Narrative:

We were shooting the RNAV rnp to runway 35 at sequ. Approach control cleared us for the approach and added advise when runway is in sight. We could see the runway on downwind but did not call it due to a scattered to broken layer we knew we still needed to pass-through. We were inside devas and approach said the weather was such that we needed to go missed approach. We asked if we could continue to decision altitude (9740 MSL) and take a look/see? They agreed; but still would not give us landing clearance; instead saying to report the runway in sight? We saw the runway at 10;500 MSL and reported the runway insight? Approach then passed us over to tower and we reported in. Tower was very slow to answer and it required more than one query from us to finally get a clearance to land; even then their clearance was garbled somewhat; still we were confident we had landing clearance. As an aside; the tower frequency itself had some bleed-through from somewhere; compounding communication difficulties. In any event; we landed normally and contacted ground for a normal taxi-in. This procedure for clearance to land that quito approach and tower were using is really not acceptable. To make a crew wait until they break-out at or near minimums; then report to approach runway is insight; then be directed to change to tower frequency; then have to wait for their slow response; then wait for a landing clearance; all takes too much time. It puts crews very close to landing before they finally get their landing clearance. Compounding this dangerous practice is the very busy period aircrews already face on short final; especially in quito. In quito; crews are required to significantly change their flight path at DH (decision height) to move the aircraft from the high glide-path; (four white PAPI's); that the RNAV/rnp intentionally leaves you on; to the correct glide-path; (two white; two red PAPI); crews need in order to land in the first third of the runway. The pilot monitoring really needs to be heads-up after the DH and helping the pilot flying in monitoring descent rates and vvi's when landing in quito. It is hard for the pilot monitoring to do this effectively and deal with late frequency changes; getting landing clearances on very short final; etc. Cleared to land; needs to come no later than the FAF either from approach control or from an earlier hand-off to tower frequency.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier on RNAV (RNP) Runway 35 approach into SEQU voiced concern regarding ATC's repeated request for a 'runway in sight' report and the Controller's reluctance to issue a landing clearance prior to the subject sighting.

Narrative: We were shooting the RNAV RNP to Runway 35 at SEQU. Approach control cleared us for the approach and added advise when runway is in sight. We could see the runway on downwind but did not call it due to a scattered to broken layer we knew we still needed to pass-through. We were inside DEVAS and approach said the weather was such that we needed to go missed approach. We asked if we could continue to Decision Altitude (9740 MSL) and take a look/see? They agreed; but still would not give us landing clearance; instead saying to report the runway in sight? We saw the runway at 10;500 MSL and reported the runway insight? Approach then passed us over to Tower and we reported in. Tower was very slow to answer and it required more than one query from us to finally get a clearance to land; even then their clearance was garbled somewhat; still we were confident we had landing clearance. As an aside; the Tower frequency itself had some bleed-through from somewhere; compounding communication difficulties. In any event; we landed normally and contacted Ground for a normal taxi-in. This procedure for clearance to land that Quito Approach and Tower were using is really not acceptable. To make a crew wait until they break-out at or near minimums; then report to approach runway is insight; then be directed to change to Tower frequency; then have to wait for their slow response; then wait for a landing clearance; all takes too much time. It puts crews very close to landing before they finally get their landing clearance. Compounding this dangerous practice is the very busy period aircrews already face on short final; especially in Quito. In Quito; crews are required to significantly change their flight path at DH (Decision Height) to move the aircraft from the high glide-path; (four white PAPI's); that the RNAV/RNP intentionally leaves you on; to the correct glide-path; (two white; two red PAPI); crews need in order to land in the first third of the runway. The pilot monitoring really needs to be heads-up after the DH and helping the pilot flying in monitoring descent rates and VVI's when landing in Quito. It is hard for the pilot monitoring to do this effectively and deal with late frequency changes; getting landing clearances on very short final; etc. Cleared to land; needs to come no later than the FAF either from approach control or from an earlier hand-off to tower frequency.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.