Flight crew of an air carrier turboprop were cleared for an ILS approach but the ILS would not identify and the localizer needle wavered. Since approach had not specified the ILS approach runway, the flight crew thought it was the expected one given during first contact. However, it was a different runway that had not been specified and the misunderstanding was cleared up and a visual landing made.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	397079
Time
Date	199803
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ewr
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2500 msl bound upper : 2500
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : n90 artcc : zla
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
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 1860 flight time type : 400
ASRS Report	397079
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 1800
ASRS Report	397080
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We checked in with newark approach, told to expect ILS runway 11 to ewr. We were given several vectors then handed off to final approach controller. Controller issued heading, descent to 2500 ft and 'cleared for the approach.' ILS did not identify and CDI was wavering. We questioned the controller concerning the ILS and was given a heading for intercept. The new heading was 130 degrees off of the inbound course. We were then cleared for ILS again (ILS runway 22). We questioned the controller as to which ILS and said we were told to expect ILS runway 11 and nothing further. The controller responded that there must have been a miscom and asked if we were in a position to continue the ILS runway 22, or needed to miss. We had the airport (runway 22) in sight and continued to a normal visual approach to runway 22L. Original clearance for approach did not include runway number. ATC should have stated or crew should have verified.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN ACR TURBOPROP WERE CLRED FOR AN ILS APCH BUT THE ILS WOULD NOT IDENT AND THE LOC NEEDLE WAVERED. SINCE APCH HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE ILS APCH RWY, THE FLC THOUGHT IT WAS THE EXPECTED ONE GIVEN DURING FIRST CONTACT. HOWEVER, IT WAS A DIFFERENT RWY THAT HAD NOT BEEN SPECIFIED AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING WAS CLRED UP AND A VISUAL LNDG MADE.

Narrative: WE CHKED IN WITH NEWARK APCH, TOLD TO EXPECT ILS RWY 11 TO EWR. WE WERE GIVEN SEVERAL VECTORS THEN HANDED OFF TO FINAL APCH CTLR. CTLR ISSUED HEADING, DSCNT TO 2500 FT AND 'CLRED FOR THE APCH.' ILS DID NOT IDENT AND CDI WAS WAVERING. WE QUESTIONED THE CTLR CONCERNING THE ILS AND WAS GIVEN A HEADING FOR INTERCEPT. THE NEW HDG WAS 130 DEGS OFF OF THE INBOUND COURSE. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR ILS AGAIN (ILS RWY 22). WE QUESTIONED THE CTLR AS TO WHICH ILS AND SAID WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT ILS RWY 11 AND NOTHING FURTHER. THE CTLR RESPONDED THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A MISCOM AND ASKED IF WE WERE IN A POS TO CONTINUE THE ILS RWY 22, OR NEEDED TO MISS. WE HAD THE ARPT (RWY 22) IN SIGHT AND CONTINUED TO A NORMAL VISUAL APCH TO RWY 22L. ORIGINAL CLRNC FOR APCH DID NOT INCLUDE RWY NUMBER. ATC SHOULD HAVE STATED OR CREW SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED.

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.