An air carrier large transport made an ILS approach to the wrong runway under the direction of ZFW. ...

Attributes
ACN	229299
Time
Date	199212
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mlu
State Reference	LA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 80 msl bound upper : 5000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : ftw artcc : zny
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : mlu
Flight Phase	cruise other descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : straight in enroute : on vectors enroute airway : zfw
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 4500 flight time type : 2500
ASRS Report	229299
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 5000
ASRS Report	229303
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : became reoriented other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation
Situations
Navigational Aid	Unspecified

Narrative:

Arrived mlu after tower closed. Since no ATIS, updated WX with FSS, contacted ZFW on 135.1. Center asked intentions. We requested ILS runway 4. Center approved and vectored us to IAF. Localizer and GS flags stayed in view until 15-18 mi from field. Flags then biased out of view with reverse sensing noticed. First officer then was able to receive identify but was incorrect. We maintained 3000 ft and abandoned approach near OM. Due to rain over VOR, requested 060 degree heading and climb to 5000 ft from center. We then realized that localizer frequency was aligned with runway 22 (same frequency, different identify). We then requested a long straight-in to ILS runway 22. ZFW set up a 25 mi straight-in. ILS and landing uneventful monroe. Corrective actions: air crews need to know which runway ILS is lined up on either through all night ATIS or ZFW. In our situation, winds (140/6) favored neither runway. In addition, using the same frequency (109.5) for localizer 4 or 22 with similar idents and the relative weakness of signal strength also contributed to a hazardous situation. Supplemental information from acn 229303: we were unable to obtain any information on mlu ATIS and when ZFW vectored us for an ILS runway 4 approach it reinforced my choice of runway 4 as the appropriate runway. The following day, I contacted the mlu tower operator to inquire what procedures they followed when they closed the tower operations. He stated that they turned on the ILS for the most favorable runway at the time of closing, put that information on the ATIS, and advised ZFW of the alignment of the ILS. Information available to ZFW as to the alignment of the ILS for runway 22 could have averted this confusion and potentially dangerous situation.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR LGT MADE AN ILS APCH TO THE WRONG RWY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ZFW. THE SAME FREQ ILS WAS ALIGNED TO THE RWY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: ARRIVED MLU AFTER TWR CLOSED. SINCE NO ATIS, UPDATED WX WITH FSS, CONTACTED ZFW ON 135.1. CTR ASKED INTENTIONS. WE REQUESTED ILS RWY 4. CTR APPROVED AND VECTORED US TO IAF. LOC AND GS FLAGS STAYED IN VIEW UNTIL 15-18 MI FROM FIELD. FLAGS THEN BIASED OUT OF VIEW WITH REVERSE SENSING NOTICED. FO THEN WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE IDENT BUT WAS INCORRECT. WE MAINTAINED 3000 FT AND ABANDONED APCH NEAR OM. DUE TO RAIN OVER VOR, REQUESTED 060 DEG HDG AND CLB TO 5000 FT FROM CTR. WE THEN REALIZED THAT LOC FREQ WAS ALIGNED WITH RWY 22 (SAME FREQ, DIFFERENT IDENT). WE THEN REQUESTED A LONG STRAIGHT-IN TO ILS RWY 22. ZFW SET UP A 25 MI STRAIGHT-IN. ILS AND LNDG UNEVENTFUL MONROE. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: AIR CREWS NEED TO KNOW WHICH RWY ILS IS LINED UP ON EITHER THROUGH ALL NIGHT ATIS OR ZFW. IN OUR SIT, WINDS (140/6) FAVORED NEITHER RWY. IN ADDITION, USING THE SAME FREQ (109.5) FOR LOC 4 OR 22 WITH SIMILAR IDENTS AND THE RELATIVE WEAKNESS OF SIGNAL STRENGTH ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO A HAZARDOUS SIT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 229303: WE WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY INFO ON MLU ATIS AND WHEN ZFW VECTORED US FOR AN ILS RWY 4 APCH IT REINFORCED MY CHOICE OF RWY 4 AS THE APPROPRIATE RWY. THE FOLLOWING DAY, I CONTACTED THE MLU TWR OPERATOR TO INQUIRE WHAT PROCS THEY FOLLOWED WHEN THEY CLOSED THE TWR OPS. HE STATED THAT THEY TURNED ON THE ILS FOR THE MOST FAVORABLE RWY AT THE TIME OF CLOSING, PUT THAT INFO ON THE ATIS, AND ADVISED ZFW OF THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ILS. INFO AVAILABLE TO ZFW AS TO THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ILS FOR RWY 22 COULD HAVE AVERTED THIS CONFUSION AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.

An air carrier large transport made an ILS approach to the wrong runway under the direction of ZFW. The same frequency ILS was aligned to the runway in the opposite direction.