Narrative:

Approximately 6;000 MSL on approach we selected flaps 1 and got a 'le flap disagree' warning. The captain was the pilot flying and asked to level off at 5;000 and abandon the approach to run the checklist. I ran the QRH as he took vectors with a left turn back around for another approach. Checklist gave us flaps 20 electrically and approach offered an approach to xxl.they vectored us a fix outside the OM to intercept at 4;000 and cleared us for the approach. The autopilot captured localizer and glide slope. We flew through a cloud layer between 3;000 and 1;000 ft and broke out at approximately 1;000 MSL with no runway in sight. Approach gave us a low altitude alert. We had ground contact so we leveled off and asked for a vector for the airport which was about 6-8 NM ahead. We had obviously followed a false glide slope but the localizer was accurate. The false glide slope had a rapid descent so we were occupied with speed control.final landing was without incident. Queries to tower revealed the glide slope may not have been operational but that they had no indication to it. They did inform us that a GA aircraft ahead of us reported inaccurate glide slope readings after landing but that it was too late to inform us of it. Another factor was that our aircraft was a flat panel display with which we are not quite as familiar with so some of the subtle clues such as distance to touchdown and radio altitude may not have been as obvious to us as in the more familiar format.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 flight crew coped with a LE FLAP DISAGREE EICAS message on approach. Upon completing the checklist and being cleared for an ILS IAP they were advised of a Low Altitude Alert warning by the Tower. A recently installed flat panel nav display may have contributed to some flight crew disorientation.

Narrative: Approximately 6;000 MSL on approach we selected flaps 1 and got a 'LE Flap Disagree' warning. The Captain was the pilot flying and asked to level off at 5;000 and abandon the approach to run the checklist. I ran the QRH as he took vectors with a left turn back around for another approach. Checklist gave us flaps 20 electrically and approach offered an approach to XXL.They vectored us a fix outside the OM to intercept at 4;000 and cleared us for the approach. The autopilot captured LOC and glide slope. We flew through a cloud layer between 3;000 and 1;000 FT and broke out at approximately 1;000 MSL with no runway in sight. Approach gave us a low altitude alert. We had ground contact so we leveled off and asked for a vector for the airport which was about 6-8 NM ahead. We had obviously followed a false glide slope but the LOC was accurate. The false glide slope had a rapid descent so we were occupied with speed control.Final landing was without incident. Queries to Tower revealed the glide slope may not have been operational but that they had no indication to it. They did inform us that a GA aircraft ahead of us reported inaccurate glide slope readings after landing but that it was too late to inform us of it. Another factor was that our aircraft was a flat panel display with which we are not quite as familiar with so some of the subtle clues such as distance to touchdown and radio altitude may not have been as obvious to us as in the more familiar format.

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.