|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||atc facility : sct.tracon|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : sct.tracon|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||MD-83|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Navigation In Use||ils localizer & glide slope : 25r|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||approach : instrument precision|
arrival star : civet5
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Anomaly||non adherence : clearance|
non adherence : published procedure
other spatial deviation
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
other flight crewb
|Resolutory Action||flight crew : regained aircraft control|
|Problem Areas||ATC Human Performance|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|ATC Facility||procedure or policy : sct.tracon|
The following is an ongoing issue that is still not getting the attention required to correct it. Inbound from the east on the civet arrival to lax; we had the FMS programmed to fly the civet 5 arrival to the ILS for runway 25R; as should have logically been anticipated. Less than 3 miles from gramm; we were handed off from ZLA to socal approach and given a clearance for the civet five arrival to runway 24R. This unexpected clearance required a programming change to the FMS to be completed within 30 seconds; which in turn caused a programming anomaly of dropping the intermediate waypoint; rustt. This anomaly caused an undesirable turn by the aircraft that had to be manually corrected until the dropped waypoint could be inserted and a direct-to command executed. All corrections were entered in time without airspace deviations; but the bottom line here is that if we are going to fly more automated and runway specific arrivals; we must have more notice as to what we are to expect from approach control! There is no reason that center cannot get a heads-up on what landing runway approach control is going to give incoming aircraft; and pass that information to us sooner. These controllers surely realize we are covering 6 to 8 miles a minute when they are talking to us! Obviously; last-minute changes may still happen unexpectedly; but this type of stuff is happening all the time! Lax is not the only problem; ord is nearly as bad. (The big difference at ord is the stars are not specific to a landing runway; so we normally have 5 minutes or more to reprogram and rebrief a new landing runway at ord.) approach controllers need to be instructed on the concept that it takes time for us to program and brief for safe and precisely flown arrival and approach procedures. If the controllers don't start acting like they work for us; we are going to have to start refusing to accommodate their last-minute changes. What we are experiencing more and more is ATC expecting us to operate our machines to accommodate their personal issues. What they don't seem to realize is that the safety of our lives (and our passenger) trump their petty traffic or manning issues. As an industry; we are going to have to get ATC to 'put their heads in our cockpits' to see how their policies and procedures do and don't work in our world. ATC 'fam flights' visits to ATC facilities to bring these types of issues to the forefront.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN MD83 PLT RPTS LAX LATE RWY CHANGE CAUSED A HDG CHANGE WHEN WAYPOINTS DROP FROM THE FMS AS PROGRAMMING ACTIVITIES OCCUR FOR THE NEW APCH.
Narrative: THE FOLLOWING IS AN ONGOING ISSUE THAT IS STILL NOT GETTING THE ATTENTION REQUIRED TO CORRECT IT. INBOUND FROM THE EAST ON THE CIVET ARR TO LAX; WE HAD THE FMS PROGRAMMED TO FLY THE CIVET 5 ARR TO THE ILS FOR RWY 25R; AS SHOULD HAVE LOGICALLY BEEN ANTICIPATED. LESS THAN 3 MILES FROM GRAMM; WE WERE HANDED OFF FROM ZLA TO SOCAL APCH AND GIVEN A CLRNC FOR THE CIVET FIVE ARR TO RWY 24R. THIS UNEXPECTED CLRNC REQUIRED A PROGRAMMING CHANGE TO THE FMS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 30 SECONDS; WHICH IN TURN CAUSED A PROGRAMMING ANOMALY OF DROPPING THE INTERMEDIATE WAYPOINT; RUSTT. THIS ANOMALY CAUSED AN UNDESIRABLE TURN BY THE ACFT THAT HAD TO BE MANUALLY CORRECTED UNTIL THE DROPPED WAYPOINT COULD BE INSERTED AND A DIRECT-TO COMMAND EXECUTED. ALL CORRECTIONS WERE ENTERED IN TIME WITHOUT AIRSPACE DEVIATIONS; BUT THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO FLY MORE AUTOMATED AND RWY SPECIFIC ARRIVALS; WE MUST HAVE MORE NOTICE AS TO WHAT WE ARE TO EXPECT FROM APCH CTL! THERE IS NO REASON THAT CTR CANNOT GET A HEADS-UP ON WHAT LNDG RWY APCH CTL IS GOING TO GIVE INCOMING ACFT; AND PASS THAT INFO TO US SOONER. THESE CTLRS SURELY REALIZE WE ARE COVERING 6 TO 8 MILES A MINUTE WHEN THEY ARE TALKING TO US! OBVIOUSLY; LAST-MINUTE CHANGES MAY STILL HAPPEN UNEXPECTEDLY; BUT THIS TYPE OF STUFF IS HAPPENING ALL THE TIME! LAX IS NOT THE ONLY PROB; ORD IS NEARLY AS BAD. (THE BIG DIFFERENCE AT ORD IS THE STARS ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO A LNDG RWY; SO WE NORMALLY HAVE 5 MINUTES OR MORE TO REPROGRAM AND REBRIEF A NEW LNDG RWY AT ORD.) APCH CTLRS NEED TO BE INSTRUCTED ON THE CONCEPT THAT IT TAKES TIME FOR US TO PROGRAM AND BRIEF FOR SAFE AND PRECISELY FLOWN ARR AND APCH PROCS. IF THE CTLRS DON'T START ACTING LIKE THEY WORK FOR US; WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START REFUSING TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR LAST-MINUTE CHANGES. WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING MORE AND MORE IS ATC EXPECTING US TO OPERATE OUR MACHINES TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PERSONAL ISSUES. WHAT THEY DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE IS THAT THE SAFETY OF OUR LIVES (AND OUR PAX) TRUMP THEIR PETTY TFC OR MANNING ISSUES. AS AN INDUSTRY; WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET ATC TO 'PUT THEIR HEADS IN OUR COCKPITS' TO SEE HOW THEIR POLICIES AND PROCS DO AND DON'T WORK IN OUR WORLD. ATC 'FAM FLIGHTS' VISITS TO ATC FACILITIES TO BRING THESE TYPES OF ISSUES TO THE FOREFRONT.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.