Narrative:

I've encountered recurring problems with approach control while operating and landing in both north/south directions at rno during multiple arrs in the month of apr 2007. To me it seems as if reno approach has become so accustomed to what is termed by our crews as the 'visual;' expecting crews to accept a visual approach in all meteorological conditions; including IMC; that they are not able to adequately and safely vector an aircraft to a stabilized instrument approach. With WX conditions indicating a 26 KT crosswind; overcast at 4000 ft broken; and mdt turbulence below 13000 ft and NOTAMS showing the runway 34L PAPI OTS (per the current ATIS for the day); rno approach delivered our aircraft to 14000 ft approximately 2 mi from wagge with clearance to conduct a localizer DME back course runway 34L. In the WX; high and somewhat fast; the first officer as PF was barely able to achieve stabilized approach parameters at 1000 ft AGL as required by company regulations. This is extremely indicative of the lack of support we've received on every arrival into rno this month. Years ago; we flew the B727 into rno. That aircraft is capable of a 'slam-dunk; elevator approach;' able to descend rapidly and slow quickly. It is possible over the years that the rno controllers are accustomed to such approachs; considering them so normal they eventually became extremely lax in actually controling aircraft to real instrument approachs. Further; this aircraft has a very clean wing; resulting in a significantly decreased ability to descend and slow at the same time. Their perceived lack of knowledge about our aircraft capabilities combined with the fact I rarely fly into rno created what I considered a dangerous; volatile situation that could have resulted in disaster had we not remained heads-up about the environment in which we operated. As a crew we began our approach preparations over 500 mi from rno; highly cognizant of the approach and WX limitations by reviewing the WX; studying localizer back course and RNAV approach procedures from our company flight manual; briefing and studying the different approachs and options available into rno; discussing company approved methods to fly both approachs using FMS and FGS; autoplt; confign; braking options; repeatedly checking the WX/NOTAMS for other options (of which there were none); and other such normal preparations as are necessary for any approach. I believe as a crew we were exceptionally over-prepared and armed with all relevant information to conduct a safe approach into rno. Additionally; both of us have over 6+ yrs experience in our current crew position with our company. I've had as much abuse from reno approach control as I can professionally tolerate. I respectfully recommend all reno controllers receive additional training concerning their basic job duties as air traffic controllers with regular follow-up to include no-notice proficiency checks. Personally speaking; I would prefer to conduct instrument approachs into such mountainous terrain airports as that surrounding rno; especially during night operations and IMC. To achieve that objective; I firmly believe reno approach should revert back to a more instrument-oriented outlook to arrival aircraft instead of the previously mentioned visual mentality of repeatedly questioning 'do you have the field?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CAPTAIN REPORTS BEING VERY HIGH ON LOC DME BC RWY 34L AT RNO DUE TO ATC HANDLING AND BEING PUSHED TO ACCEPT A VISUAL APPROACH.

Narrative: I'VE ENCOUNTERED RECURRING PROBS WITH APCH CTL WHILE OPERATING AND LNDG IN BOTH N/S DIRECTIONS AT RNO DURING MULTIPLE ARRS IN THE MONTH OF APR 2007. TO ME IT SEEMS AS IF RENO APCH HAS BECOME SO ACCUSTOMED TO WHAT IS TERMED BY OUR CREWS AS THE 'VISUAL;' EXPECTING CREWS TO ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH IN ALL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS; INCLUDING IMC; THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO ADEQUATELY AND SAFELY VECTOR AN ACFT TO A STABILIZED INST APCH. WITH WX CONDITIONS INDICATING A 26 KT XWIND; OVCST AT 4000 FT BROKEN; AND MDT TURB BELOW 13000 FT AND NOTAMS SHOWING THE RWY 34L PAPI OTS (PER THE CURRENT ATIS FOR THE DAY); RNO APCH DELIVERED OUR ACFT TO 14000 FT APPROX 2 MI FROM WAGGE WITH CLRNC TO CONDUCT A LOC DME BACK COURSE RWY 34L. IN THE WX; HIGH AND SOMEWHAT FAST; THE FO AS PF WAS BARELY ABLE TO ACHIEVE STABILIZED APCH PARAMETERS AT 1000 FT AGL AS REQUIRED BY COMPANY REGS. THIS IS EXTREMELY INDICATIVE OF THE LACK OF SUPPORT WE'VE RECEIVED ON EVERY ARR INTO RNO THIS MONTH. YEARS AGO; WE FLEW THE B727 INTO RNO. THAT ACFT IS CAPABLE OF A 'SLAM-DUNK; ELEVATOR APCH;' ABLE TO DSND RAPIDLY AND SLOW QUICKLY. IT IS POSSIBLE OVER THE YEARS THAT THE RNO CTLRS ARE ACCUSTOMED TO SUCH APCHS; CONSIDERING THEM SO NORMAL THEY EVENTUALLY BECAME EXTREMELY LAX IN ACTUALLY CTLING ACFT TO REAL INST APCHS. FURTHER; THIS ACFT HAS A VERY CLEAN WING; RESULTING IN A SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED ABILITY TO DSND AND SLOW AT THE SAME TIME. THEIR PERCEIVED LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OUR ACFT CAPABILITIES COMBINED WITH THE FACT I RARELY FLY INTO RNO CREATED WHAT I CONSIDERED A DANGEROUS; VOLATILE SITUATION THAT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN DISASTER HAD WE NOT REMAINED HEADS-UP ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH WE OPERATED. AS A CREW WE BEGAN OUR APCH PREPARATIONS OVER 500 MI FROM RNO; HIGHLY COGNIZANT OF THE APCH AND WX LIMITATIONS BY REVIEWING THE WX; STUDYING LOC BACK COURSE AND RNAV APCH PROCS FROM OUR COMPANY FLT MANUAL; BRIEFING AND STUDYING THE DIFFERENT APCHS AND OPTIONS AVAILABLE INTO RNO; DISCUSSING COMPANY APPROVED METHODS TO FLY BOTH APCHS USING FMS AND FGS; AUTOPLT; CONFIGN; BRAKING OPTIONS; REPEATEDLY CHKING THE WX/NOTAMS FOR OTHER OPTIONS (OF WHICH THERE WERE NONE); AND OTHER SUCH NORMAL PREPARATIONS AS ARE NECESSARY FOR ANY APCH. I BELIEVE AS A CREW WE WERE EXCEPTIONALLY OVER-PREPARED AND ARMED WITH ALL RELEVANT INFO TO CONDUCT A SAFE APCH INTO RNO. ADDITIONALLY; BOTH OF US HAVE OVER 6+ YRS EXPERIENCE IN OUR CURRENT CREW POS WITH OUR COMPANY. I'VE HAD AS MUCH ABUSE FROM RENO APCH CTL AS I CAN PROFESSIONALLY TOLERATE. I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND ALL RENO CTLRS RECEIVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING CONCERNING THEIR BASIC JOB DUTIES AS AIR TFC CTLRS WITH REGULAR FOLLOW-UP TO INCLUDE NO-NOTICE PROFICIENCY CHKS. PERSONALLY SPEAKING; I WOULD PREFER TO CONDUCT INST APCHS INTO SUCH MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN ARPTS AS THAT SURROUNDING RNO; ESPECIALLY DURING NIGHT OPS AND IMC. TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE; I FIRMLY BELIEVE RENO APCH SHOULD REVERT BACK TO A MORE INST-ORIENTED OUTLOOK TO ARR ACFT INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED VISUAL MENTALITY OF REPEATEDLY QUESTIONING 'DO YOU HAVE THE FIELD?

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.