Narrative:

Upon arrival from northwest, iad ATIS reported ILS approachs to runway 19L and runway 19R with approach end of runway 19R closed due to construction, therefore, the GS was unusable. Upon initial contact with approach control, we were told to expect 'ILS to runway 19R.' the PNF questioned whether GS was usable. (At this point the aircraft was only about 20 degrees northwest of centerline of runway 19R localizer on an easterly heading and descending to 5000 ft MSL.) there was a lengthy delay before the controller confirmed the runway 19R GS out and subsequently changed approachs and assigned us the runway 19L ILS. At this point both the PNF and myself scrambled to get out the appropriate approach plate due to the close proximity of the airport and the runway 19L localizer. Within a min or 2, the controller notified us of again a new assignment of runway 19R localizer approach if we would accept it. As the PF, the autoplt was engaged in a descent while these changes were taking place. I manually disengaged the autoplt at approximately 4760 ft before climbing back up to 5000 ft. The controller said to 'check altitude' and in same breath cleared us to 'descend and maintain 4000 ft.' I began initiating descent and at 4700 ft was told to 'climb to 5000 ft' and given frequency change. The next controller cleared us to 'intercept the runway 19R localizer and descend to 2500 ft and slow to 160 KTS or less.' all were complied with. The controller then issued a southwest heading for s-turn and moments later issued a climb due to a separation problem. The controller aborted the approach and issued instructions to turn back to the north. We were resequenced for a new approach and landed without further incident. In my opinion, the first approach controller was unfamiliar with the approachs in use to dulles and therefore a communication problem existed. This is what led to an unsuccessful approach and near altitude deviation. The delays in controller replies to our aircraft led to drastic altitude, airspeed and heading changes in IMC for separation purposes. An 'ILS for runway 19L' or an 'ILS runway 19R GS out of service' should have been issued on initial contact. The 2 approach changes within 10 mi of the airport increased the pilot workload excessively and could have led to a conflict.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT EXPERIENCES POOR ATC HANDLING. 2 APCH CHANGES IN CLOSE RANGE TO ARPT IN IMC. MISSED APCH.

Narrative: UPON ARR FROM NW, IAD ATIS RPTED ILS APCHS TO RWY 19L AND RWY 19R WITH APCH END OF RWY 19R CLOSED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, THE GS WAS UNUSABLE. UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH CTL, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT 'ILS TO RWY 19R.' THE PNF QUESTIONED WHETHER GS WAS USABLE. (AT THIS POINT THE ACFT WAS ONLY ABOUT 20 DEGS NW OF CTRLINE OF RWY 19R LOC ON AN EASTERLY HDG AND DSNDING TO 5000 FT MSL.) THERE WAS A LENGTHY DELAY BEFORE THE CTLR CONFIRMED THE RWY 19R GS OUT AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED APCHS AND ASSIGNED US THE RWY 19L ILS. AT THIS POINT BOTH THE PNF AND MYSELF SCRAMBLED TO GET OUT THE APPROPRIATE APCH PLATE DUE TO THE CLOSE PROX OF THE ARPT AND THE RWY 19L LOC. WITHIN A MIN OR 2, THE CTLR NOTIFIED US OF AGAIN A NEW ASSIGNMENT OF RWY 19R LOC APCH IF WE WOULD ACCEPT IT. AS THE PF, THE AUTOPLT WAS ENGAGED IN A DSCNT WHILE THESE CHANGES WERE TAKING PLACE. I MANUALLY DISENGAGED THE AUTOPLT AT APPROX 4760 FT BEFORE CLBING BACK UP TO 5000 FT. THE CTLR SAID TO 'CHK ALT' AND IN SAME BREATH CLRED US TO 'DSND AND MAINTAIN 4000 FT.' I BEGAN INITIATING DSCNT AND AT 4700 FT WAS TOLD TO 'CLB TO 5000 FT' AND GIVEN FREQ CHANGE. THE NEXT CTLR CLRED US TO 'INTERCEPT THE RWY 19R LOC AND DSND TO 2500 FT AND SLOW TO 160 KTS OR LESS.' ALL WERE COMPLIED WITH. THE CTLR THEN ISSUED A SW HDG FOR S-TURN AND MOMENTS LATER ISSUED A CLB DUE TO A SEPARATION PROB. THE CTLR ABORTED THE APCH AND ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO TURN BACK TO THE N. WE WERE RESEQUENCED FOR A NEW APCH AND LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. IN MY OPINION, THE FIRST APCH CTLR WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE APCHS IN USE TO DULLES AND THEREFORE A COM PROB EXISTED. THIS IS WHAT LED TO AN UNSUCCESSFUL APCH AND NEAR ALTDEV. THE DELAYS IN CTLR REPLIES TO OUR ACFT LED TO DRASTIC ALT, AIRSPD AND HDG CHANGES IN IMC FOR SEPARATION PURPOSES. AN 'ILS FOR RWY 19L' OR AN 'ILS RWY 19R GS OUT OF SVC' SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON INITIAL CONTACT. THE 2 APCH CHANGES WITHIN 10 MI OF THE ARPT INCREASED THE PLT WORKLOAD EXCESSIVELY AND COULD HAVE LED TO A CONFLICT.

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.