Narrative:

We were on approach to vrb at 3000 ft MSL with vectors from ATC expecting the GPS runway 29L approach. Within bout 20 NM from the airport we were vectored onto a right downwind and asked by ZMA to set up for the VOR runway 29L approach instead. We were shortly vectored onto base leg and asked to reduce speed to minimum approach speed. I slowed the aircraft from 250 KIAS to about 165 KIAS and began to configure the aircraft. ATC made a transmission that we both could not understand due to interference; but suspected we were being cleared for the approach. The first officer advised ATC that the transmission was 'blocked' and asked to verify if we were cleared for the approach. ATC confirmed approach clearance and handed us off to vrb tower. We were still at 3000 ft MSL and intercepted the inbound course about 20 mi from the airport while still maintaining minimum airspeed. We were concerned that we had not been cleared for a lower altitude and since we would not be on a published approach segment until less than 10 mi out; we maintained 3000 ft MSL as previously cleared. We were also wondering why we were asked to maintain such a slow airspeed since the aircraft in front of us on the approach appeared to be more than 10 mi ahead. At about 15 mi from the airport and established on the final approach course; we noted an aircraft converging on TCAS at the same altitude about 5 mi out from our 2 O'clock position. The aircraft appeared to be on a right base leg to final and was moving very fast. I advised vrb tower and attempted to establish visual contact. We saw the aircraft at about 3 mi entering a hard left turn behind us and climbing slightly. We received a TA but not an RA and did not take evasive action as the aircraft; a bizjet; passed about 1 1/2 mi off our right side and behind us. The aircraft landed after us and from a discussion with the crew on the ground; I learned they were being vectored onto the same approach and directly at us. I made a phone call to the ATC facility responsible for that area and from a discussion with the supervisor it appeared that the controller felt he had cleared us to 2000 ft MSL but due to the blocked transmission we never heard the full clearance. The controller never repeated the full clearance nor did we acknowledge receiving it after we advised him of the blocked transmission. I feel that the inadequate communications; the long final approach vector; and the unnecessarily slow airspeed assigned by ATC caused a sequencing error and a potential for conflict with the aircraft following us on the approach. The aircraft converging on us should not have been in that area even if we had been 1000 ft lower since they were moving faster and would have been turning final directly over us and possibly in front of us. I also feel that changing the approach from the GPS to the VOR on the same runway had unnecessarily increased our workload during a critical phase of the flight and caused us to delay questioning the lack of a clearance for a lower altitude. We were still setting up the approach and reviewing the approach plate as we were being cleared for the approach. Both approachs had identical final approach courses. The ATC supervisor had commented that they were extremely busy due to heavy traffic flow originating in the caribbean.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: H25B ON APCH TO VRB EXPERIENCED CONFLICT AT 3000 FT WITH OTHER PATTERN TFC AS A RESULT OF A BLOCKED XMISSION.

Narrative: WE WERE ON APCH TO VRB AT 3000 FT MSL WITH VECTORS FROM ATC EXPECTING THE GPS RWY 29L APCH. WITHIN BOUT 20 NM FROM THE ARPT WE WERE VECTORED ONTO A R DOWNWIND AND ASKED BY ZMA TO SET UP FOR THE VOR RWY 29L APCH INSTEAD. WE WERE SHORTLY VECTORED ONTO BASE LEG AND ASKED TO REDUCE SPD TO MINIMUM APCH SPD. I SLOWED THE ACFT FROM 250 KIAS TO ABOUT 165 KIAS AND BEGAN TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT. ATC MADE A XMISSION THAT WE BOTH COULD NOT UNDERSTAND DUE TO INTERFERENCE; BUT SUSPECTED WE WERE BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH. THE FO ADVISED ATC THAT THE XMISSION WAS 'BLOCKED' AND ASKED TO VERIFY IF WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH. ATC CONFIRMED APCH CLRNC AND HANDED US OFF TO VRB TWR. WE WERE STILL AT 3000 FT MSL AND INTERCEPTED THE INBOUND COURSE ABOUT 20 MI FROM THE ARPT WHILE STILL MAINTAINING MINIMUM AIRSPD. WE WERE CONCERNED THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN CLRED FOR A LOWER ALT AND SINCE WE WOULD NOT BE ON A PUBLISHED APCH SEGMENT UNTIL LESS THAN 10 MI OUT; WE MAINTAINED 3000 FT MSL AS PREVIOUSLY CLRED. WE WERE ALSO WONDERING WHY WE WERE ASKED TO MAINTAIN SUCH A SLOW AIRSPD SINCE THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US ON THE APCH APPEARED TO BE MORE THAN 10 MI AHEAD. AT ABOUT 15 MI FROM THE ARPT AND ESTABLISHED ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE; WE NOTED AN ACFT CONVERGING ON TCAS AT THE SAME ALT ABOUT 5 MI OUT FROM OUR 2 O'CLOCK POS. THE ACFT APPEARED TO BE ON A R BASE LEG TO FINAL AND WAS MOVING VERY FAST. I ADVISED VRB TWR AND ATTEMPTED TO ESTABLISH VISUAL CONTACT. WE SAW THE ACFT AT ABOUT 3 MI ENTERING A HARD L TURN BEHIND US AND CLBING SLIGHTLY. WE RECEIVED A TA BUT NOT AN RA AND DID NOT TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AS THE ACFT; A BIZJET; PASSED ABOUT 1 1/2 MI OFF OUR R SIDE AND BEHIND US. THE ACFT LANDED AFTER US AND FROM A DISCUSSION WITH THE CREW ON THE GND; I LEARNED THEY WERE BEING VECTORED ONTO THE SAME APCH AND DIRECTLY AT US. I MADE A PHONE CALL TO THE ATC FACILITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AREA AND FROM A DISCUSSION WITH THE SUPVR IT APPEARED THAT THE CTLR FELT HE HAD CLRED US TO 2000 FT MSL BUT DUE TO THE BLOCKED XMISSION WE NEVER HEARD THE FULL CLRNC. THE CTLR NEVER REPEATED THE FULL CLRNC NOR DID WE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIVING IT AFTER WE ADVISED HIM OF THE BLOCKED XMISSION. I FEEL THAT THE INADEQUATE COMS; THE LONG FINAL APCH VECTOR; AND THE UNNECESSARILY SLOW AIRSPD ASSIGNED BY ATC CAUSED A SEQUENCING ERROR AND A POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT WITH THE ACFT FOLLOWING US ON THE APCH. THE ACFT CONVERGING ON US SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THAT AREA EVEN IF WE HAD BEEN 1000 FT LOWER SINCE THEY WERE MOVING FASTER AND WOULD HAVE BEEN TURNING FINAL DIRECTLY OVER US AND POSSIBLY IN FRONT OF US. I ALSO FEEL THAT CHANGING THE APCH FROM THE GPS TO THE VOR ON THE SAME RWY HAD UNNECESSARILY INCREASED OUR WORKLOAD DURING A CRITICAL PHASE OF THE FLT AND CAUSED US TO DELAY QUESTIONING THE LACK OF A CLRNC FOR A LOWER ALT. WE WERE STILL SETTING UP THE APCH AND REVIEWING THE APCH PLATE AS WE WERE BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH. BOTH APCHS HAD IDENTICAL FINAL APCH COURSES. THE ATC SUPVR HAD COMMENTED THAT THEY WERE EXTREMELY BUSY DUE TO HVY TFC FLOW ORIGINATING IN THE CARIBBEAN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.