Narrative:

I was working the parallel monitor position in the los angeles area monitoring the runway 24R final. Ci-2 was coordinating with me about the possible failure of runway 24R localizer and how the approachs being issued would change to runway 24L sidestep runway 24R. During this time I was distracted from the coordination and did not notice that an E120 was deviating left of course on 2 mi final in direct conflict with B737 on final for runway 25L. Pm-1 noticed this and called tower to instruct E120 to correct course. ILS failures are common in the los angeles area especially runway 24R. This could have been avoided if there was a functional back-up system for the ILS. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated the runway 24R localizer failed which caused the E120 to drift left. Reporter was pm 2 and had the capability of overriding the local controller frequency for runway 24 complex. Reporter said that the pm 1 position has the same capability for the runway 25 complex and indicated the pm-1 had to use the voice line to the runway 24 local controller to have the E120 correct back to the runway 24R final. Reporter does not know if the 2 aircraft had each other in sight. Reporter reiterated the staffing shortage by alleging that position have to be combined in order to run breaks. Reporter indicated that at times during busy traffic periods, controllers would not combine position as combining the position would add workload to the receiving position.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A COMMUTER E120 DEVIATED L OF THE RWY 24R FINAL AND ENCROACHED ON A ACR B737 ON THE RWY 25L FINAL. PARALLEL MONITOR CTLR FOR RWY 24R WAS DISTRACTED BY CI-2 INTRAFAC COORD. RPTR FAILED TO NOTICE DEV. PM 1 NOTICED AND INFORMED TWR LCL CTLR FOR E120 TO CORRECT COURSE.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE PARALLEL MONITOR POS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA MONITORING THE RWY 24R FINAL. CI-2 WAS COORDINATING WITH ME ABOUT THE POSSIBLE FAILURE OF RWY 24R LOC AND HOW THE APCHS BEING ISSUED WOULD CHANGE TO RWY 24L SIDESTEP RWY 24R. DURING THIS TIME I WAS DISTRACTED FROM THE COORD AND DID NOT NOTICE THAT AN E120 WAS DEVIATING L OF COURSE ON 2 MI FINAL IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH B737 ON FINAL FOR RWY 25L. PM-1 NOTICED THIS AND CALLED TWR TO INSTRUCT E120 TO CORRECT COURSE. ILS FAILURES ARE COMMON IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA ESPECIALLY RWY 24R. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THERE WAS A FUNCTIONAL BACK-UP SYS FOR THE ILS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THE RWY 24R LOC FAILED WHICH CAUSED THE E120 TO DRIFT L. RPTR WAS PM 2 AND HAD THE CAPABILITY OF OVERRIDING THE LCL CTLR FREQ FOR RWY 24 COMPLEX. RPTR SAID THAT THE PM 1 POS HAS THE SAME CAPABILITY FOR THE RWY 25 COMPLEX AND INDICATED THE PM-1 HAD TO USE THE VOICE LINE TO THE RWY 24 LCL CTLR TO HAVE THE E120 CORRECT BACK TO THE RWY 24R FINAL. RPTR DOES NOT KNOW IF THE 2 ACFT HAD EACH OTHER IN SIGHT. RPTR REITERATED THE STAFFING SHORTAGE BY ALLEGING THAT POS HAVE TO BE COMBINED IN ORDER TO RUN BREAKS. RPTR INDICATED THAT AT TIMES DURING BUSY TFC PERIODS, CTLRS WOULD NOT COMBINE POS AS COMBINING THE POS WOULD ADD WORKLOAD TO THE RECEIVING POS.

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.