Narrative:

On aug/xa/08; I was on an approach to roanoke; va airport from the west at 7000 ft. The WX was clear with visibility unlimited. ZDC turned the aircraft; which was on an IFR flight plan; over to roanoke approach approximately 7-9 mi from the airport. Traffic was landing on runway 15; which requires a steep approach from the west due to mountainous terrain. A commercial airliner was cleared to land on runway 6; which intersects with runway 15. There was no conflict with this aircraft; however; it did contribute; I believe; to the controller keeping us at 7000 ft for longer than normal due to distraction with working that aircraft. I reported the airport in sight shortly after being turned over to roanoke approach and slowed up after being told that we would be landing on runway 15 after the airliner landed on runway 6. We were then cleared to descend to 5400 ft approximately 4-5 mi from the end of runway 15 and given a vector to fly. I do not remember the exact vector but it was approximately 110 degrees; which was a semi right downwind for runway 24. I asked the controller about the landing runway and he confirmed we were still landing on runway 15. However; within 2-3 mi of the airport we were still above 6800 ft and could not have descended into runway 15. Before reaching 5400 ft we were cleared for the visual approach. Continuing to descend and heading approximately ene we were advised of another aircraft that was descending on a heading approximating a left downwind for runway 15. We had seen the other aircraft (C310) and reported it in sight. We passed within 1/4-1/2 mi and 500 ft vertical of the small transport. I was then told to contact tower; and tower cleared us to land on runway 15. However; at this point we were approximately 1/2 to 3/4 mi off the end of runway 24 and above 3000 ft. Descending; I turned inbound to the airport and at this point was lined up on the runway 24 approach. Tower canceled the landing clearance; told me to climb to 4000 ft and contact departure. I did. Later; we were vectored extensively by the radar controller back to the approach to runway 15 and landed. During the vectoring; the radar controller was agitated and rebuked me sharply over the communication frequency and issued several incorrect instructions: for example; when other traffic was pointed out to us on the second approach; we were told to follow the traffic; even though we had reported 'no contact' due to the traffic being invisible in the sun. We also were cleared for the approach and not turned over to the tower. We had to notify the controller we were going to the tower when we were on a less than 1/4 mi final. A number of problems exist here in this situation: 1) approaching from the west and being vectored to land on runway 15 makes it very hard to descend at any kind of normal rate. The controllers do not realize that an aircraft cannot go from 7000 ft to the landing pattern in just a few mi. They should be made aware of the performance limitations of aircraft in the situation. 2) controllers should not rebuke a pilot over perceived or real incidents on the communications channel. Clear and concise and immediate instructions should be the norm. 3) early in the process; the pilot should advise the controller of any limitations to the aircraft's ability to make a stabilized approach to the runway threshold.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IFR BE58 LNDG ROA DESCRIBED CONFLICT AND GAR ALLEGEDLY A RESULT OF CTLR HANDLING AS WELL AS LACK OF ACFT PERFORMANCE KNOWLEDGE AND PROFESSIONALISM.

Narrative: ON AUG/XA/08; I WAS ON AN APCH TO ROANOKE; VA ARPT FROM THE W AT 7000 FT. THE WX WAS CLR WITH VISIBILITY UNLIMITED. ZDC TURNED THE ACFT; WHICH WAS ON AN IFR FLT PLAN; OVER TO ROANOKE APCH APPROX 7-9 MI FROM THE ARPT. TFC WAS LNDG ON RWY 15; WHICH REQUIRES A STEEP APCH FROM THE W DUE TO MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN. A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 6; WHICH INTERSECTS WITH RWY 15. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH THIS ACFT; HOWEVER; IT DID CONTRIBUTE; I BELIEVE; TO THE CTLR KEEPING US AT 7000 FT FOR LONGER THAN NORMAL DUE TO DISTR WITH WORKING THAT ACFT. I RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT SHORTLY AFTER BEING TURNED OVER TO ROANOKE APCH AND SLOWED UP AFTER BEING TOLD THAT WE WOULD BE LNDG ON RWY 15 AFTER THE AIRLINER LANDED ON RWY 6. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO DSND TO 5400 FT APPROX 4-5 MI FROM THE END OF RWY 15 AND GIVEN A VECTOR TO FLY. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE EXACT VECTOR BUT IT WAS APPROX 110 DEGS; WHICH WAS A SEMI R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 24. I ASKED THE CTLR ABOUT THE LNDG RWY AND HE CONFIRMED WE WERE STILL LNDG ON RWY 15. HOWEVER; WITHIN 2-3 MI OF THE ARPT WE WERE STILL ABOVE 6800 FT AND COULD NOT HAVE DSNDED INTO RWY 15. BEFORE REACHING 5400 FT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH. CONTINUING TO DSND AND HDG APPROX ENE WE WERE ADVISED OF ANOTHER ACFT THAT WAS DSNDING ON A HDG APPROXIMATING A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 15. WE HAD SEEN THE OTHER ACFT (C310) AND RPTED IT IN SIGHT. WE PASSED WITHIN 1/4-1/2 MI AND 500 FT VERT OF THE SMT. I WAS THEN TOLD TO CONTACT TWR; AND TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 15. HOWEVER; AT THIS POINT WE WERE APPROX 1/2 TO 3/4 MI OFF THE END OF RWY 24 AND ABOVE 3000 FT. DSNDING; I TURNED INBOUND TO THE ARPT AND AT THIS POINT WAS LINED UP ON THE RWY 24 APCH. TWR CANCELED THE LNDG CLRNC; TOLD ME TO CLB TO 4000 FT AND CONTACT DEP. I DID. LATER; WE WERE VECTORED EXTENSIVELY BY THE RADAR CTLR BACK TO THE APCH TO RWY 15 AND LANDED. DURING THE VECTORING; THE RADAR CTLR WAS AGITATED AND REBUKED ME SHARPLY OVER THE COM FREQ AND ISSUED SEVERAL INCORRECT INSTRUCTIONS: FOR EXAMPLE; WHEN OTHER TFC WAS POINTED OUT TO US ON THE SECOND APCH; WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW THE TFC; EVEN THOUGH WE HAD RPTED 'NO CONTACT' DUE TO THE TFC BEING INVISIBLE IN THE SUN. WE ALSO WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND NOT TURNED OVER TO THE TWR. WE HAD TO NOTIFY THE CTLR WE WERE GOING TO THE TWR WHEN WE WERE ON A LESS THAN 1/4 MI FINAL. A NUMBER OF PROBS EXIST HERE IN THIS SITUATION: 1) APCHING FROM THE W AND BEING VECTORED TO LAND ON RWY 15 MAKES IT VERY HARD TO DSND AT ANY KIND OF NORMAL RATE. THE CTLRS DO NOT REALIZE THAT AN ACFT CANNOT GO FROM 7000 FT TO THE LNDG PATTERN IN JUST A FEW MI. THEY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS OF ACFT IN THE SITUATION. 2) CTLRS SHOULD NOT REBUKE A PLT OVER PERCEIVED OR REAL INCIDENTS ON THE COMS CHANNEL. CLR AND CONCISE AND IMMEDIATE INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD BE THE NORM. 3) EARLY IN THE PROCESS; THE PLT SHOULD ADVISE THE CTLR OF ANY LIMITATIONS TO THE ACFT'S ABILITY TO MAKE A STABILIZED APCH TO THE RWY THRESHOLD.

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.