Narrative:

Cleared to 'descend via riivr arrival; cleared ILS 25L approach.' weather: cloud top deck at 3700 ft MSL and ceiling 1600 ft MSL. Passing 4300 ft MSL on ILS glidepath/course and 240 knots; socal approach pointed out another carrier on right base to 24L. We were asked if we had it in sight. We said yes; but would lose them when both aircraft entered the cloud deck. Told to respond when we lose sight in clouds. We respond that we were losing sight of the other aircraft as they were entering clouds. We were told to maintain 4000 ft MSL. We were not told to cancel approach clearance. Then we were told to maintain 3800 ft MSL. We had to climb from 3700 ft MSL back up to 3800 ft MSL. We queried the controller about our approach clearance. He said to maintain localizer course. We were now well above glidepath. Then; we were told 'cleared ILS approach.' we were high. Then; we were told to slow further because of overtake of the aircraft in front of us. We were high at the FAF and fast trying to configure and get down. Broke out just inside FAF with runway in sight. High on glidepath; greater than 1000 ft vertical velocity indicator descent; and fast. We were stabilized inside the slot and elected to land as the approach criteria were coming together.factors attributed to this incident included poor ATC controlling and verbiage. Question: with field under IMC conditions and both aircraft under IMC approach criteria; why were we told to maintain visual after being given instrument approach clearance? And; then didn't have approach clearance cancelled after given altitude clearance while on ILS approach?

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reports of marginal weather inbound to LAX and being asked if they could maintain visual with another aircraft. Pilot responded that they could; but would lose the aircraft when it went into the cloud deck. Controller told them to maintain an altitude; then cleared them for the ILS. Pilot wondered why controller would issue the visual when they were aware of the clouds and why did the Controller not issue a clearance cancellation.

Narrative: Cleared to 'descend via RIIVR Arrival; cleared ILS 25L approach.' Weather: Cloud top deck at 3700 FT MSL and ceiling 1600 FT MSL. Passing 4300 FT MSL on ILS glidepath/course and 240 knots; SoCal Approach pointed out another carrier on right base to 24L. We were asked if we had it in sight. We said yes; but would lose them when both aircraft entered the cloud deck. Told to respond when we lose sight in clouds. We respond that we were losing sight of the other aircraft as they were entering clouds. We were told to maintain 4000 FT MSL. We were not told to cancel approach clearance. Then we were told to maintain 3800 FT MSL. We had to climb from 3700 FT MSL back up to 3800 FT MSL. We queried the Controller about our approach clearance. He said to maintain localizer course. We were now well above glidepath. Then; we were told 'cleared ILS approach.' We were high. Then; we were told to slow further because of overtake of the aircraft in front of us. We were high at the FAF and fast trying to configure and get down. Broke out just inside FAF with runway in sight. High on glidepath; greater than 1000 FT Vertical Velocity Indicator descent; and fast. We were stabilized inside the slot and elected to land as the approach criteria were coming together.Factors attributed to this incident included poor ATC controlling and verbiage. Question: With field under IMC conditions and both aircraft under IMC approach criteria; why were we told to maintain visual after being given instrument approach clearance? And; then didn't have approach clearance cancelled after given altitude clearance while on ILS approach?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.