Narrative:

As captain this was my 3RD european trip in 9 days and I felt tired starting the trip. The co-pilot was starting his first trip of the month and was 'fresh' and rested. The co-pilot flew the first leg to gander and I explained to him my previous experiences and how fuel conservation was important. A fuel efficient flight requires properly planned approaches and landings so as to avoid prolonged level flight prior to descent and landing. The flight inbound to cyqx was uneventful until within 30 miles of the airport. I had listened to the ATIS and determined that the approach in use was the back course for runway 31 and the winds were out of the west. We had set up for the back course for runway 31 but during our initial approach to the airport was contacted by the control tower to inform us that the ILS for runway 13 was also available and would we like that approach. I asked the co-pilot if he thought it was ok and the reply was yes and I replied to the controller with affirmative regarding the ILS to runway 13. This flight was then cleared for the ILS runway 13 and call the tower. The aircraft was quickly configured and descended toward the final approach fix. Several important facts were overlooked by myself including the fact that the final approach fix is only 3.6 miles from the end of the runway and an on glideslope signal at the final approach fix is 1580 ft MSL and 1092 ft above the airport. While not part of the instruments used for this type of approach I was distracted by the radio altimeter audio announcements (over uneven terrain) at 1000 ft when actually the aircraft was significantly closer to the airport elevation and led me to a false sense of security thinking that the aircraft was 'nearly configured' at that point. The wind while only a 5 knot tail wind at the surface was nearly a 20 knot tail wind at the final approach fix increasing the ground speed and descent rate to stay on the glide path. The WX at the time was light rain and surface temperatures around 3C requiring that the engine heat be on during the approach. The combination of tail wind; and engine anti ice on; prevented the aircraft from being stabilized on approach until much lower than the 1;000 foot figure requiring a go around if not stable. The aircraft was landed by the co-pilot out of this approach in the landing zone and stopped within the normal stopping area on the 8900 foot long runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 CREW ACCEPTS ILS RWY 13 APCH TO CYQX AFTER PLANNING LOC (BC) TO RWY 31. DUE TO RWY CHANGE; TAIL WIND; AND REQUIREMENT FOR ENGINE ANTI-ICE; CREW FLIES AN UNSTABILIZED APCH AND LANDS.

Narrative: AS CAPT THIS WAS MY 3RD EUROPEAN TRIP IN 9 DAYS AND I FELT TIRED STARTING THE TRIP. THE CO-PILOT WAS STARTING HIS FIRST TRIP OF THE MONTH AND WAS 'FRESH' AND RESTED. THE CO-PILOT FLEW THE FIRST LEG TO GANDER AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES AND HOW FUEL CONSERVATION WAS IMPORTANT. A FUEL EFFICIENT FLT REQUIRES PROPERLY PLANNED APPROACHES AND LANDINGS SO AS TO AVOID PROLONGED LEVEL FLT PRIOR TO DSCNT AND LNDG. THE FLT INBOUND TO CYQX WAS UNEVENTFUL UNTIL WITHIN 30 MILES OF THE ARPT. I HAD LISTENED TO THE ATIS AND DETERMINED THAT THE APCH IN USE WAS THE BACK COURSE FOR RWY 31 AND THE WINDS WERE OUT OF THE WEST. WE HAD SET UP FOR THE BACK COURSE FOR RWY 31 BUT DURING OUR INITIAL APCH TO THE ARPT WAS CONTACTED BY THE CTL TOWER TO INFORM US THAT THE ILS FOR RWY 13 WAS ALSO AVAILABLE AND WOULD WE LIKE THAT APCH. I ASKED THE CO-PILOT IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS OK AND THE REPLY WAS YES AND I REPLIED TO THE CTLR WITH AFFIRMATIVE REGARDING THE ILS TO RWY 13. THIS FLT WAS THEN CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 13 AND CALL THE TOWER. THE ACFT WAS QUICKLY CONFIGURED AND DESCENDED TOWARD THE FINAL APCH FIX. SEVERAL IMPORTANT FACTS WERE OVERLOOKED BY MYSELF INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE FINAL APCH FIX IS ONLY 3.6 MILES FROM THE END OF THE RWY AND AN ON GLIDESLOPE SIGNAL AT THE FINAL APCH FIX IS 1580 FT MSL AND 1092 FT ABOVE THE ARPT. WHILE NOT PART OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED FOR THIS TYPE OF APCH I WAS DISTRACTED BY THE RADIO ALTIMETER AUDIO ANNOUNCEMENTS (OVER UNEVEN TERRAIN) AT 1000 FT WHEN ACTUALLY THE ACFT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO THE ARPT ELEVATION AND LED ME TO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THINKING THAT THE ACFT WAS 'NEARLY CONFIGURED' AT THAT POINT. THE WIND WHILE ONLY A 5 KNOT TAIL WIND AT THE SURFACE WAS NEARLY A 20 KNOT TAIL WIND AT THE FINAL APCH FIX INCREASING THE GND SPEED AND DSCNT RATE TO STAY ON THE GLIDE PATH. THE WX AT THE TIME WAS LIGHT RAIN AND SURFACE TEMPERATURES AROUND 3C REQUIRING THAT THE ENGINE HEAT BE ON DURING THE APCH. THE COMBINATION OF TAIL WIND; AND ENGINE ANTI ICE ON; PREVENTED THE ACFT FROM BEING STABILIZED ON APCH UNTIL MUCH LOWER THAN THE 1;000 FOOT FIGURE REQUIRING A GAR IF NOT STABLE. THE ACFT WAS LANDED BY THE CO-PILOT OUT OF THIS APCH IN THE LNDG ZONE AND STOPPED WITHIN THE NORMAL STOPPING AREA ON THE 8900 FOOT LONG RWY.

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.