|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : msp|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 4000|
msl bound upper : 4000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : msp|
tower : msp
|Make Model Name||Military Transport|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||enroute : on vectors|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : military|
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 120|
flight time total : 2200
|Function||controller : approach|
|Qualification||controller : radar|
|Anomaly||other anomaly other|
other spatial deviation
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued new clearance|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||Intra Facility Coordination Failure|
We were on a passenger hauling mission into msp. We requested 29L on initial contact with approach, and were told to expect it. Switching over to final approach control, we immediately relieved vectors to the west. After a couple of vectors, we were told 'turn right to 280 degree, maintain 4000' until established on the localizer, cleared for the approach.' we complied and intercepted the 29L localizer. Approach then called to request we 'intercept the localizer,' and gave us a slight turn to the right to expedite. The next call was for a turn further right after he evidently realized we were not executing 29R as he expected. He passed the localizer frequency as 109.3 and cleared us to intercept. That caused confusion until we got out the 29R approach plate and found the correct frequency of 109.9. Once established, no further problems resulted. There was very little traffic at the time. Our normal crew of five in the cockpit were monitoring the radios during approach. We were positive we had not received clearance for the right, nor had we missed a call. It was not busy. I believe there was a communication lapse between the two approach controllers we talked to. One transmission by the controller during any of the approach phase with the mention of 29R added in would have broken the chain of events. This is my only suggestion - simple. I now confirm approach clrncs with final approach, no matter how light the traffic loads appear.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: MLT REQUESTED AND TOLD EXPECT LEFT ILS. CTLR APPARENTLY PLANNED RIGHT ILS BUT NEVER CLARIFIED.
Narrative: WE WERE ON A PAX HAULING MISSION INTO MSP. WE REQUESTED 29L ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH, AND WERE TOLD TO EXPECT IT. SWITCHING OVER TO FINAL APCH CTL, WE IMMEDIATELY RELIEVED VECTORS TO THE WEST. AFTER A COUPLE OF VECTORS, WE WERE TOLD 'TURN RIGHT TO 280 DEG, MAINTAIN 4000' UNTIL ESTABLISHED ON THE LOC, CLRED FOR THE APCH.' WE COMPLIED AND INTERCEPTED THE 29L LOC. APCH THEN CALLED TO REQUEST WE 'INTERCEPT THE LOC,' AND GAVE US A SLIGHT TURN TO THE RIGHT TO EXPEDITE. THE NEXT CALL WAS FOR A TURN FURTHER RIGHT AFTER HE EVIDENTLY REALIZED WE WERE NOT EXECUTING 29R AS HE EXPECTED. HE PASSED THE LOC FREQ AS 109.3 AND CLRED US TO INTERCEPT. THAT CAUSED CONFUSION UNTIL WE GOT OUT THE 29R APCH PLATE AND FOUND THE CORRECT FREQ OF 109.9. ONCE ESTABLISHED, NO FURTHER PROBLEMS RESULTED. THERE WAS VERY LITTLE TFC AT THE TIME. OUR NORMAL CREW OF FIVE IN THE COCKPIT WERE MONITORING THE RADIOS DURING APCH. WE WERE POSITIVE WE HAD NOT RECEIVED CLRNC FOR THE RIGHT, NOR HAD WE MISSED A CALL. IT WAS NOT BUSY. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A COMMUNICATION LAPSE BETWEEN THE TWO APCH CTLRS WE TALKED TO. ONE XMISSION BY THE CTLR DURING ANY OF THE APCH PHASE WITH THE MENTION OF 29R ADDED IN WOULD HAVE BROKEN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS. THIS IS MY ONLY SUGGESTION - SIMPLE. I NOW CONFIRM APCH CLRNCS WITH FINAL APCH, NO MATTER HOW LIGHT THE TFC LOADS APPEAR.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.