<< >> NASA ASRS Report 476960, June 2000

Air carrier does not intercept ILS because he has not received clearance. ATC is suspected to have issued the clearance using the call sign of another aircraft.

Attributes
ACN	476960
Time
Date	200006
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : iah.airport
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl single value : 3000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 26
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision arrival : on vectors
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 2200 flight time type : 240
ASRS Report	476960
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

We were being vectored for the ILS runway 26 approach into iah. The ATC controller said he assigned us a heading and told us to join the runway 26 localizer. My first officer and I never heard him issue this clearance. As a result, we flew through the runway 26 localizer on the previously assigned heading. To my knowledge we did not cause any traffic conflicts. The controller then issued a new heading and we joined the runway 26 localizer. We believed the problem resulted because the aircraft ahead of us had a call sign that was almost identical to ours. We heard the controller issue an approach clearance to the aircraft ahead of us twice, but never to us. My first officer and I believed the controller erred when he attempted to clear us for the approach by using the other aircraft's call sign. The approach controller never warned us that there was an aircraft with a similar sounding call sign on our same frequency.

Related reports:

• An MD88 flight crew received a heading for vectors to interc...
• While maneuvering to intercept the ILS in the navigation mod...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR DOES NOT INTERCEPT ILS BECAUSE HE HAS NOT RECEIVED CLRNC. ATC IS SUSPECTED TO HAVE ISSUED THE CLRNC USING THE CALL SIGN OF ANOTHER ACFT.

Narrative: WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 26 APCH INTO IAH. THE ATC CTLR SAID HE ASSIGNED US A HDG AND TOLD US TO JOIN THE RWY 26 LOC. MY FO AND I NEVER HEARD HIM ISSUE THIS CLRNC. AS A RESULT, WE FLEW THROUGH THE RWY 26 LOC ON THE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED HDG. TO MY KNOWLEDGE WE DID NOT CAUSE ANY TFC CONFLICTS. THE CTLR THEN ISSUED A NEW HDG AND WE JOINED THE RWY 26 LOC. WE BELIEVED THE PROB RESULTED BECAUSE THE ACFT AHEAD OF US HAD A CALL SIGN THAT WAS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO OURS. WE HEARD THE CTLR ISSUE AN APCH CLRNC TO THE ACFT AHEAD OF US TWICE, BUT NEVER TO US. MY FO AND I BELIEVED THE CTLR ERRED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO CLR US FOR THE APCH BY USING THE OTHER ACFT'S CALL SIGN. THE APCH CTLR NEVER WARNED US THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT WITH A SIMILAR SOUNDING CALL SIGN ON OUR SAME FREQ.

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.