Narrative:

Being vectored for an ILS runway 9R at phl, the aircraft initially turned onto course then turned back to the original intercept heading (as a false signal fades or an early turn-on, then correcting back to a real turn-on/course correction) and never captured the localizer. I disconnected the autoplt and hand flew the course on the EFIS final approach course. The GS was intermittent and I started down in visual conditions in hopes to receive a good localizer and GS by 1000 ft. Local controller issued a low altitude warning and I leveled off at about 1200-1400 ft. Upon seeing the runway and deciding the approach and landing would be too steep, I elected to go around and informed the first officer that we would be going around. Upon the successful accomplishment of another approach and landing, we contacted phl tower by telephone (an air carrier flight went around behind us and a cargo flight went around behind them). We were told by the phl FAA that in depwring ILS runway 27R and pwring up ILS runway 9R we were caught in the gray area of electronics and our AB320 basically didn't know what to do. The tower chief gave us his apologies. Supplemental information from acn 443639: the aircraft initially captured and turned onto the final approach course but then turned back toward the localizer intercept heading, which put the aircraft to the right of the facility. Portions of the runway could be seen and the WX was reported VFR with no cloud layers below 3000 ft. The approach was continued with intermittent GS indications. End of the runway was not visible due to a low fog bank. Discussions with a tower supervisor revealed that the ILS frequency to runway 9R had not been fully pwred up with 'green indications' prior to our approach. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the first officer stated that the ILS approach was a 'converging ILS' to runway 9R, with higher minimums than the 'non converging' approach. Higher minimums are required since runway 17 is also used for an ILS approach at the same time. The ceiling had been misrepresented as 7000 ft scattered, VFR, not the actual ceiling of 400 ft broken, so the approach would have to have been abandoned anyway for WX minimums. The first officer said that had they been IMC, they would not have been 'suckered' into trying to save the approach but would have gone around sooner. The coordination between the tower and approach could have been better executed. The first officer further said that he couldn't recall seeing the identify of the ILS on the console and they have not been 'trained' to listen to the aural identify. They did note the 'armed' annunciator light go to 'heading' after the ILS problem started. First officer cites low experience level as being contributory to this incident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 MAKES A GAR WHEN THE LOC AND GS FAILS TO GIVE THE FLC A RELIABLE SIGNAL FOR THEIR CONVERGING ILS APCH TO RWY 9R AT PHL, PA.

Narrative: BEING VECTORED FOR AN ILS RWY 9R AT PHL, THE ACFT INITIALLY TURNED ONTO COURSE THEN TURNED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL INTERCEPT HDG (AS A FALSE SIGNAL FADES OR AN EARLY TURN-ON, THEN CORRECTING BACK TO A REAL TURN-ON/COURSE CORRECTION) AND NEVER CAPTURED THE LOC. I DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND HAND FLEW THE COURSE ON THE EFIS FINAL APCH COURSE. THE GS WAS INTERMITTENT AND I STARTED DOWN IN VISUAL CONDITIONS IN HOPES TO RECEIVE A GOOD LOC AND GS BY 1000 FT. LCL CTLR ISSUED A LOW ALT WARNING AND I LEVELED OFF AT ABOUT 1200-1400 FT. UPON SEEING THE RWY AND DECIDING THE APCH AND LNDG WOULD BE TOO STEEP, I ELECTED TO GO AROUND AND INFORMED THE FO THAT WE WOULD BE GOING AROUND. UPON THE SUCCESSFUL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ANOTHER APCH AND LNDG, WE CONTACTED PHL TWR BY TELEPHONE (AN ACR FLT WENT AROUND BEHIND US AND A CARGO FLT WENT AROUND BEHIND THEM). WE WERE TOLD BY THE PHL FAA THAT IN DEPWRING ILS RWY 27R AND PWRING UP ILS RWY 9R WE WERE CAUGHT IN THE GRAY AREA OF ELECTRONICS AND OUR AB320 BASICALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. THE TWR CHIEF GAVE US HIS APOLOGIES. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 443639: THE ACFT INITIALLY CAPTURED AND TURNED ONTO THE FINAL APCH COURSE BUT THEN TURNED BACK TOWARD THE LOC INTERCEPT HDG, WHICH PUT THE ACFT TO THE R OF THE FACILITY. PORTIONS OF THE RWY COULD BE SEEN AND THE WX WAS RPTED VFR WITH NO CLOUD LAYERS BELOW 3000 FT. THE APCH WAS CONTINUED WITH INTERMITTENT GS INDICATIONS. END OF THE RWY WAS NOT VISIBLE DUE TO A LOW FOG BANK. DISCUSSIONS WITH A TWR SUPVR REVEALED THAT THE ILS FREQ TO RWY 9R HAD NOT BEEN FULLY PWRED UP WITH 'GREEN INDICATIONS' PRIOR TO OUR APCH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FO STATED THAT THE ILS APCH WAS A 'CONVERGING ILS' TO RWY 9R, WITH HIGHER MINIMUMS THAN THE 'NON CONVERGING' APCH. HIGHER MINIMUMS ARE REQUIRED SINCE RWY 17 IS ALSO USED FOR AN ILS APCH AT THE SAME TIME. THE CEILING HAD BEEN MISREPRESENTED AS 7000 FT SCATTERED, VFR, NOT THE ACTUAL CEILING OF 400 FT BROKEN, SO THE APCH WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED ANYWAY FOR WX MINIMUMS. THE FO SAID THAT HAD THEY BEEN IMC, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 'SUCKERED' INTO TRYING TO SAVE THE APCH BUT WOULD HAVE GONE AROUND SOONER. THE COORD BTWN THE TWR AND APCH COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER EXECUTED. THE FO FURTHER SAID THAT HE COULDN'T RECALL SEEING THE IDENT OF THE ILS ON THE CONSOLE AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN 'TRAINED' TO LISTEN TO THE AURAL IDENT. THEY DID NOTE THE 'ARMED' ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT GO TO 'HDG' AFTER THE ILS PROB STARTED. FO CITES LOW EXPERIENCE LEVEL AS BEING CONTRIBUTORY TO THIS INCIDENT.

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.