Destabilized approach by an A320 flight crew during a centerline overshoot at las.

Attributes
ACN	633300
Time
Date	200410
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : las.airport
State Reference	NV
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : las.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time total : 7400 flight time type : 3200
ASRS Report	633300
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : company policies other anomaly other anomaly other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : 3
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Environmental Factor Flight Crew Human Performance Airspace Structure ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Captain flying with FAA inspector in jumpseat. Visual approach to runway 25L changed to visual approach to runway 19L. On left downwind runway 19L, told to turn direct stratosphere, for traffic, it would help us out, but turn final at or above 3500 ft MSL. On left base to runway 19L, PF overshot runway 19L&right centerline. PF didn't brief me on the maneuver, so I was late to report this to tower controller. He stated no problem, no traffic in our area. To lose altitude, PF was then turning back through both ctrlines as the second part of our s-turns. Then on the left side of runway 19L centerline, below 500 ft AGL, PF was turning to right to intercept centerline. At that point, I called 500 ft callout as plus 10, sink 9, landing memo green. (Actual altitude was about 300 ft AGL.) PF lined up with runway 19L centerline at about 200 ft AGL, and landing was normal and uneventful from that point on. The problem is, we were not at the approach gate within flight manual limits. In fact, at 500 ft AGL, the speed was +15 KTS and the sink rate was 1200 FPM. Postflt discussion with FAA inspector included he thought we were too late in calling the overshoot, sometimes many helicopters on strip. Captain and I agree we should have executed a go around. I made the error of not calling go around when it was clear we would not meet the 500 ft gate limits. I will say, if the 500 ft gate limit didn't exist, the approach and landing were within the limits of the aircraft and flight crew's training ability -- nothing more than a circling approach, ie, expressway visual runway 31 lga, river visual runway 19 dca. In retrospect, I needed to be more assertive in my feelings that the 500 ft gate was not within limits, and commanded a go around. Last note: the las TRACON set this up by asking for a tight base turn, then keeping us high. I feel many times in las airspace this agency does this too often, but most times the crews get the plane down so everybody is happy. I will never accept such a shortcut from ATC to help them out. They won't get violated if it doesn't go well -- and we have a potentially higher price to pay!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DESTABILIZED APCH BY AN A320 FLT CREW DURING A CTRLINE OVERSHOOT AT LAS.

Narrative: CAPT FLYING WITH FAA INSPECTOR IN JUMPSEAT. VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25L CHANGED TO VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19L. ON L DOWNWIND RWY 19L, TOLD TO TURN DIRECT STRATOSPHERE, FOR TFC, IT WOULD HELP US OUT, BUT TURN FINAL AT OR ABOVE 3500 FT MSL. ON L BASE TO RWY 19L, PF OVERSHOT RWY 19L&R CTRLINE. PF DIDN'T BRIEF ME ON THE MANEUVER, SO I WAS LATE TO RPT THIS TO TWR CTLR. HE STATED NO PROB, NO TFC IN OUR AREA. TO LOSE ALT, PF WAS THEN TURNING BACK THROUGH BOTH CTRLINES AS THE SECOND PART OF OUR S-TURNS. THEN ON THE L SIDE OF RWY 19L CTRLINE, BELOW 500 FT AGL, PF WAS TURNING TO R TO INTERCEPT CTRLINE. AT THAT POINT, I CALLED 500 FT CALLOUT AS PLUS 10, SINK 9, LNDG MEMO GREEN. (ACTUAL ALT WAS ABOUT 300 FT AGL.) PF LINED UP WITH RWY 19L CTRLINE AT ABOUT 200 FT AGL, AND LNDG WAS NORMAL AND UNEVENTFUL FROM THAT POINT ON. THE PROB IS, WE WERE NOT AT THE APCH GATE WITHIN FLT MANUAL LIMITS. IN FACT, AT 500 FT AGL, THE SPD WAS +15 KTS AND THE SINK RATE WAS 1200 FPM. POSTFLT DISCUSSION WITH FAA INSPECTOR INCLUDED HE THOUGHT WE WERE TOO LATE IN CALLING THE OVERSHOOT, SOMETIMES MANY HELIS ON STRIP. CAPT AND I AGREE WE SHOULD HAVE EXECUTED A GAR. I MADE THE ERROR OF NOT CALLING GAR WHEN IT WAS CLR WE WOULD NOT MEET THE 500 FT GATE LIMITS. I WILL SAY, IF THE 500 FT GATE LIMIT DIDN'T EXIST, THE APCH AND LNDG WERE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ACFT AND FLT CREW'S TRAINING ABILITY -- NOTHING MORE THAN A CIRCLING APCH, IE, EXPRESSWAY VISUAL RWY 31 LGA, RIVER VISUAL RWY 19 DCA. IN RETROSPECT, I NEEDED TO BE MORE ASSERTIVE IN MY FEELINGS THAT THE 500 FT GATE WAS NOT WITHIN LIMITS, AND COMMANDED A GAR. LAST NOTE: THE LAS TRACON SET THIS UP BY ASKING FOR A TIGHT BASE TURN, THEN KEEPING US HIGH. I FEEL MANY TIMES IN LAS AIRSPACE THIS AGENCY DOES THIS TOO OFTEN, BUT MOST TIMES THE CREWS GET THE PLANE DOWN SO EVERYBODY IS HAPPY. I WILL NEVER ACCEPT SUCH A SHORTCUT FROM ATC TO HELP THEM OUT. THEY WON'T GET VIOLATED IF IT DOESN'T GO WELL -- AND WE HAVE A POTENTIALLY HIGHER PRICE TO PAY!

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.