![]() |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1113083 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201308 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZSPD.Airport |
| State Reference | FO |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | MD-11 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Route In Use | STAR DUM21F |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | FMS/FMC |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types |
Narrative:
During approach planning to zspd; the pilot flying loaded the DUM21F to runway 34 in the secondary flight plan and the DUM23F to runway 34 in the primary flight plan. After commencing the approach; we were given 35R and I activated the secondary flight plan as directed by the pilot flying. When performing the approach checklist; I quickly realized that the localizer identifier was incorrect and manually tuned the localizer for runway 35R. The pilot flying transitioned visually; making a slight left turn to intercept the localizer to runway 35R. Moments later; ATC gave us a 10 degree heading change for localizer intercept; though we had already initiated the turn. An uneventful landing was performed.having two separate arrivals; the DUM21F and the DUM23F; to runway 34 is confusing and excessive. The transitions need to be better annotated on the commercial chart plate. In addition; earlier assignment for the approach by ATC would allow earlier detection of the incorrect localizer frequency during the approach checklist. As a crew; we detected the incorrect localizer and runway setup; but an earlier detection would have precluded ATC's query and subsequent intercept vector. The arrivals with multiple transitions to the same runways can be simplified or more clearly displayed. I am not sure if this is a chart manufacture shortcoming or a zspd issue.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: The flight crew of an MD-11; inbound to ZSPD; line selected the wrong RNAV STAR associated with their final assigned runway. Doing so autotuned the incorrect ILS frequency and a short lived track deviation resulted.
Narrative: During approach planning to ZSPD; the pilot flying loaded the DUM21F to Runway 34 in the secondary flight plan and the DUM23F to Runway 34 in the primary flight plan. After commencing the approach; we were given 35R and I activated the secondary flight plan as directed by the pilot flying. When performing the Approach checklist; I quickly realized that the Localizer identifier was incorrect and manually tuned the localizer for Runway 35R. The pilot flying transitioned visually; making a slight left turn to intercept the localizer to Runway 35R. Moments later; ATC gave us a 10 degree heading change for localizer intercept; though we had already initiated the turn. An uneventful landing was performed.Having two separate arrivals; the DUM21F and the DUM23F; to Runway 34 is confusing and excessive. The transitions need to be better annotated on the Commercial Chart plate. In addition; earlier assignment for the approach by ATC would allow earlier detection of the incorrect localizer frequency during the Approach checklist. As a crew; we detected the incorrect localizer and runway setup; but an earlier detection would have precluded ATC's query and subsequent intercept vector. The arrivals with multiple transitions to the same runways can be simplified or more clearly displayed. I am not sure if this is a chart manufacture shortcoming or a ZSPD issue.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.