|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : ord.airport|
|Altitude||msl single value : 3000|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : c90.tracon|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B737-500|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Navigation In Use||ils localizer & glide slope : 4r|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||approach : instrument precision|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||non adherence : published procedure|
non adherence : company policies
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
other flight crewb
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||ATC Human Performance|
Flight Crew Human Performance
|Primary Problem||Flight Crew Human Performance|
Ord approach kept us fast during the entire approach. 250 KTS then 210 KTS till 3 mi from the marker, then maintain 180 KTS till OM. This caused us to be high even with gear out and flaps extended to the amount possible. I slowed to final approach speed as quickly as possible over the OM. Tower gave us permission for an s-turn to the right and we completed it while descending. While rolling out on final, we received a sink rate oral warning. It occurred once and I announced correcting. The aircraft was in a position to land in the first 3000 ft and both pilots were comfortable with the approach. The speed was 10 KTS high. I elected to use flaps 40 degrees as a final setting versus the 30 degrees planned during the descent. We were at flaps 40 degrees to aid our descent and it seemed prudent to leave them there. Touchdown and rollout were normal and tower asked that we exit at taxiway Q, which we did. Before switching to ground control, we heard the tower controller tell the aircraft on approach that an s-turn was approved. The approach controller kept us on the ILS instead of clearing us for the visual (clear 10 mi) which would have given us more flexibility. The fact that we had to go above the GS to maintain her directed speed and then slow quickly made it very difficult to become stabilized. I should have told her we were unable the higher speeds while above the GS. Most of my B737 experience is with the -200 model, which handles these sits better. After over 1000 hours in the -300/-500, I still allowed the controller to get me high and fast. My -200 experience was contributing cause to this situation. The landing was never in doubt and safety never in question, but it was not the stable approach I strive for. I have flown out of ord for 10 yrs and this is not a situation I have not seen before, but the speeds were more than they should have been on approach causing the problem.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B737 FLT CREWACCEPTS AN UNSTABILIZED, HIGH AND FAST APCH INTO ORD.
Narrative: ORD APCH KEPT US FAST DURING THE ENTIRE APCH. 250 KTS THEN 210 KTS TILL 3 MI FROM THE MARKER, THEN MAINTAIN 180 KTS TILL OM. THIS CAUSED US TO BE HIGH EVEN WITH GEAR OUT AND FLAPS EXTENDED TO THE AMOUNT POSSIBLE. I SLOWED TO FINAL APCH SPD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE OVER THE OM. TWR GAVE US PERMISSION FOR AN S-TURN TO THE R AND WE COMPLETED IT WHILE DSNDING. WHILE ROLLING OUT ON FINAL, WE RECEIVED A SINK RATE ORAL WARNING. IT OCCURRED ONCE AND I ANNOUNCED CORRECTING. THE ACFT WAS IN A POS TO LAND IN THE FIRST 3000 FT AND BOTH PLTS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE APCH. THE SPD WAS 10 KTS HIGH. I ELECTED TO USE FLAPS 40 DEGS AS A FINAL SETTING VERSUS THE 30 DEGS PLANNED DURING THE DSCNT. WE WERE AT FLAPS 40 DEGS TO AID OUR DSCNT AND IT SEEMED PRUDENT TO LEAVE THEM THERE. TOUCHDOWN AND ROLLOUT WERE NORMAL AND TWR ASKED THAT WE EXIT AT TXWY Q, WHICH WE DID. BEFORE SWITCHING TO GND CTL, WE HEARD THE TWR CTLR TELL THE ACFT ON APCH THAT AN S-TURN WAS APPROVED. THE APCH CTLR KEPT US ON THE ILS INSTEAD OF CLRING US FOR THE VISUAL (CLR 10 MI) WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN US MORE FLEXIBILITY. THE FACT THAT WE HAD TO GO ABOVE THE GS TO MAINTAIN HER DIRECTED SPD AND THEN SLOW QUICKLY MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BECOME STABILIZED. I SHOULD HAVE TOLD HER WE WERE UNABLE THE HIGHER SPDS WHILE ABOVE THE GS. MOST OF MY B737 EXPERIENCE IS WITH THE -200 MODEL, WHICH HANDLES THESE SITS BETTER. AFTER OVER 1000 HRS IN THE -300/-500, I STILL ALLOWED THE CTLR TO GET ME HIGH AND FAST. MY -200 EXPERIENCE WAS CONTRIBUTING CAUSE TO THIS SIT. THE LNDG WAS NEVER IN DOUBT AND SAFETY NEVER IN QUESTION, BUT IT WAS NOT THE STABLE APCH I STRIVE FOR. I HAVE FLOWN OUT OF ORD FOR 10 YRS AND THIS IS NOT A SIT I HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE, BUT THE SPDS WERE MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON APCH CAUSING THE PROB.
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.