Narrative:

Cle approach controller said we had to maintain 210 KTS and 4000 ft. He then gave us a turn from downwind to base inside the outer marker 1500 ft higher then we should have been and way too fast and cleared us for approach. We told cle tower we had to go around, because of poor handling by approach. On next approach, the controller again said we had to remain at 4000 ft and unexpectedly again gave us a turn from downwind to base just inside the 6R outer marker and 1200 ft higher than marker altitude and would not let us go down. He asked if we had traffic for runway 6L in sight and when we called traffic in sight, he abruptly cleared us for visual approach again. We were at least 1200 ft too high on the approach. We had a steep angle of descent to the runway with gear out and full flaps. TCAS was continuously sounding to reduce descent because of traffic right next to us and below our altitude landing on the closely spaced parallel runway, 6L. We didn't know he planned on turning us right next to that traffic since again we were way too high to be turned toward 6R. TCAS was set to 'TA/RA' mode since we were not warned there would be traffic right next to us. If we knew we would have selected 'TA' only. This was a great distraction. Since again we were fighting to get down, we didn't even have time to think about switching to 'TA'. I would have liked to have been stabilized on the approach at 1000 AGL as per our recent flight manual change (up from previous 500 ft AGL). As it was, I didn't get stabilized on approach until 500 ft AGL or slightly lower. If I had it to do over, I would have gone around yet again. At the time, I remember thinking that since I knew I could get stabilized before landing, I would go ahead and safely land - because it was obvious this controller would keep doing this to us yet a third time and I just did not want to face that yet again. (I had already made a comment on the radio about the controller's bad handling of us.) this is becoming common at cle since they opened runway 6L/24R. This needs to be stopped! It's not safe! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised he encountered the exact same problem - kept high, turned in tight from downwind, no traffic advisory - the following week, but again 'made it work' and again not being stabilized on approach until after passing 1000 ft. The reporter advised he was familiar with the sfo side by operation, he knew the runways were closer than at cle, but still had more problems with ATC at cle, than the sfo operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ACR FLT CREW EXECUTE GAR BECAUSE THEY ARE UNABLE TO STABILIZE THEIR APCH DUE TO CLE SEQUENCING TECHNIQUE. SECOND APCH SEQUENCING SAME AS THE FIRST, BUT FLT CREW WANTS TO LAND AND NOT TRY A THIRD APCH.

Narrative: CLE APCH CTLR SAID WE HAD TO MAINTAIN 210 KTS AND 4000 FT. HE THEN GAVE US A TURN FROM DOWNWIND TO BASE INSIDE THE OUTER MARKER 1500 FT HIGHER THEN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AND WAY TOO FAST AND CLEARED US FOR APCH. WE TOLD CLE TWR WE HAD TO GO AROUND, BECAUSE OF POOR HANDLING BY APCH. ON NEXT APCH, THE CTLR AGAIN SAID WE HAD TO REMAIN AT 4000 FT AND UNEXPECTEDLY AGAIN GAVE US A TURN FROM DOWNWIND TO BASE JUST INSIDE THE 6R OUTER MARKER AND 1200 FT HIGHER THAN MARKER ALT AND WOULD NOT LET US GO DOWN. HE ASKED IF WE HAD TFC FOR RWY 6L IN SIGHT AND WHEN WE CALLED TFC IN SIGHT, HE ABRUPTLY CLEARED US FOR VISUAL APCH AGAIN. WE WERE AT LEAST 1200 FT TOO HIGH ON THE APCH. WE HAD A STEEP ANGLE OF DSCNT TO THE RWY WITH GEAR OUT AND FULL FLAPS. TCAS WAS CONTINUOUSLY SOUNDING TO REDUCE DSCNT BECAUSE OF TFC R NEXT TO US AND BELOW OUR ALT LNDG ON THE CLOSELY SPACED PARALLEL RWY, 6L. WE DIDN'T KNOW HE PLANNED ON TURNING US R NEXT TO THAT TFC SINCE AGAIN WE WERE WAY TOO HIGH TO BE TURNED TOWARD 6R. TCAS WAS SET TO 'TA/RA' MODE SINCE WE WERE NOT WARNED THERE WOULD BE TFC R NEXT TO US. IF WE KNEW WE WOULD HAVE SELECTED 'TA' ONLY. THIS WAS A GREAT DISTRACTION. SINCE AGAIN WE WERE FIGHTING TO GET DOWN, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT SWITCHING TO 'TA'. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN STABILIZED ON THE APCH AT 1000 AGL AS PER OUR RECENT FLT MANUAL CHANGE (UP FROM PREVIOUS 500 FT AGL). AS IT WAS, I DIDN'T GET STABILIZED ON APCH UNTIL 500 FT AGL OR SLIGHTLY LOWER. IF I HAD IT TO DO OVER, I WOULD HAVE GONE AROUND YET AGAIN. AT THE TIME, I REMEMBER THINKING THAT SINCE I KNEW I COULD GET STABILIZED BEFORE LNDG, I WOULD GO AHEAD AND SAFELY LAND - BECAUSE IT WAS OBVIOUS THIS CTLR WOULD KEEP DOING THIS TO US YET A THIRD TIME AND I JUST DID NOT WANT TO FACE THAT YET AGAIN. (I HAD ALREADY MADE A COMMENT ON THE RADIO ABOUT THE CTLR'S BAD HANDLING OF US.) THIS IS BECOMING COMMON AT CLE SINCE THEY OPENED RWY 6L/24R. THIS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED! IT'S NOT SAFE! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED HE ENCOUNTERED THE EXACT SAME PROB - KEPT HIGH, TURNED IN TIGHT FROM DOWNWIND, NO TFC ADVISORY - THE FOLLOWING WEEK, BUT AGAIN 'MADE IT WORK' AND AGAIN NOT BEING STABILIZED ON APCH UNTIL AFTER PASSING 1000 FT. THE RPTR ADVISED HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE SFO SIDE BY OPERATION, HE KNEW THE RWYS WERE CLOSER THAN AT CLE, BUT STILL HAD MORE PROBS WITH ATC AT CLE, THAN THE SFO OPERATION.

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.