 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew objects to approach controller instructions reference crossing point and altitude on ILS approach.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 81891 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198802 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : atl |
| State Reference | GA |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 2700 msl bound upper : 4000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : atl |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
| Navigation In Use | ils localizer & glide slope : atl |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach descent other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 230 flight time total : 8000 flight time type : 5000 |
| ASRS Report | 81891 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 6000 flight time type : 2200 |
| ASRS Report | 81896 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Resolutory Action | controller : issued new clearance |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
| Air Traffic Incident | other other |
| Situations | |
| ATC Facility | procedure or policy : unspecified |
Narrative:
Atl approach controller gave a late turn on vector which went through the localizer of 26R ILS, then gave a heading to reintercept the localizer and asked for the best rate of turn. The controller cleared us for the 26R ILS, cross cegro at 2700'. I told my first officer that 2700' was above the G/south, he advised the controller the 2700' at cegro was for the nonprecision and was above the G/south. Then the controller said cross the marker at 2700'. My first officer advised the controller no marker existed 26R ILS. The controller commented in a sarcastic tone (my perception) that his approach page showed it, and then said maintain 3000', cleared for 26R ILS. My second officer recalls the controller said cegro more than one time. We were close to the tower handoff point, however, the controller had not given us the frequency change, was busy talking to other aircraft, or was too busy and forgot. Therefore, we advised we were changing to the tower. Then the controller said contact the tower, 119.5. We called the tower and were cleared to land on 26R. During taxi, we were given phone number. My first officer talked to approach control supervisor who agreed we had the current approach procedures which agreed with his procedures. ATC supervisor said he would talk to the controller, and then closed by saying, 'have a nice day.' atl 26L ILS has a marker (redan) and a nonprecision crossing of 2600', therefore the controller might have been confused with the 26L and 26R procedures or he might have intended to say cross balli at 2700' but said cegro instead. Atl ATIS gave 27L ILS and 26R ILS for landing and there were no NOTAMS regarding any procedures. We were vectored from the north for 26R and cleared for 26R ILS. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter says they were established on the ILS localizer well before reaching cegro or redan. Callback did not reveal any other new information reference this incident, but did give analyst a chance to point out differences between NOAA and commercial approach charts, and to counsel reporter to fact that controller may not have been too far off base in this case. Analyst thanked reporter for sending the report, and advised him that ASRS may be able to take some corrective action as a result of his initiative. Also discussed some other reports which reporter has submitted. 2 of his previous reports had resulted in alert bulletins being issued, and he wanted to know if we had received any responses. I advised him that I would check into the matter. Supplemental information from acn 81896: I told him that our approach charts show no OM on the 26R ILS approach. Approach control's confusion with the procedure created a significant distraction for us during final approach. We discussed this situation with the atl approach control supervisor by phone. His first concern was that our approach charts were different from his. After some discussion, he agreed that there was no OM on the 26R ILS, and agreed to discuss this matter with the approach controller. Apparently our charts are in agreement.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLT CREW OBJECTS TO APCH CTLR INSTRUCTIONS REFERENCE CROSSING POINT AND ALT ON ILS APCH.
Narrative: ATL APCH CTLR GAVE A LATE TURN ON VECTOR WHICH WENT THROUGH THE LOC OF 26R ILS, THEN GAVE A HDG TO REINTERCEPT THE LOC AND ASKED FOR THE BEST RATE OF TURN. THE CTLR CLRED US FOR THE 26R ILS, CROSS CEGRO AT 2700'. I TOLD MY F/O THAT 2700' WAS ABOVE THE G/S, HE ADVISED THE CTLR THE 2700' AT CEGRO WAS FOR THE NONPRECISION AND WAS ABOVE THE G/S. THEN THE CTLR SAID CROSS THE MARKER AT 2700'. MY F/O ADVISED THE CTLR NO MARKER EXISTED 26R ILS. THE CTLR COMMENTED IN A SARCASTIC TONE (MY PERCEPTION) THAT HIS APCH PAGE SHOWED IT, AND THEN SAID MAINTAIN 3000', CLRED FOR 26R ILS. MY S/O RECALLS THE CTLR SAID CEGRO MORE THAN ONE TIME. WE WERE CLOSE TO THE TWR HDOF POINT, HOWEVER, THE CTLR HAD NOT GIVEN US THE FREQ CHANGE, WAS BUSY TALKING TO OTHER ACFT, OR WAS TOO BUSY AND FORGOT. THEREFORE, WE ADVISED WE WERE CHANGING TO THE TWR. THEN THE CTLR SAID CONTACT THE TWR, 119.5. WE CALLED THE TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND ON 26R. DURING TAXI, WE WERE GIVEN PHONE NUMBER. MY F/O TALKED TO APCH CTL SUPVR WHO AGREED WE HAD THE CURRENT APCH PROCS WHICH AGREED WITH HIS PROCS. ATC SUPVR SAID HE WOULD TALK TO THE CTLR, AND THEN CLOSED BY SAYING, 'HAVE A NICE DAY.' ATL 26L ILS HAS A MARKER (REDAN) AND A NONPRECISION XING OF 2600', THEREFORE THE CTLR MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONFUSED WITH THE 26L AND 26R PROCS OR HE MIGHT HAVE INTENDED TO SAY CROSS BALLI AT 2700' BUT SAID CEGRO INSTEAD. ATL ATIS GAVE 27L ILS AND 26R ILS FOR LNDG AND THERE WERE NO NOTAMS REGARDING ANY PROCS. WE WERE VECTORED FROM THE N FOR 26R AND CLRED FOR 26R ILS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR SAYS THEY WERE ESTABLISHED ON THE ILS LOC WELL BEFORE REACHING CEGRO OR REDAN. CALLBACK DID NOT REVEAL ANY OTHER NEW INFO REF THIS INCIDENT, BUT DID GIVE ANALYST A CHANCE TO POINT OUT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NOAA AND COMMERCIAL APCH CHARTS, AND TO COUNSEL REPORTER TO FACT THAT CTLR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOO FAR OFF BASE IN THIS CASE. ANALYST THANKED REPORTER FOR SENDING THE RPT, AND ADVISED HIM THAT ASRS MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE SOME CORRECTIVE ACTION AS A RESULT OF HIS INITIATIVE. ALSO DISCUSSED SOME OTHER RPTS WHICH RPTR HAS SUBMITTED. 2 OF HIS PREVIOUS RPTS HAD RESULTED IN ALERT BULLETINS BEING ISSUED, AND HE WANTED TO KNOW IF WE HAD RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES. I ADVISED HIM THAT I WOULD CHK INTO THE MATTER. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 81896: I TOLD HIM THAT OUR APCH CHARTS SHOW NO OM ON THE 26R ILS APCH. APCH CTL'S CONFUSION WITH THE PROC CREATED A SIGNIFICANT DISTR FOR US DURING FINAL APCH. WE DISCUSSED THIS SITUATION WITH THE ATL APCH CTL SUPVR BY PHONE. HIS FIRST CONCERN WAS THAT OUR APCH CHARTS WERE DIFFERENT FROM HIS. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, HE AGREED THAT THERE WAS NO OM ON THE 26R ILS, AND AGREED TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH THE APCH CTLR. APPARENTLY OUR CHARTS ARE IN AGREEMENT.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.