Narrative:

ILS runway 4R circle runway 19 at ewr. We were set up on base leg at 1000 ft preparing to turn final when tower told us to extend downwind to 4 mi so he could launch a couple of airplanes off of runway 4L. I turned downwind and proceeded to what I believed was 4 mi. I then turned base and then turned final to what I thought was runway 29. At this point I thought I had the VASI lights in sight and started my descent to landing. The ewr airport is surrounded by a tremendous amount of lights (roads, warehouses, docks, etc). It soon became apparent that we were not lined up on the runway, and about the same time the tower asked if we had the runway and VASI's, to which we replied we didn't. We were at 600 ft. He suggested climbing back to 1000 ft, and then pointed out the runway. We were approximately 3 mi from the approach end of runway 29. The rest of the approach was normal. I suggest that when an aircraft is on a circling approach, and is already circling and preparing to turn final, the tower should not ask that the aircraft make drastic changes to the approach to accommodate the tower. Spacing needs should be handled earlier in the approach. I feel that this is doubly important at airports such as ewr that are very difficult to pick out with all the surrounding lights.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 BECOMES DISORIENTED MAKING A CIRCLING APCH TO RWY 29 AT EWR.

Narrative: ILS RWY 4R CIRCLE RWY 19 AT EWR. WE WERE SET UP ON BASE LEG AT 1000 FT PREPARING TO TURN FINAL WHEN TWR TOLD US TO EXTEND DOWNWIND TO 4 MI SO HE COULD LAUNCH A COUPLE OF AIRPLANES OFF OF RWY 4L. I TURNED DOWNWIND AND PROCEEDED TO WHAT I BELIEVED WAS 4 MI. I THEN TURNED BASE AND THEN TURNED FINAL TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RWY 29. AT THIS POINT I THOUGHT I HAD THE VASI LIGHTS IN SIGHT AND STARTED MY DSCNT TO LNDG. THE EWR ARPT IS SURROUNDED BY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LIGHTS (ROADS, WAREHOUSES, DOCKS, ETC). IT SOON BECAME APPARENT THAT WE WERE NOT LINED UP ON THE RWY, AND ABOUT THE SAME TIME THE TWR ASKED IF WE HAD THE RWY AND VASI'S, TO WHICH WE REPLIED WE DIDN'T. WE WERE AT 600 FT. HE SUGGESTED CLBING BACK TO 1000 FT, AND THEN POINTED OUT THE RWY. WE WERE APPROX 3 MI FROM THE APCH END OF RWY 29. THE REST OF THE APCH WAS NORMAL. I SUGGEST THAT WHEN AN ACFT IS ON A CIRCLING APCH, AND IS ALREADY CIRCLING AND PREPARING TO TURN FINAL, THE TWR SHOULD NOT ASK THAT THE ACFT MAKE DRASTIC CHANGES TO THE APCH TO ACCOMMODATE THE TWR. SPACING NEEDS SHOULD BE HANDLED EARLIER IN THE APCH. I FEEL THAT THIS IS DOUBLY IMPORTANT AT ARPTS SUCH AS EWR THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO PICK OUT WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING LIGHTS.

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.