Captain of an medium large transport complains about the handling by ATC during approach to sfo due to canceling his approach and then not providing heading information until the flight crew inquired as to what heading was needed by ATC and then subsequently had to ask ATC when they could return to the airport.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	342180
Time
Date	199607
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sfo
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2500 msl bound upper : 2500
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : oak
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
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 6900 flight time type : 650
ASRS Report	342180
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

While on approach to sfo, bay approach canceled our approach about 4 mi from brigg intersection. Some interesting observations were noted: 1) prior to cancellation, we noticed that we were close to our traffic. Instead of squaring the base to final, ATC seemed to have us do a slight parallel to intercept for runway 28R, slowing us very close to intercept near brigg. 2) after canceling approach, ATC gave us a climb, but no heading instructions until we inquired. ATC then gave us instructions to follow the localizer runway 28R outbound. After some time we had to inquire once again for our return to the airport.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN MLG COMPLAINS ABOUT THE HANDLING BY ATC DURING APCH TO SFO DUE TO CANCELING HIS APCH AND THEN NOT PROVIDING HDG INFO UNTIL THE FLC INQUIRED AS TO WHAT HDG WAS NEEDED BY ATC AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY HAD TO ASK ATC WHEN THEY COULD RETURN TO THE ARPT.

Narrative: WHILE ON APCH TO SFO, BAY APCH CANCELED OUR APCH ABOUT 4 MI FROM BRIGG INTXN. SOME INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS WERE NOTED: 1) PRIOR TO CANCELLATION, WE NOTICED THAT WE WERE CLOSE TO OUR TFC. INSTEAD OF SQUARING THE BASE TO FINAL, ATC SEEMED TO HAVE US DO A SLIGHT PARALLEL TO INTERCEPT FOR RWY 28R, SLOWING US VERY CLOSE TO INTERCEPT NEAR BRIGG. 2) AFTER CANCELING APCH, ATC GAVE US A CLB, BUT NO HDG INSTRUCTIONS UNTIL WE INQUIRED. ATC THEN GAVE US INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW THE LOC RWY 28R OUTBOUND. AFTER SOME TIME WE HAD TO INQUIRE ONCE AGAIN FOR OUR RETURN TO THE ARPT.

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.