 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A CE650 was vectored too close to the airport for a stabilized approach and so executed a go around. On the second approach the flaps faulted as they were extended but reset causing the aircraft to pitch up and gain altitude at which time the autopilot failed; followed by the FMS's failure. The approach was again abandoned. A normal third approach followed to a landing.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 936192 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201103 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Citation III VI VII (C650) |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge) |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Engineer Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 30 Flight Crew Total 20000 Flight Crew Type 1000 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude Deviation - Track / Heading All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
We were given vectors for an RNAV GPS approach. Approach control gave us a vector to the IAF which was going to require a 110 degree turn from the IAF to the if. We had the aircraft slowed; on autopilot. Approximately 4 miles from the IAF the aircraft started to make the turn to the if. Approach asked us if we knew our position; we said we did; and this was going to be a very difficult turn due to the vector. We broke off the approach and were given vectors for a straighter vector the IAF. After crossing the IAF to the if we extended additional flaps; the flaps failed; the flaps extended rapidly; the aircraft pitched up with a slight altitude gain; and approach asked us if we were climbing. The FMS then failed. Broke off the approach again; and got vectors for an ILS with a circle to land approach to the same airport. After landing I called the approach facility on the phone to discuss everything to make sure there was no misunderstanding or problems. I have flown in this area for decades and a phone call is always appreciated from both sides. They informed me there was no problem. The initial poor vector; combined with our equipment was the main factors here. After landing and powering down the electrical systems/avionics everything worked perfectly.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A CE650 was vectored too close to the airport for a stabilized approach and so executed a go around. On the second approach the flaps faulted as they were extended but reset causing the aircraft to pitch up and gain altitude at which time the autopilot failed; followed by the FMS's failure. The approach was again abandoned. A normal third approach followed to a landing.
Narrative: We were given vectors for an RNAV GPS approach. Approach Control gave us a vector to the IAF which was going to require a 110 degree turn from the IAF to the IF. We had the aircraft slowed; on autopilot. Approximately 4 miles from the IAF the aircraft started to make the turn to the IF. Approach asked us if we knew our position; we said we did; and this was going to be a very difficult turn due to the vector. We broke off the approach and were given vectors for a straighter vector the IAF. After crossing the IAF to the IF we extended additional flaps; the flaps failed; the flaps extended rapidly; the aircraft pitched up with a slight altitude gain; and approach asked us if we were climbing. The FMS then failed. Broke off the approach again; and got vectors for an ILS with a circle to land approach to the same airport. After landing I called the Approach facility on the phone to discuss everything to make sure there was no misunderstanding or problems. I have flown in this area for decades and a phone call is always appreciated from both sides. They informed me there was no problem. The initial poor vector; combined with our equipment was the main factors here. After landing and powering down the electrical systems/avionics everything worked perfectly.
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.