|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : ont|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 3000|
msl bound upper : 3200
|Operator||general aviation : corporate|
|Make Model Name||Learjet 60|
|Route In Use||arrival other|
enroute : on vectors
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : cfi|
pilot : instrument
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 71|
flight time total : 7000
flight time type : 602
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : detected after the fact|
none taken : anomaly accepted
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
We were on an ILS approach to runway 26L at ont. The autoplt was coupled and the GS and localizer were captured. ATC said we were following a heavy jet and for wake turbulence separation we needed to slow to 150 KTS. We told ATC we were unable. Shortly after, while we were descending out of 3000 ft on the GS, ATC gave us a turn to the right of approximately 60 degrees and said to maintain 3200 ft. At that point we started a climb back to 3200 ft and a turn to the specified heading. ATC then asked for our speed, which we reported as 156 KTS. ATC then told us to turn left and rejoin the approach without issuing a heading for intercept. When we turned back left to join the course the next waypoint in front of us was bakes, which is 3.8 DME. This would put us between fonta, the FAF at 7.4 DME and bakes at 3.8 DME when we intercepted the localizer. I estimate our intercept angle to be 50 degrees to 60 degrees to intercept before bakes. We were well above the GS at that point because of the 3200 ft altitude we were issued. When we intercepted the localizer the autoplt started making an s-turn because of the angle we had to intercept at. At that point I disconnected the autoplt to correct back to the localizer course and descend back to the GS. As we descended out of the clouds we were still to the right of runway 26L which lined us up with runway 26R which is approximately 500 ft to the right of runway 26L. I corrected our flight path over to runway 26L and landed. First of all, I feel that ATC should not have given us a vector off course with a climb and such an angle, then a turn back on course that close in on the approach. That put our aircraft above the GS and made it very difficult to recapture the localizer and GS. This made for a very heavy pilot workload. If the WX had been any lower or the runway, which is 10200 ft long, had been any shorter we would have had to make a missed approach. For my part, I should have requested a vector back around for another approach when I first realized the situation that we were getting set up for.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF A LEARJET 60 (LR60) WERE VECTORED OFF OF FINAL COURSE FOR SPACING BEHIND A HVY JET AFTER THE CAPT ADVISED ATC THAT HE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE SLOWER REQUESTED SPD. HOWEVER, THEN ATC TURNED THEM BACK TO THE LOC INSIDE THE OM AND HIGH. RPTR DID NOT LIKE ATC'S SLAM DUNK.
Narrative: WE WERE ON AN ILS APCH TO RWY 26L AT ONT. THE AUTOPLT WAS COUPLED AND THE GS AND LOC WERE CAPTURED. ATC SAID WE WERE FOLLOWING A HVY JET AND FOR WAKE TURB SEPARATION WE NEEDED TO SLOW TO 150 KTS. WE TOLD ATC WE WERE UNABLE. SHORTLY AFTER, WHILE WE WERE DSNDING OUT OF 3000 FT ON THE GS, ATC GAVE US A TURN TO THE R OF APPROX 60 DEGS AND SAID TO MAINTAIN 3200 FT. AT THAT POINT WE STARTED A CLB BACK TO 3200 FT AND A TURN TO THE SPECIFIED HDG. ATC THEN ASKED FOR OUR SPD, WHICH WE RPTED AS 156 KTS. ATC THEN TOLD US TO TURN L AND REJOIN THE APCH WITHOUT ISSUING A HDG FOR INTERCEPT. WHEN WE TURNED BACK L TO JOIN THE COURSE THE NEXT WAYPOINT IN FRONT OF US WAS BAKES, WHICH IS 3.8 DME. THIS WOULD PUT US BTWN FONTA, THE FAF AT 7.4 DME AND BAKES AT 3.8 DME WHEN WE INTERCEPTED THE LOC. I ESTIMATE OUR INTERCEPT ANGLE TO BE 50 DEGS TO 60 DEGS TO INTERCEPT BEFORE BAKES. WE WERE WELL ABOVE THE GS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE OF THE 3200 FT ALT WE WERE ISSUED. WHEN WE INTERCEPTED THE LOC THE AUTOPLT STARTED MAKING AN S-TURN BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE WE HAD TO INTERCEPT AT. AT THAT POINT I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT TO CORRECT BACK TO THE LOC COURSE AND DSND BACK TO THE GS. AS WE DSNDED OUT OF THE CLOUDS WE WERE STILL TO THE R OF RWY 26L WHICH LINED US UP WITH RWY 26R WHICH IS APPROX 500 FT TO THE R OF RWY 26L. I CORRECTED OUR FLT PATH OVER TO RWY 26L AND LANDED. FIRST OF ALL, I FEEL THAT ATC SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US A VECTOR OFF COURSE WITH A CLB AND SUCH AN ANGLE, THEN A TURN BACK ON COURSE THAT CLOSE IN ON THE APCH. THAT PUT OUR ACFT ABOVE THE GS AND MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO RECAPTURE THE LOC AND GS. THIS MADE FOR A VERY HVY PLT WORKLOAD. IF THE WX HAD BEEN ANY LOWER OR THE RWY, WHICH IS 10200 FT LONG, HAD BEEN ANY SHORTER WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE A MISSED APCH. FOR MY PART, I SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED A VECTOR BACK AROUND FOR ANOTHER APCH WHEN I FIRST REALIZED THE SIT THAT WE WERE GETTING SET UP FOR.
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.