37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 867826 |
Time | |
Date | 200912 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | S56.TRACON |
State Reference | UT |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200) |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Final Approach |
Route In Use | Visual Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Approach |
Qualification | Air Traffic Control Fully Certified |
Events | |
Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
I was working the final sector vectoring traffic off the downwind to runway 16R and next to me was the bear controller working the straight in traffic to runway 16L. The weather was such that the pilots could see the airport through the haze for visual approaches as long as they did not get too far away; about 10 - 12 miles. The difference between visual approach operations and ILS operations is about 40 - 50 flying miles for the aircraft and two extra controllers to work the monitor sectors. There is always pressure to work to get visual approaches. A fog bank rolled in from the west and the airport became obscured. Three aircraft eventually went around. There was no loss of separation at any time. At no time were there any unsafe situations. I was told by the slc flow controller; 'tower said the fog is rolling in again and they wouldn't be surprised if we would be doing ILS's.' a CRJ2; had already been cleared for a visual approach off the downwind. The next aircraft; a B737 reported the crj in sight. I cleared the B737 for a visual approach to follow the crj and then cleared an E120; to follow the B737 on a visual approach. I was not made aware of the extent of the conditions and did not switch to ILS approaches until I saw the crj go around. The E120 was turning base behind the B737 at the time. I chose not to change the clearance for E120 because they were not in a position for a legal or safe ILS approach. The reported visibility was still 10 miles. I expected the E120 would be sent around; however I chose to allow them to continue towards the airport; staying in the flow of traffic. Our local orders require that we do that. The flm (flight line manager) asked me why I didn't issue the RVR information to the pilots. I was not aware there were RVR reportable values. The reported visibility was 10 miles. I had been doing visual approaches. I do not regularly check the RVR's under those circumstances. The RVR indicators do not flash; there is no aural alarm. There is nothing to bring my attention to them. The aircraft immediately behind the E120 was vectored for an ILS. Recommendation; I wonder if an aural alarm on the rvrs would be a good idea
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: S56 controller described a multiple go around event after a number of visual approach clearances were issued; reporter claiming he/she was unaware of the deteriorating weather/visibility conditions.
Narrative: I was working the final sector vectoring traffic off the downwind to Runway 16R and next to me was the Bear controller working the straight in traffic to Runway 16L. The weather was such that the pilots could see the airport through the haze for visual approaches as long as they did not get too far away; about 10 - 12 miles. The difference between visual approach operations and ILS operations is about 40 - 50 flying miles for the aircraft and two extra controllers to work the monitor sectors. There is always pressure to work to get visual approaches. A fog bank rolled in from the west and the airport became obscured. Three aircraft eventually went around. There was no loss of separation at any time. At no time were there any unsafe situations. I was told by the SLC flow controller; 'Tower said the fog is rolling in again and they wouldn't be surprised if we would be doing ILS's.' A CRJ2; had already been cleared for a visual approach off the downwind. The next aircraft; a B737 reported the CRJ in sight. I cleared the B737 for a visual approach to follow the CRJ and then cleared an E120; to follow the B737 on a visual approach. I was not made aware of the extent of the conditions and did not switch to ILS approaches until I saw the CRJ go around. The E120 was turning base behind the B737 at the time. I chose not to change the clearance for E120 because they were not in a position for a legal or safe ILS approach. The reported visibility was still 10 miles. I expected the E120 would be sent around; however I chose to allow them to continue towards the airport; staying in the flow of traffic. Our local orders require that we do that. The FLM (Flight Line Manager) asked me why I didn't issue the RVR information to the pilots. I was not aware there were RVR reportable values. The reported visibility was 10 miles. I had been doing visual approaches. I do not regularly check the RVR's under those circumstances. The RVR indicators do not flash; there is no aural alarm. There is nothing to bring my attention to them. The aircraft immediately behind the E120 was vectored for an ILS. Recommendation; I wonder if an aural alarm on the RVRs would be a good idea
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.