Narrative:

While en route, PNF obtained ATIS which advised '...visual apches 12L and 124...' were in use utilizing the '...12L lda/DME and 12R ILS...'. PNF and PF reviewed both apches while en route. PNF obtained current ATIS when nearer destination, and while some change to WX was noted, the approach in use information remained identical to preceding hour ATIS. Flight was advised by approach to expect visual to 12L, and crew had the lda/DME plate available per ATIS information. Aircraft was turned over to final approach controller when close-in, was given an altitude to maintain and cleared for ILS 12L approach. PNF immediately advised ATC that flight did not have ILS 12L approach, rather than continue with wrong approach available, and to seek clarification. Aircraft was immediately revectored off the approach course while a second ATC voice inquired as to whether in fact crew did not have the approach '...in the airplane...'. ATC immediately advised that crew had the approach plate (by now it was brought forth for use) and at the same time PNF advised ATC crew had expected the visual to 12L based on lda/DME 12L as advertised on ATIS. Controller acknowledged that was the approach we had been told to expect. In the meantime aircraft was advised to maintain 150 KTS to the marker (a speed difficult to obtain) and since we had already slowed near normal approach speed of 95-100 KTS, we were overtaken from above and passed by a heavy on the parallel. Fortunately, both aircraft were in visual conditions at this time, and crew was able to acknowledge ATC inquiry as to visual contact with other aircraft and to maintain separation (though wake turbulence was distinct possibility until heavy had passed and descended below us). In all this confusion PNF (who handled radios throughout majority of transaction) is not sue he even heard a clearance to land, though it could be expected that same was obtained. Observation: while ATC must have flexibility to alter routes to suit conditions, pilots should be able to depend on ATIS for accurate data regarding apches, especially when 2 consecutive advertise the same apches in use. Further, when told to expect an approach, pilots should be able to depend on this information to some extent, for time is required to bring up the appropriate plate and become familiar with the procedure. As evidenced here, pilots need to be flexible, but should not abrogate their responsibility to ATC. It was important in this case to immediately advise ATC that crew did not have plate available for use when cleared for an approach for which they were not prepared, no matter how embarrassing that can be. Faking it while parallel apches are in use was the only alternative to confessing, and may have avoided ATC wrath, since the aircraft was by now visual. To be cleared for an ILS on the runway where lda/DME was expected, while ILS was in fact proceeding on the parallel, left little choice but to confess, inquire and confirm. With confusion in communication that already existed, how could one know but that we were even on the correct runway/approach?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CONFUSION AS TO WHAT TYPE OF APCH TO EXPECT FROM APCH CTLR.

Narrative: WHILE ENRTE, PNF OBTAINED ATIS WHICH ADVISED '...VISUAL APCHES 12L AND 124...' WERE IN USE UTILIZING THE '...12L LDA/DME AND 12R ILS...'. PNF AND PF REVIEWED BOTH APCHES WHILE ENRTE. PNF OBTAINED CURRENT ATIS WHEN NEARER DEST, AND WHILE SOME CHANGE TO WX WAS NOTED, THE APCH IN USE INFO REMAINED IDENTICAL TO PRECEDING HOUR ATIS. FLT WAS ADVISED BY APCH TO EXPECT VISUAL TO 12L, AND CREW HAD THE LDA/DME PLATE AVAILABLE PER ATIS INFO. ACFT WAS TURNED OVER TO FINAL APCH CTLR WHEN CLOSE-IN, WAS GIVEN AN ALT TO MAINTAIN AND CLRED FOR ILS 12L APCH. PNF IMMEDIATELY ADVISED ATC THAT FLT DID NOT HAVE ILS 12L APCH, RATHER THAN CONTINUE WITH WRONG APCH AVAILABLE, AND TO SEEK CLARIFICATION. ACFT WAS IMMEDIATELY REVECTORED OFF THE APCH COURSE WHILE A SECOND ATC VOICE INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER IN FACT CREW DID NOT HAVE THE APCH '...IN THE AIRPLANE...'. ATC IMMEDIATELY ADVISED THAT CREW HAD THE APCH PLATE (BY NOW IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH FOR USE) AND AT THE SAME TIME PNF ADVISED ATC CREW HAD EXPECTED THE VISUAL TO 12L BASED ON LDA/DME 12L AS ADVERTISED ON ATIS. CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WAS THE APCH WE HAD BEEN TOLD TO EXPECT. IN THE MEANTIME ACFT WAS ADVISED TO MAINTAIN 150 KTS TO THE MARKER (A SPEED DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN) AND SINCE WE HAD ALREADY SLOWED NEAR NORMAL APCH SPEED OF 95-100 KTS, WE WERE OVERTAKEN FROM ABOVE AND PASSED BY A HEAVY ON THE PARALLEL. FORTUNATELY, BOTH ACFT WERE IN VISUAL CONDITIONS AT THIS TIME, AND CREW WAS ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ATC INQUIRY AS TO VISUAL CONTACT WITH OTHER ACFT AND TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION (THOUGH WAKE TURBULENCE WAS DISTINCT POSSIBILITY UNTIL HEAVY HAD PASSED AND DESCENDED BELOW US). IN ALL THIS CONFUSION PNF (WHO HANDLED RADIOS THROUGHOUT MAJORITY OF TRANSACTION) IS NOT SUE HE EVEN HEARD A CLRNC TO LAND, THOUGH IT COULD BE EXPECTED THAT SAME WAS OBTAINED. OBSERVATION: WHILE ATC MUST HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO ALTER ROUTES TO SUIT CONDITIONS, PLTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEPEND ON ATIS FOR ACCURATE DATA REGARDING APCHES, ESPECIALLY WHEN 2 CONSECUTIVE ADVERTISE THE SAME APCHES IN USE. FURTHER, WHEN TOLD TO EXPECT AN APCH, PLTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEPEND ON THIS INFO TO SOME EXTENT, FOR TIME IS REQUIRED TO BRING UP THE APPROPRIATE PLATE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PROC. AS EVIDENCED HERE, PLTS NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE, BUT SHOULD NOT ABROGATE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO ATC. IT WAS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE TO IMMEDIATELY ADVISE ATC THAT CREW DID NOT HAVE PLATE AVAILABLE FOR USE WHEN CLRED FOR AN APCH FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT PREPARED, NO MATTER HOW EMBARRASSING THAT CAN BE. FAKING IT WHILE PARALLEL APCHES ARE IN USE WAS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO CONFESSING, AND MAY HAVE AVOIDED ATC WRATH, SINCE THE ACFT WAS BY NOW VISUAL. TO BE CLRED FOR AN ILS ON THE RWY WHERE LDA/DME WAS EXPECTED, WHILE ILS WAS IN FACT PROCEEDING ON THE PARALLEL, LEFT LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO CONFESS, INQUIRE AND CONFIRM. WITH CONFUSION IN COM THAT ALREADY EXISTED, HOW COULD ONE KNOW BUT THAT WE WERE EVEN ON THE CORRECT RWY/APCH?

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.