Narrative:

We had received our clearance for the ILS 19 approach into teterboro airport; with the added statement: 'glideslope inoperative'. With prior knowledge of this limitation obtained from ATIS; the approach was briefed to be flown as a localizer only; with the appropriate minimums and missed approach procedure. The ceiling was 2;000 ft broken with better than 5 miles visibility. What occurred began as a distraction that resulted in a situational awareness issue; in that the aircraft was not configured earlier during the approach phase. It began as a clearance direct to the initial approach fix (IAF); navigation in the blue needle (long range navigation) direct. In flying to the fix we were at a 90 degree angle to the inbound approach course. The airspeed was manually selected at 240 KTS; while flying at an assigned altitude of 3;000 ft. At approximately one mile from the IAF we were assigned a vector to intercept the localizer and were cleared for the approach. The approach controller later admitted that he gave us a rather shallow vector for the intercept; which put us very close to the outer marker prior to intercepting the localizer; and which also had us 1;000 ft higher than we should have been for that segment of the approach. The green needle (localizer mode) had been selected and the intercept occurred just prior to crossing the outer marker. Upon descending through 2;000 ft we encountered visual conditions with the runway in sight; but there was too much altitude; airspeed and not enough distance from the runway in order to properly configure for a safe landing. We relayed our situation to the tower and requested a vector in order to descend and to provide additional spacing to the runway. We were told that was not possible and had to perform the published missed approach procedure. We were still a few miles from the actual missed approach point and at an altitude of approximately 1;800 ft. The procedure called for an immediate right turn and a climb to 1;500 ft to intercept the teb VOR radial outbound. We began the missed approach procedure commencing the right turn. Everything would have worked out well but we were already at too high of an altitude for that segment of the procedure. It would have been so unusual to actually have to descend during a missed approach! The tower then assigned us a 290 degree heading and a clearance down to 1;500 ft. We were handed off to approach control; where we were vectored for a second approach and landed without incident. Upon landing we were given a telephone number and instructed to call the tower. I explained to the tower supervisor what our situation was and the reason for requesting a vector. I was told that it was impossible given the complexity of the surrounding airspace. I was also told that our deviation actually had no effect on their operation; but our heading and altitude; during the beginning of the procedure put us in close proximity to a descending aircraft performing an arrival into jfk. The situation was detected early enough and the descending aircraft was instructed to level off; whereupon no incident occurred. It was also at that moment we received the vector and instructed to descend to 1;500 ft. The issue was resolved between the tower and new york TRACON. I was told that if there is ever a situation where an approach has to be discontinued (perhaps referring to this particular airspace); the missed approach procedure must always be performed. In retrospect; I believe the proper course of action in complying with this would have been to continue on the runway heading descending to 1;500 ft before commencing the right turn. This was an unusual situation; and I believe that in a similar case prior to taking any action (heading/altitude change);there should first be communication with ATC so that both parties would be in complete understanding and have approval with exactly what actions were required or needed to be taken.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GIV flight crew reports executing the missed approach from the ILS 19 at TEB prior to the missed approach point at an altitude of of 1;800 FT. The Tower issues instructions to descend to 1;500 FT and vectors to get back on course.

Narrative: We had received our clearance for the ILS 19 approach into Teterboro airport; with the added statement: 'Glideslope inoperative'. With prior knowledge of this limitation obtained from ATIS; the approach was briefed to be flown as a Localizer only; with the appropriate minimums and missed approach procedure. The ceiling was 2;000 FT broken with better than 5 miles visibility. What occurred began as a distraction that resulted in a situational awareness issue; in that the aircraft was not configured earlier during the approach phase. It began as a clearance direct to the initial approach fix (IAF); navigation in the Blue Needle (Long Range Navigation) direct. In flying to the fix we were at a 90 degree angle to the inbound approach course. The airspeed was manually selected at 240 KTS; while flying at an assigned altitude of 3;000 FT. At approximately one mile from the IAF we were assigned a vector to intercept the localizer and were cleared for the approach. The Approach Controller later admitted that he gave us a rather shallow vector for the intercept; which put us very close to the Outer Marker prior to intercepting the localizer; and which also had us 1;000 FT higher than we should have been for that segment of the approach. The Green Needle (Localizer mode) had been selected and the intercept occurred just prior to crossing the Outer Marker. Upon descending through 2;000 FT we encountered visual conditions with the runway in sight; but there was too much altitude; airspeed and not enough distance from the runway in order to properly configure for a safe landing. We relayed our situation to the Tower and requested a vector in order to descend and to provide additional spacing to the runway. We were told that was not possible and had to perform the published missed approach procedure. We were still a few miles from the actual missed approach point and at an altitude of approximately 1;800 FT. The procedure called for an immediate right turn and a climb to 1;500 FT to intercept the TEB VOR radial outbound. We began the missed approach procedure commencing the right turn. Everything would have worked out well but we were already at too high of an altitude for that segment of the procedure. It would have been so unusual to actually have to descend during a missed approach! The Tower then assigned us a 290 degree heading and a clearance down to 1;500 FT. We were handed off to Approach Control; where we were vectored for a second approach and landed without incident. Upon landing we were given a telephone number and instructed to call the Tower. I explained to the Tower Supervisor what our situation was and the reason for requesting a vector. I was told that it was impossible given the complexity of the surrounding airspace. I was also told that our deviation actually had no effect on their operation; but our heading and altitude; during the beginning of the procedure put us in close proximity to a descending aircraft performing an arrival into JFK. The situation was detected early enough and the descending aircraft was instructed to level off; whereupon no incident occurred. It was also at that moment we received the vector and instructed to descend to 1;500 FT. The issue was resolved between the Tower and New York TRACON. I was told that if there is ever a situation where an approach has to be discontinued (perhaps referring to this particular airspace); the missed approach procedure must always be performed. In retrospect; I believe the proper course of action in complying with this would have been to continue on the runway heading descending to 1;500 FT before commencing the right turn. This was an unusual situation; and I believe that in a similar case prior to taking any action (heading/altitude change);there should first be communication with ATC so that both parties would be in complete understanding and have approval with exactly what actions were required or needed to be taken.

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.