Narrative:

On the aug/wed/96 I was the first officer, PNF, inbound to lax under air carrier. We were initially cleared direct to lax about 200 mi out. As we got closer we were then cleared direct hec direct lax. It utilized the same radials as the downe 4 arrival. About 60 mi or so from lax we were given another arrival. At first I did not understand what the controller said, so as the PNF, I asked the controller to repeat the arrival. He gave us the civit 1 arrival. At this point it was really necessary to get the airplane down to make the intersection which was 52 DME out at or below FL180. We had no problem making the restr at civit, bremr or arnes. Outside of arnes intersection, ATC asked what runway we wanted, even though the civit arrival serves runway 25L. I said that we were unfamiliar with airport area but told them we were going to FBO. We crossed arnes between 10000 ft and 16000 ft as called for by the approach (STAR). We still did not know what runway would be assigned. After passing arnes we were cleared for the runway 25L approach. We were still high but began to make the descent to cross suzzi 29 DME at 9000 ft. At this point, the GS came alive and the captain followed it down. We were cleared for the approach and the IAF for runway 25L begins prior to arnes intersection. We were to cross fuelr intersection 26.4 DME out at 8000 ft by the arrival chart but being previously cleared for the approach we crossed fuelr on the GS roughly 180-240 ft below 8000 ft. The FAA and approach control said we crossed fuelr at 7100 ft -- a 900 ft difference. At no time did approach ask us what altitude we were at or even state that we were low as they have stated. Arrival information did not state the GS was unusable as it did the following day in the departure ATIS. Cockpit workload had increased since of the late descent out of 10000 ft to begin the approach. Perhaps the intersection was misidented or I, as the first officer, may have taken the DME readouts off the lax VOR. It's hard to look back and remember every detail of the approach that was 10 days ago. I do think that ATC should not have assigned us approach clearance after the IAF had been passed. I just can't believe we were that far off in altitude. I did let the captain know that he was below 8000 ft at fuelr. He said he was on the GS and would fly it down. Supplemental information from acn 343721: looking back to the arrival and the approach, after having naved on the localizer 52 mi out (almost 3 times the normal guaranteed distance of 18 mi for a localizer), then, being cleared for the approach (without an altitude restr prior to being established, which I am so used to hearing, followed quickly by GS interception), I found myself concentrating on establishing myself on the GS. Not realizing at the time that the GS needle, even without a warning flag, may have been giving false information. The next day on our trip out of lax the ATIS stated that the GS for runway 25L was unusable beyond 10 DME. A NOTAM was also issued on aug/xx/96. I realize that the 4 letter identify of ilax, or any other ILS for that matter, idents the VHF localizer as well as the UHF GS. Yes, they share the same identify, however, just because one of these transmitters under this same identify, was usable over 3 times the normal guaranteed distance does not guarantee the other transmitter (GS) is usable 3 times its normal distance, even with seemingly correct indications on the instruments. GS is good for a maximum of 10 DME, unless otherwise specified, period. Callback conversation with reporter acn 343721 revealed the following information: during callback the captain felt he did not fully understand clearance. His thinking was that if cleared for an ILS runway 25L approach, that everything in front of him was clear for his flying the ILS. When explained that wasn't the case, he still seemed bewildered. He was positive that cleared for the ILS meant that he was cleared to follow the ILS GS all the way from where he received clearance. The question was asked of him, that if he heard the controller phrase, 'clear for ILS runway 25L approach, comply with all altitude restrs,' would that alert him that there are altitudes on the descent that must not be violated. His answer was an emphatic, 'yes!'

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC FLIES BELOW MINIMUM XING ALT AT FUELR INTXN ON LAX ARR.

Narrative: ON THE AUG/WED/96 I WAS THE FO, PNF, INBOUND TO LAX UNDER ACR. WE WERE INITIALLY CLRED DIRECT TO LAX ABOUT 200 MI OUT. AS WE GOT CLOSER WE WERE THEN CLRED DIRECT HEC DIRECT LAX. IT UTILIZED THE SAME RADIALS AS THE DOWNE 4 ARR. ABOUT 60 MI OR SO FROM LAX WE WERE GIVEN ANOTHER ARR. AT FIRST I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CTLR SAID, SO AS THE PNF, I ASKED THE CTLR TO REPEAT THE ARR. HE GAVE US THE CIVIT 1 ARR. AT THIS POINT IT WAS REALLY NECESSARY TO GET THE AIRPLANE DOWN TO MAKE THE INTXN WHICH WAS 52 DME OUT AT OR BELOW FL180. WE HAD NO PROB MAKING THE RESTR AT CIVIT, BREMR OR ARNES. OUTSIDE OF ARNES INTXN, ATC ASKED WHAT RWY WE WANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CIVIT ARR SERVES RWY 25L. I SAID THAT WE WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH ARPT AREA BUT TOLD THEM WE WERE GOING TO FBO. WE CROSSED ARNES BTWN 10000 FT AND 16000 FT AS CALLED FOR BY THE APCH (STAR). WE STILL DID NOT KNOW WHAT RWY WOULD BE ASSIGNED. AFTER PASSING ARNES WE WERE CLRED FOR THE RWY 25L APCH. WE WERE STILL HIGH BUT BEGAN TO MAKE THE DSCNT TO CROSS SUZZI 29 DME AT 9000 FT. AT THIS POINT, THE GS CAME ALIVE AND THE CAPT FOLLOWED IT DOWN. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND THE IAF FOR RWY 25L BEGINS PRIOR TO ARNES INTXN. WE WERE TO CROSS FUELR INTXN 26.4 DME OUT AT 8000 FT BY THE ARR CHART BUT BEING PREVIOUSLY CLRED FOR THE APCH WE CROSSED FUELR ON THE GS ROUGHLY 180-240 FT BELOW 8000 FT. THE FAA AND APCH CTL SAID WE CROSSED FUELR AT 7100 FT -- A 900 FT DIFFERENCE. AT NO TIME DID APCH ASK US WHAT ALT WE WERE AT OR EVEN STATE THAT WE WERE LOW AS THEY HAVE STATED. ARR INFO DID NOT STATE THE GS WAS UNUSABLE AS IT DID THE FOLLOWING DAY IN THE DEP ATIS. COCKPIT WORKLOAD HAD INCREASED SINCE OF THE LATE DSCNT OUT OF 10000 FT TO BEGIN THE APCH. PERHAPS THE INTXN WAS MISIDENTED OR I, AS THE FO, MAY HAVE TAKEN THE DME READOUTS OFF THE LAX VOR. IT'S HARD TO LOOK BACK AND REMEMBER EVERY DETAIL OF THE APCH THAT WAS 10 DAYS AGO. I DO THINK THAT ATC SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSIGNED US APCH CLRNC AFTER THE IAF HAD BEEN PASSED. I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE WE WERE THAT FAR OFF IN ALT. I DID LET THE CAPT KNOW THAT HE WAS BELOW 8000 FT AT FUELR. HE SAID HE WAS ON THE GS AND WOULD FLY IT DOWN. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 343721: LOOKING BACK TO THE ARR AND THE APCH, AFTER HAVING NAVED ON THE LOC 52 MI OUT (ALMOST 3 TIMES THE NORMAL GUARANTEED DISTANCE OF 18 MI FOR A LOC), THEN, BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH (WITHOUT AN ALT RESTR PRIOR TO BEING ESTABLISHED, WHICH I AM SO USED TO HEARING, FOLLOWED QUICKLY BY GS INTERCEPTION), I FOUND MYSELF CONCENTRATING ON ESTABLISHING MYSELF ON THE GS. NOT REALIZING AT THE TIME THAT THE GS NEEDLE, EVEN WITHOUT A WARNING FLAG, MAY HAVE BEEN GIVING FALSE INFO. THE NEXT DAY ON OUR TRIP OUT OF LAX THE ATIS STATED THAT THE GS FOR RWY 25L WAS UNUSABLE BEYOND 10 DME. A NOTAM WAS ALSO ISSUED ON AUG/XX/96. I REALIZE THAT THE 4 LETTER IDENT OF ILAX, OR ANY OTHER ILS FOR THAT MATTER, IDENTS THE VHF LOC AS WELL AS THE UHF GS. YES, THEY SHARE THE SAME IDENT, HOWEVER, JUST BECAUSE ONE OF THESE XMITTERS UNDER THIS SAME IDENT, WAS USABLE OVER 3 TIMES THE NORMAL GUARANTEED DISTANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE OTHER XMITTER (GS) IS USABLE 3 TIMES ITS NORMAL DISTANCE, EVEN WITH SEEMINGLY CORRECT INDICATIONS ON THE INSTS. GS IS GOOD FOR A MAX OF 10 DME, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, PERIOD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 343721 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: DURING CALLBACK THE CAPT FELT HE DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND CLRNC. HIS THINKING WAS THAT IF CLRED FOR AN ILS RWY 25L APCH, THAT EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF HIM WAS CLR FOR HIS FLYING THE ILS. WHEN EXPLAINED THAT WASN'T THE CASE, HE STILL SEEMED BEWILDERED. HE WAS POSITIVE THAT CLRED FOR THE ILS MEANT THAT HE WAS CLRED TO FOLLOW THE ILS GS ALL THE WAY FROM WHERE HE RECEIVED CLRNC. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED OF HIM, THAT IF HE HEARD THE CTLR PHRASE, 'CLR FOR ILS RWY 25L APCH, COMPLY WITH ALL ALT RESTRS,' WOULD THAT ALERT HIM THAT THERE ARE ALTS ON THE DSCNT THAT MUST NOT BE VIOLATED. HIS ANSWER WAS AN EMPHATIC, 'YES!'

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.