Narrative:

I was instructing; the trainee vectored a MD82 for the ILS to runway xxc with a turn to final at 6;000 ft. A B737 was on the ILS to runway xxr at 5;000 ft. The MD82 appeared to turn to the final and the trainee instructed the MD82 to maintain 170 KTS to the next VOR and to contact the tower. The MD82 appeared to be on the final at this time; however; the aircraft didn't join the final and wound up above the B737 on the runway xxr final. The MD82 then started his descent on the glide slope even though he wasn't established on the localizer. The trainee called the final monitor as soon as the MD82 went through the final to make sure they saw the problem. The final monitor instructed the MD82 to maintain 6;000 ft and he climbed back up to it. This was originally filed as a pilot deviation but was changed to a B error. The reason stated for the change was that we didn't verify that the MD82 was established on the final prior to frequency change to tower. However; even as the facility report states; the MD82 was switched as he 'was over the runway xxc final approach course.' pilots should be instructed to not descend on the final if they aren't actually on the final when multiple approaches are in use. There are several reasons that they may not capture the localizer; but to descend rather than ask for help doesn't make sense. The requirement in the 7110.65 is to issue and altitude to maintain until on a published segment of the approach. Since the MD82 was turning final outside the simultaneous ILS turn on point; the approach is not published outside that point. The aircraft was told to 'cross xxx fix at 060' instead of 'maintain 060 until on the localizer' so as to comply with the phraseology requirement; since the approach starts at xxx fix. However; the descent may not have occurred if the 'maintain until established on the localizer' phraseology had been used instead. When the facility talked to the pilot he stated that he started his descent abeam xxx fix; which is the fix he was told to 'cross at 060'. However; he didn't cross it since he failed to capture the localizer ('xxx'; as stated).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller described a loss of separation event initially classified as a pilot deviation; the reporter questioned that determination.

Narrative: I was instructing; the trainee vectored a MD82 for the ILS to Runway XXC with a turn to final at 6;000 FT. A B737 was on the ILS to Runway XXR at 5;000 FT. The MD82 appeared to turn to the final and the trainee instructed the MD82 to maintain 170 KTS to the next VOR and to contact the Tower. The MD82 appeared to be on the final at this time; however; the aircraft didn't join the final and wound up above the B737 on the Runway XXR final. The MD82 then started his descent on the Glide Slope even though he wasn't established on the localizer. The trainee called the Final Monitor as soon as the MD82 went through the final to make sure they saw the problem. The Final Monitor instructed the MD82 to maintain 6;000 FT and he climbed back up to it. This was originally filed as a pilot deviation but was changed to a B error. The reason stated for the change was that we didn't verify that the MD82 was established on the final prior to frequency change to Tower. However; even as the facility report states; the MD82 was switched as he 'was over the Runway XXC final approach course.' Pilots should be instructed to NOT descend on the final if they aren't actually on the final when multiple approaches are in use. There are several reasons that they may not capture the localizer; but to descend rather than ask for help doesn't make sense. The requirement in the 7110.65 is to issue and altitude to maintain until on a published segment of the approach. Since the MD82 was turning final outside the simultaneous ILS turn on point; the approach is not published outside that point. The aircraft was told to 'cross xxx fix at 060' instead of 'maintain 060 until on the localizer' so as to comply with the phraseology requirement; since the approach starts at xxx fix. However; the descent may not have occurred if the 'maintain until established on the localizer' phraseology had been used instead. When the facility talked to the pilot he stated that he started his descent abeam xxx fix; which is the fix he was told to 'cross at 060'. However; he didn't cross it since he failed to capture the localizer ('xxx'; as stated).

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.