Narrative:

On 5/sat/89 at approximately XA00, air carrier flight xx (sjc/lax) while executing the fillmore runway 24/25 profile descent (fim.fim 5) was cleared by lax approach control (VHF 124.5) to leave smo VOR (110.8) on a 070 degree heading and cleared to 7000' MSL. WX at lax ATIS was -X 1500' scattered, 6 mi visibility, ILS runway 24R/25R in use, runway 25L closed. Approaching smo VOR at 10000' MSL, air carrier xx reported to lax approach control that air carrier xx had lax in sight (ie, acknowledging an earlier request by lax approach control to call lax in sight). Departing smo VOR lax approach control informed air carrier xx to expect a visibility approach to runway 24L and cleared to 2500' MSL--lax approach control would call the base turn. Since no ILS frequency was available for runway 24L, air carrier xx selected ILS runway 24R in the #1 VHF navigation receiver, lax VOR in the #2 VHF navigation receiver, compass locator (romen) in both ADF receivers. While experiencing difficulty in identing the ILS 24R/lax VOR (defective audio control box--subsequently, entered in the aircraft's form 1 flight log), lax approach control turned air carrier xx to a heading of approximately 160 degrees for a base leg and cleared for a visibility approach runway 24L, at this point in time, the #2 navigation receiver displayed 11 DME (lax VOR). On the base leg, both captain and the first officer were concentrating on acquiring visibility contact with runway 24 left/right complex through the smog/haze obscuration, the F/east diverted my attention to the flap position indicator when the F/east informed me that a possible asymmetrical flap condition existed. Lax approach control instructed us to contact lax tower north complex (VHF 133.9). I analyzed the flap position indicator and announced to both first officer and F/east that the dual flap pointers were within tolerance, thus the asymmetrical flap condition did not exist. Finally, both the first officer and I, through the smog/haze obscuration, saw what we thought was the runway 24L/right complex, us at 8 DME (lax VOR) alignment complete, lax tower notified that air carrier xx was aligned with runway 25 left/right complex. We made an immediate correction for runway 24L--an uneventful landing on runway 24L followed. Nevertheless, lax approach control turning air carrier xx at an 11 DME (lax VOR) base leg with prevailing visibility of 6 mi at lax places an undue burden on the flight crew to navigation in the visibility approach clearance. While I am fully responsible for the incorrect alignment since air carrier xx accepted a visibility approach, does lax approach control realize that 'airport in sight' overhead smo VOR at 10000' MSL (vertical visibility plane) is entirely different with respect to a 11 DME (lax VOR) base at 2500' MSL (horizontal visibility plane)?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER ACFT LINED UP WITH THE WRONG RWY COMPLEX WHILE ATTEMPTING A VISUAL APCH IN SOMEWHAT REDUCED VISIBILITY CONDITIONS.

Narrative: ON 5/SAT/89 AT APPROX XA00, ACR FLT XX (SJC/LAX) WHILE EXECUTING THE FILLMORE RWY 24/25 PROFILE DSCNT (FIM.FIM 5) WAS CLRED BY LAX APCH CTL (VHF 124.5) TO LEAVE SMO VOR (110.8) ON A 070 DEG HDG AND CLRED TO 7000' MSL. WX AT LAX ATIS WAS -X 1500' SCATTERED, 6 MI VISIBILITY, ILS RWY 24R/25R IN USE, RWY 25L CLOSED. APCHING SMO VOR AT 10000' MSL, ACR XX RPTED TO LAX APCH CTL THAT ACR XX HAD LAX IN SIGHT (IE, ACKNOWLEDGING AN EARLIER REQUEST BY LAX APCH CTL TO CALL LAX IN SIGHT). DEPARTING SMO VOR LAX APCH CTL INFORMED ACR XX TO EXPECT A VIS APCH TO RWY 24L AND CLRED TO 2500' MSL--LAX APCH CTL WOULD CALL THE BASE TURN. SINCE NO ILS FREQ WAS AVAILABLE FOR RWY 24L, ACR XX SELECTED ILS RWY 24R IN THE #1 VHF NAV RECEIVER, LAX VOR IN THE #2 VHF NAV RECEIVER, COMPASS LOCATOR (ROMEN) IN BOTH ADF RECEIVERS. WHILE EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTY IN IDENTING THE ILS 24R/LAX VOR (DEFECTIVE AUDIO CTL BOX--SUBSEQUENTLY, ENTERED IN THE ACFT'S FORM 1 FLT LOG), LAX APCH CTL TURNED ACR XX TO A HDG OF APPROX 160 DEGS FOR A BASE LEG AND CLRED FOR A VIS APCH RWY 24L, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE #2 NAV RECEIVER DISPLAYED 11 DME (LAX VOR). ON THE BASE LEG, BOTH CAPT AND THE F/O WERE CONCENTRATING ON ACQUIRING VIS CONTACT WITH RWY 24 L/R COMPLEX THROUGH THE SMOG/HAZE OBSCURATION, THE F/E DIVERTED MY ATTN TO THE FLAP POS INDICATOR WHEN THE F/E INFORMED ME THAT A POSSIBLE ASYMMETRICAL FLAP CONDITION EXISTED. LAX APCH CTL INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT LAX TWR N COMPLEX (VHF 133.9). I ANALYZED THE FLAP POS INDICATOR AND ANNOUNCED TO BOTH F/O AND F/E THAT THE DUAL FLAP POINTERS WERE WITHIN TOLERANCE, THUS THE ASYMMETRICAL FLAP CONDITION DID NOT EXIST. FINALLY, BOTH THE F/O AND I, THROUGH THE SMOG/HAZE OBSCURATION, SAW WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE RWY 24L/R COMPLEX, US AT 8 DME (LAX VOR) ALIGNMENT COMPLETE, LAX TWR NOTIFIED THAT ACR XX WAS ALIGNED WITH RWY 25 L/R COMPLEX. WE MADE AN IMMEDIATE CORRECTION FOR RWY 24L--AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG ON RWY 24L FOLLOWED. NEVERTHELESS, LAX APCH CTL TURNING ACR XX AT AN 11 DME (LAX VOR) BASE LEG WITH PREVAILING VISIBILITY OF 6 MI AT LAX PLACES AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE FLT CREW TO NAV IN THE VIS APCH CLRNC. WHILE I AM FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCORRECT ALIGNMENT SINCE ACR XX ACCEPTED A VIS APCH, DOES LAX APCH CTL REALIZE THAT 'ARPT IN SIGHT' OVERHEAD SMO VOR AT 10000' MSL (VERT VISIBILITY PLANE) IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO A 11 DME (LAX VOR) BASE AT 2500' MSL (HORIZ VISIBILITY PLANE)?

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.