Narrative:

An MD80 had previously checked in on a visual approach to runway 19R and received a clearance to land. Local control west's (lcw) attention was then focused on another runway where an aircraft was holding in position for a release. On a two mile final at approximately 1600 ft MSL; the MD80 realized that something was not right and initiated a go around with local control west. Lcw saw that the aircraft was lined up for the construction runway (future runway 19R) and also issued go around instructions. The visibility on the WX sequence was reported as 6 with haze. The tower front line manager received a phone call from metropolitan washington airport authority whose contract construction workers on the new runway were alarmed. This has occurred at least 5 times in the last 5 months and; in fact; just happened again today. The runway construction is progressing and they have poured a lot of concrete. This scenario only seems to occur when in a south operation with visual apches to runway 19R. It was a topic of discussion at the runway safety action team (rsat) meeting held in september. What has the airport authority and iad ATC done to mitigate this: 1) mwaa has placed big illuminated signs with X's at either end of the construction runway. Pilots report not seeing them when turning for line-up several miles out. 2) the approach plates have been modified to show the outline of the construction runway. Was this carried over to the electronic versions? 3) ATC has place a caution on the ATIS to warn pilots about the construction runway. We are considering moving it up earlier in the broadcast. 4) I have asked potomac approach (pct) qa manager to look into the situation to see if final controllers can help mitigate this -- perhaps by issuing a clearance to intercept the runway 19R localizer in conjunction with the visual approach clearance. However; I don't think that this goes far enough. I believe we need to get the word out as soon as possible to user groups/airlines/associations. Surely; this is not a new issue. What has been done with other airports who have built new parallels?callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter advised that facility management was actively considering requiring clrncs to include phrases similar to those suggested by the reporter. Reporter is cautiously optimistic this will prove adequate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: IAD LCL CTLR RPTS ACFT ARE MAKING VISUAL APCHS TO THE NEW PARALLEL NORTH/SOUTH RWY UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING RWYS INSTEAD OF RWY 19R.

Narrative: AN MD80 HAD PREVIOUSLY CHECKED IN ON A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 19R AND RECEIVED A CLRNC TO LAND. LOCAL CTL WEST'S (LCW) ATTENTION WAS THEN FOCUSED ON ANOTHER RWY WHERE AN ACFT WAS HOLDING IN POSITION FOR A RELEASE. ON A TWO MILE FINAL AT APPROX 1600 FT MSL; THE MD80 REALIZED THAT SOMETHING WAS NOT RIGHT AND INITIATED A GAR WITH LOCAL CTL WEST. LCW SAW THAT THE ACFT WAS LINED UP FOR THE CONSTRUCTION RWY (FUTURE RWY 19R) AND ALSO ISSUED GAR INSTRUCTIONS. THE VISIBILITY ON THE WX SEQUENCE WAS RPTED AS 6 WITH HAZE. THE TOWER FRONT LINE MANAGER RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON ARPT AUTHORITY WHOSE CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ON THE NEW RWY WERE ALARMED. THIS HAS OCCURRED AT LEAST 5 TIMES IN THE LAST 5 MONTHS AND; IN FACT; JUST HAPPENED AGAIN TODAY. THE RWY CONSTRUCTION IS PROGRESSING AND THEY HAVE POURED A LOT OF CONCRETE. THIS SCENARIO ONLY SEEMS TO OCCUR WHEN IN A SOUTH OPERATION WITH VISUAL APCHES TO RWY 19R. IT WAS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THE RWY SAFETY ACTION TEAM (RSAT) MEETING HELD IN SEPTEMBER. WHAT HAS THE ARPT AUTHORITY AND IAD ATC DONE TO MITIGATE THIS: 1) MWAA HAS PLACED BIG ILLUMINATED SIGNS WITH X'S AT EITHER END OF THE CONSTRUCTION RWY. PLTS RPT NOT SEEING THEM WHEN TURNING FOR LINE-UP SEVERAL MILES OUT. 2) THE APCH PLATES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO SHOW THE OUTLINE OF THE CONSTRUCTION RWY. WAS THIS CARRIED OVER TO THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONS? 3) ATC HAS PLACE A CAUTION ON THE ATIS TO WARN PLTS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION RWY. WE ARE CONSIDERING MOVING IT UP EARLIER IN THE BROADCAST. 4) I HAVE ASKED POTOMAC APCH (PCT) QA MANAGER TO LOOK INTO THE SITUATION TO SEE IF FINAL CTLRS CAN HELP MITIGATE THIS -- PERHAPS BY ISSUING A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 19R LOCALIZER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VISUAL APCH CLRNC. HOWEVER; I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GOES FAR ENOUGH. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT ASAP TO USER GROUPS/AIRLINES/ASSOCIATIONS. SURELY; THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH OTHER ARPTS WHO HAVE BUILT NEW PARALLELS?CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR ADVISED THAT FACILITY MANAGEMENT WAS ACTIVELY CONSIDERING REQUIRING CLRNCS TO INCLUDE PHRASES SIMILAR TO THOSE SUGGESTED BY THE RPTR. RPTR IS CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC THIS WILL PROVE ADEQUATE.

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.