plans. We would have been glad to land if we felt that is what was needed. It is obvious, the next time, we will be landing. Supplemental information from acn 625502: we were on a visual approach to runway 17L at dfw. All was normal until the boss runs in the cockpit and says 'I'm sorry but I forgot to tell you we don't need to land at dfw.' all worked well for us but there must have been a lot of confusion in the tower. At one point the tower asked if we could land but we were too close and too high for a normal landing. On departure we were given a phone number and advised that it was a bad way to operate. It must have caused some concern in the tower but, for us, it was no more than a 'missed approach' or 'go around.' I don't believe any far's were broken. I think, in hindsight, we should have landed, and not let the passenger's problems become a problem for the crew or ATC.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FA50 FLT CREW, ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 17L AT DFW, LISTENED TO THEIR BOSS INSTEAD OF LCL AND BROKE OFF THE ILS WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Narrative: PROB AROSE WHEN OUR BOSS DECIDED HE DID NOT WANT TO LAND AT DFW. HIS PLANS CHANGED AND HE FAILED TO INFORM US UNTIL ON SHORT FINAL AT DFW, RWY 17L. WE ASKED THE TWR IF WE COULD GET A CLRNC TO BMQ BECAUSE OUR BOSS HAD CHANGED HIS PLANS. I TOLD HER WE HAD A FLT PLAN ON FILE. WE WERE TOLD TO CONTINUE. WE SHALLOWED OUR DSCNT IN EXPECTATION OF A CLRNC OUT OF THE AIRSPACE. I TOLD THE TWR A FEW SECONDS LATER THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO OVERFLY THE ARPT. THE TWR THEN SAID SHE WOULD LIKE FOR US TO LAND IF WE COULD. WE WERE TOO HIGH AT THIS TIME AND TOLD HER WE COULD NOT LAND, BUT TO SEND US IN ANY DIRECTION TO GET OUT OF HER TFC. LOOKING BACK, WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE GS AND CONTINUED TO LAND UNTIL WE WERE CLRED ON OR NOT. I PERCEIVED IT WOULD BE OK TO CONTINUE IN A MISSED APCH. I REALLY THINK THE TWR CTLR WAS TRYING TO BE HELPFUL AND GAVE THE FEELING IT WAS OK TO CONTINUE ON A GAR. WE WERE GIVEN THE NUMBER TO CALL AND DID SO ON RETURN TO HOME BASE. WE GAVE THE INFO TO THE TWR, AS SOON AS WE KNEW OF THE NEED FOR THE CHANGE OF PLANS. WE WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO LAND IF WE FELT THAT IS WHAT WAS NEEDED. IT IS OBVIOUS, THE NEXT TIME, WE WILL BE LNDG. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 625502: WE WERE ON A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 17L AT DFW. ALL WAS NORMAL UNTIL THE BOSS RUNS IN THE COCKPIT AND SAYS 'I'M SORRY BUT I FORGOT TO TELL YOU WE DON'T NEED TO LAND AT DFW.' ALL WORKED WELL FOR US BUT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION IN THE TWR. AT ONE POINT THE TWR ASKED IF WE COULD LAND BUT WE WERE TOO CLOSE AND TOO HIGH FOR A NORMAL LNDG. ON DEP WE WERE GIVEN A PHONE NUMBER AND ADVISED THAT IT WAS A BAD WAY TO OPERATE. IT MUST HAVE CAUSED SOME CONCERN IN THE TWR BUT, FOR US, IT WAS NO MORE THAN A 'MISSED APCH' OR 'GAR.' I DON'T BELIEVE ANY FAR'S WERE BROKEN. I THINK, IN HINDSIGHT, WE SHOULD HAVE LANDED, AND NOT LET THE PAX'S PROBS BECOME A PROB FOR THE CREW OR ATC.

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.

FA50 flight crew, on final approach to runway 17L at dfw, listened to their boss instead of local and broke off the ILS without permission.