Narrative:

The first officer briefed and flew a normal descent into phx on the kooly 1 arrival for runway 7R. On descent at FL200 we heard a loud squeal in the cockpit associated with what we believed to be a door seal or window seal. The squeal continued until we were on base leg to runway 7R at 5000 ft MSL. We countered the squeal by increasing our individual volume controls on the VHF 1 radio and turning on the overhead speaker in an effort to better hear ATC. We were both using our company issued headsets and noted poor audio quality. Upon contacting phx approach; we were told to expect runway 7R and were later given a heading; descent clearance; and traffic that was ahead of us going to runway 7R. Both the first officer and I acquired the traffic to runway 7R as I configured the aircraft for what we thought to be a short base leg heading to runway 7R. Though I read back the correct heading and altitude and placed the correct altitude in the window; a final turn leg heading was placed in the heading window instead of the proper extended downwind/base turn heading. I believe we both missed this initially as our eyes were on the preceding aircraft to runway 7R and acquiring the runway. I recognized the error in heading at about the same time that phx approach reminded us of our proper assigned heading. The first officer corrected to the assigned heading and we subsequently reacquired our traffic to runway 7R as well as the airfield. Phx approach then cleared us for a visual approach to what we believed was runway 7R and a frequency change to phx tower. On base leg to runway 7R; I radioed phx tower that company number was right base for runway 7R to which I received no reply as tower was giving other instructions and clrncs. Meanwhile; the cockpit noise was starting to subside as we decreased airspeed and configured for landing though the radio quality remained poor. I again radioed phx tower that company number was final for runway 7R at 7 mi final to runway 7R to which we received no reply. At 3-4 mi final (3 mi in trail of our previously issued traffic); I again radioed phx tower that company number was final for runway 7R. Tower replied that company number is cleared to land on runway 8. I also stated that we would have to go around if we couldn't get clearance for runway 7R. Tower issued go around instructions and we complied. The first officer and I had difficulty hearing radio xmissions from phx approach and phx tower. We were both using the company issued; recommended; endorsed and FAA tso approved headset that provides substandard audio quality. We had significant backgnd and cockpit noise that could not be overcome by increasing the headset volume and turning on the overhead speakers. I recommend that the headset be banned immediately from use in all company aircraft as it is clearly an inferior product that compromises flight safety as well as the pilot's hearing! In conclusion; I accept full responsibility for my passenger and crew; but request that our pilot group be allowed the proper tools to ensure safe communication. We can and must have better headsets available to our pilots! To prevent this from happening; we must immediately ban the use of the headset because of its inherent poor audio quality and the use of only 1 ear to hear xmissions. We should go to active noise canceling headsets to ensure proper communications and to protect the health of the pilots. Additionally; we should have a hot microphone switch installed to enhance inter-crew communication. Bottom line is that we cannot comply with instructions from ATC that we are unable to hear and process. Supplemental information from acn 789921: the third leg of the trip was to phx. During this leg of the trip; the captain started feeling sick again and sent an ACARS message to dispatch to be removed from the flight in phx. Dispatch confirmed that the captain would be ok to continue the flight and that he would be replaced in phoenix. I; the first officer; was the PF and the captain was the pilot monitoring. Approximately 2 hours into the flight we entered the phx approach control airspace. The WX was clear; visibility was greater than 25 mi; and phx was landing on runway 7R and runway 8. ATIS reported that aircraft entering from the south would be landing on runway 7R. Phx approach control gave us a vector off of the kooly 1 arrival to the south of the phx airport. On downwind and abeam the airport; phx approach control reported a kc-135 tanker aircraft in front of us and then asked us to report it in sight. We reported the aircraft in sight and phx approach control advised us that we would be following that aircraft to runway 7R. Approximately 6 NM to the southwest of the airport; phx approach control vectored us right to a heading of 080 degrees and a descent from 6000 ft MSL to 4000 ft MSL. Since we were high and tight to the airport; we started to configure the aircraft for landing. During the turn; phx approach control queried our heading and said that we should be on a heading of 280 degrees. We then turned back left to 280 degrees. Shortly thereafter; phx approach control turned us right to a heading of 050 degrees and descended us to 3000 ft MSL and asked us to report the airport in sight. Once we reported the apt in sight; phx approach control cleared us for a visual approach to runway 7R and told us to contact the tower. We switched to the tower frequency and reported final for runway 7R. It took approximately 3 calls to tower before they responded and they said that we should be on final for runway 8. We were then asked by the tower if we could land on runway 8 from our present position. We responded that we were not in a safe position to land. Tower then told us to go around and contact phx approach control. We complied with all subsequent instructions and landed safely on runway 7R. I am not sure where this miscom occurred. Either phx approach control did not clearly give instructions to runway 8 or we did not hear them correctly. Some contributing factors: 1) there was a loud squealing noise in the cockpit as we descended from FL200 to pattern altitude due to the aircraft depressurizing; 2) both pilots were accustomed to using a noise canceling headset and we're just getting used to the company provided headset; 3) we were told by approach control that we would be following another aircraft to the same runway; and 4) ATIS led us to believe that we would be landing on runway 7R and that is the runway that we briefed. I do not believe that phx approach control filed a violation against the air crew in this situation. Both the air crew and the FAA controllers acted professionally during this incident and the aircraft was flown safely to a landing. I take full responsibility for my actions and will do my best to avoid this type of miscom in the future. I believe that the company should provide high quality active noise canceling headsets to the flight crew and that the aircraft should be modified for hands off intercom communications between the crew.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLT CREW REPORT AUDIO QUALITY ISSUES WITH COMPANY SUPPLIED HEADSET; CAUSING RWY MIX-UP AND GAR.

Narrative: THE FO BRIEFED AND FLEW A NORMAL DSCNT INTO PHX ON THE KOOLY 1 ARR FOR RWY 7R. ON DSCNT AT FL200 WE HEARD A LOUD SQUEAL IN THE COCKPIT ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT WE BELIEVED TO BE A DOOR SEAL OR WINDOW SEAL. THE SQUEAL CONTINUED UNTIL WE WERE ON BASE LEG TO RWY 7R AT 5000 FT MSL. WE COUNTERED THE SQUEAL BY INCREASING OUR INDIVIDUAL VOLUME CTLS ON THE VHF 1 RADIO AND TURNING ON THE OVERHEAD SPEAKER IN AN EFFORT TO BETTER HEAR ATC. WE WERE BOTH USING OUR COMPANY ISSUED HEADSETS AND NOTED POOR AUDIO QUALITY. UPON CONTACTING PHX APCH; WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RWY 7R AND WERE LATER GIVEN A HDG; DSCNT CLRNC; AND TFC THAT WAS AHEAD OF US GOING TO RWY 7R. BOTH THE FO AND I ACQUIRED THE TFC TO RWY 7R AS I CONFIGURED THE ACFT FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT TO BE A SHORT BASE LEG HDG TO RWY 7R. THOUGH I READ BACK THE CORRECT HDG AND ALT AND PLACED THE CORRECT ALT IN THE WINDOW; A FINAL TURN LEG HDG WAS PLACED IN THE HDG WINDOW INSTEAD OF THE PROPER EXTENDED DOWNWIND/BASE TURN HDG. I BELIEVE WE BOTH MISSED THIS INITIALLY AS OUR EYES WERE ON THE PRECEDING ACFT TO RWY 7R AND ACQUIRING THE RWY. I RECOGNIZED THE ERROR IN HDG AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THAT PHX APCH REMINDED US OF OUR PROPER ASSIGNED HDG. THE FO CORRECTED TO THE ASSIGNED HDG AND WE SUBSEQUENTLY REACQUIRED OUR TFC TO RWY 7R AS WELL AS THE AIRFIELD. PHX APCH THEN CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO WHAT WE BELIEVED WAS RWY 7R AND A FREQ CHANGE TO PHX TWR. ON BASE LEG TO RWY 7R; I RADIOED PHX TWR THAT COMPANY NUMBER WAS R BASE FOR RWY 7R TO WHICH I RECEIVED NO REPLY AS TWR WAS GIVING OTHER INSTRUCTIONS AND CLRNCS. MEANWHILE; THE COCKPIT NOISE WAS STARTING TO SUBSIDE AS WE DECREASED AIRSPD AND CONFIGURED FOR LNDG THOUGH THE RADIO QUALITY REMAINED POOR. I AGAIN RADIOED PHX TWR THAT COMPANY NUMBER WAS FINAL FOR RWY 7R AT 7 MI FINAL TO RWY 7R TO WHICH WE RECEIVED NO REPLY. AT 3-4 MI FINAL (3 MI IN TRAIL OF OUR PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TFC); I AGAIN RADIOED PHX TWR THAT COMPANY NUMBER WAS FINAL FOR RWY 7R. TWR REPLIED THAT COMPANY NUMBER IS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 8. I ALSO STATED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO AROUND IF WE COULDN'T GET CLRNC FOR RWY 7R. TWR ISSUED GAR INSTRUCTIONS AND WE COMPLIED. THE FO AND I HAD DIFFICULTY HEARING RADIO XMISSIONS FROM PHX APCH AND PHX TWR. WE WERE BOTH USING THE COMPANY ISSUED; RECOMMENDED; ENDORSED AND FAA TSO APPROVED HEADSET THAT PROVIDES SUBSTANDARD AUDIO QUALITY. WE HAD SIGNIFICANT BACKGND AND COCKPIT NOISE THAT COULD NOT BE OVERCOME BY INCREASING THE HEADSET VOLUME AND TURNING ON THE OVERHEAD SPEAKERS. I RECOMMEND THAT THE HEADSET BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY FROM USE IN ALL COMPANY ACFT AS IT IS CLEARLY AN INFERIOR PRODUCT THAT COMPROMISES FLT SAFETY AS WELL AS THE PLT'S HEARING! IN CONCLUSION; I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY PAX AND CREW; BUT REQUEST THAT OUR PLT GROUP BE ALLOWED THE PROPER TOOLS TO ENSURE SAFE COM. WE CAN AND MUST HAVE BETTER HEADSETS AVAILABLE TO OUR PLTS! TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING; WE MUST IMMEDIATELY BAN THE USE OF THE HEADSET BECAUSE OF ITS INHERENT POOR AUDIO QUALITY AND THE USE OF ONLY 1 EAR TO HEAR XMISSIONS. WE SHOULD GO TO ACTIVE NOISE CANCELING HEADSETS TO ENSURE PROPER COMS AND TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PLTS. ADDITIONALLY; WE SHOULD HAVE A HOT MIKE SWITCH INSTALLED TO ENHANCE INTER-CREW COM. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE CANNOT COMPLY WITH INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO HEAR AND PROCESS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 789921: THE THIRD LEG OF THE TRIP WAS TO PHX. DURING THIS LEG OF THE TRIP; THE CAPT STARTED FEELING SICK AGAIN AND SENT AN ACARS MESSAGE TO DISPATCH TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FLT IN PHX. DISPATCH CONFIRMED THAT THE CAPT WOULD BE OK TO CONTINUE THE FLT AND THAT HE WOULD BE REPLACED IN PHOENIX. I; THE FO; WAS THE PF AND THE CAPT WAS THE PLT MONITORING. APPROX 2 HRS INTO THE FLT WE ENTERED THE PHX APCH CTL AIRSPACE. THE WX WAS CLR; VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 25 MI; AND PHX WAS LNDG ON RWY 7R AND RWY 8. ATIS RPTED THAT ACFT ENTERING FROM THE S WOULD BE LNDG ON RWY 7R. PHX APCH CTL GAVE US A VECTOR OFF OF THE KOOLY 1 ARR TO THE S OF THE PHX ARPT. ON DOWNWIND AND ABEAM THE ARPT; PHX APCH CTL RPTED A KC-135 TANKER ACFT IN FRONT OF US AND THEN ASKED US TO RPT IT IN SIGHT. WE RPTED THE ACFT IN SIGHT AND PHX APCH CTL ADVISED US THAT WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING THAT ACFT TO RWY 7R. APPROX 6 NM TO THE SW OF THE ARPT; PHX APCH CTL VECTORED US R TO A HDG OF 080 DEGS AND A DSCNT FROM 6000 FT MSL TO 4000 FT MSL. SINCE WE WERE HIGH AND TIGHT TO THE ARPT; WE STARTED TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT FOR LNDG. DURING THE TURN; PHX APCH CTL QUERIED OUR HDG AND SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE ON A HDG OF 280 DEGS. WE THEN TURNED BACK L TO 280 DEGS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; PHX APCH CTL TURNED US R TO A HDG OF 050 DEGS AND DSNDED US TO 3000 FT MSL AND ASKED US TO RPT THE ARPT IN SIGHT. ONCE WE RPTED THE APT IN SIGHT; PHX APCH CTL CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 7R AND TOLD US TO CONTACT THE TWR. WE SWITCHED TO THE TWR FREQ AND RPTED FINAL FOR RWY 7R. IT TOOK APPROX 3 CALLS TO TWR BEFORE THEY RESPONDED AND THEY SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE ON FINAL FOR RWY 8. WE WERE THEN ASKED BY THE TWR IF WE COULD LAND ON RWY 8 FROM OUR PRESENT POS. WE RESPONDED THAT WE WERE NOT IN A SAFE POS TO LAND. TWR THEN TOLD US TO GO AROUND AND CONTACT PHX APCH CTL. WE COMPLIED WITH ALL SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTIONS AND LANDED SAFELY ON RWY 7R. I AM NOT SURE WHERE THIS MISCOM OCCURRED. EITHER PHX APCH CTL DID NOT CLEARLY GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO RWY 8 OR WE DID NOT HEAR THEM CORRECTLY. SOME CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) THERE WAS A LOUD SQUEALING NOISE IN THE COCKPIT AS WE DSNDED FROM FL200 TO PATTERN ALT DUE TO THE ACFT DEPRESSURIZING; 2) BOTH PLTS WERE ACCUSTOMED TO USING A NOISE CANCELING HEADSET AND WE'RE JUST GETTING USED TO THE COMPANY PROVIDED HEADSET; 3) WE WERE TOLD BY APCH CTL THAT WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING ANOTHER ACFT TO THE SAME RWY; AND 4) ATIS LED US TO BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BE LNDG ON RWY 7R AND THAT IS THE RWY THAT WE BRIEFED. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PHX APCH CTL FILED A VIOLATION AGAINST THE AIR CREW IN THIS SITUATION. BOTH THE AIR CREW AND THE FAA CTLRS ACTED PROFESSIONALLY DURING THIS INCIDENT AND THE ACFT WAS FLOWN SAFELY TO A LNDG. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY ACTIONS AND WILL DO MY BEST TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF MISCOM IN THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY ACTIVE NOISE CANCELING HEADSETS TO THE FLT CREW AND THAT THE ACFT SHOULD BE MODIFIED FOR HANDS OFF INTERCOM COMS BTWN THE CREW.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.