 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew of an air carrier medium large transport made instrument approach not approved on company operation specifications.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 310310 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199507 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : abe |
| State Reference | PA |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 1800 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | Marginal |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : abe |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 7200 flight time type : 400 |
| ASRS Report | 310310 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence other other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | faa : investigated |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
Our company's principle operations inspector, has at best been difficult to work with. He has routinely changed his mind regarding approved procedures, sometimes totally reversing his decisions multiple times. Such is the case with the operations specification approval for localizer back course approachs. As of this writing, I am still unsure as to whether our company has approval to use this type of approach. Further, for a period of time the company has not issued up to date operations specifications to its pilots, so most of us did not know whether or not to operate this approach. All pilots have been trained in this approach. It seems ironic that a part 91 pilot with an instrument rating may operate any instrument approach, but an airline pilot may not. The cause of this problem is simple, a serious break down in communication between the FAA, the company, and the company's pilots.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF AN ACR MLG MADE INST APCH NOT APPROVED ON COMPANY OP SPECS.
Narrative: OUR COMPANY'S PRINCIPLE OPS INSPECTOR, HAS AT BEST BEEN DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. HE HAS ROUTINELY CHANGED HIS MIND REGARDING APPROVED PROCS, SOMETIMES TOTALLY REVERSING HIS DECISIONS MULTIPLE TIMES. SUCH IS THE CASE WITH THE OPS SPEC APPROVAL FOR LOC BACK COURSE APCHS. AS OF THIS WRITING, I AM STILL UNSURE AS TO WHETHER OUR COMPANY HAS APPROVAL TO USE THIS TYPE OF APCH. FURTHER, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME THE COMPANY HAS NOT ISSUED UP TO DATE OPS SPECS TO ITS PLTS, SO MOST OF US DID NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TO OPERATE THIS APCH. ALL PLTS HAVE BEEN TRAINED IN THIS APCH. IT SEEMS IRONIC THAT A PART 91 PLT WITH AN INST RATING MAY OPERATE ANY INST APCH, BUT AN AIRLINE PLT MAY NOT. THE CAUSE OF THIS PROB IS SIMPLE, A SERIOUS BREAK DOWN IN COM BTWN THE FAA, THE COMPANY, AND THE COMPANY'S PLTS.
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.