2023-07 · NASA ASRS report 2016998
Air carrier flight crew reported a mechanical problem with the spoiler system during a visual approach at night over unfamiliar terrain. While maneuvering on the approach; the crew received an aircraft terrain warning and executed a missed approach.
During arrival to the airport we were kept somewhat high at 16000 until given a lower altitude to 6000 which required a steeper descent and spoilers to maintain speed and get to a satisfactory altitude. At approximately 10;000 ft. we received two outboard Spoiler and spoilerons caution messages. This took some of my attention as I ensured the inboards were still functioning properly and the outboards had failed in a retracted position; and I decided to continue the approach; however; the PM (pilot monitoring) and I both agreed we would need to descend more rapidly and configure earlier to compensate for the lack of spoilers. Due to traffic and terrain the Approach Controller kept our altitude at 6000 for a period of time and so I continued to slow down early. At approximately 20 miles northeast of the airport visual contact was achieved and the Approach Controller cleared us to 'make straight in' for a visual approach; and so I bugged an altitude of 1700 for a 5 mile final as briefed; turned the aircraft approximately heading 230 towards the 5 mile final; as our current heading was directed north of the airport. Soon after this the controller asked us if we could remain north of a '- complex' that the PM and I were not familiar with. We notified the controller of this; and the controller asked if then we could see the highway on our left. I looked for the highway on the left but was unable to see it clearly and said it may be underneath us. The PM relayed this to the controller who then decided to cancel our landing clearance and gave us a heading of 255 to fly for the time being. When queried about an altitude he told us to maintain 4000. Along this altitude and heading we continued slowing and becoming fully configured. Once within about 12 miles to the airport the controller then reissued our landing clearance and a frequency change. I rebugged the 1700 altitude and began descending quickly in order to get the aircraft on course for landing. I turned again to a heading approximately 230 to reestablish towards the 5 mile final point provided by the Visual Approach and advisory VNAV in the FMS. Now that it appeared we were clear of the restricted area to the south and with the city and airport in site it was my belief that we were also clear of terrain. With the aircraft near 2000 ft. with a descent rate of 300 fpm and nearing a 8-10 mile final we received a Terrain GPWS alert. We followed the terrain escape maneuver and go around procedure up to 3000; tracking over the airport; and notified the Tower of the go around. We were then reissued a right traffic pattern landing under guidance from the Tower; avoiding some helicopter traffic along the approach coarse; and landing was achieved without further incident.Task saturation; focus and distraction on the malfunctions were an initial cause; which led us to overcompensate for the approach by descending aggressively. The confusing directions from the Approach Controller; in order to find landmarks we were not familiar with or could not see; followed by a cancellation of our clearance and reorienting the aircraft away from landing; added to the distractions. Finally traffic in the area that were not being reported and both were and were not apparent on the ADSB also took some of our attention. My focus upon getting the aircraft back to a final approach course state took precedence over terrain considerations. Requesting delay vectors if the initial approach plan is not working; and requesting a approach procedure (precision or non-precision); especially at night; would have alleviated this situation.
Coming into ZZZ we were held high at 16;000 ft. We then were cleared down to 6;000 ft. Descending through roughly 10;000 ft. using spoilers to stay on speed we received caution messages for an Outboard Spoilers and Outboard Spoilerons Fault. This caused a distraction as we determined how this would affect our approach to Runway XX. Seeing that we did not have as much spoiler effectiveness due to the fault we elected to start configuring early to help slow and descend as ATC had brought us in high. At this point we were roughly inside 20 miles and had the field in sight and reported it to ATC who then cleared us for the straight in visual approach to Runway XX ZZZ. At this point we began maneuvering to line ourselves up with the final approach course to Runway XX using a Visual approach and advisory VNAV from the FMS. As we began flying roughly a 230 heading to join final ATC informed us that we needed to stay clear of airspace to the east of the field. Unsure of where this was we asked ATC for clarification. There was confusion on where this boundary was between us and the controller. The controller tried to give us visual landmarks and point out a highway to follow but we were unable to spot these points at night and relayed that to the controller. At this point ATC cancelled our approach clearance and told us to fly a heading of 255 to stay clear of the military airspace. We then had to ask for an altitude and we were told to maintain 4000 ft. At this point we were fully configured in the landing configuration roughly 12-15 miles out. Once we were clear of this airspace; we were re issued our approach clearance to Runway XX and told to contact Tower. With the runway still insight the PF (pilot flying) re initiated their descent and approach to Runway XX. As we continued descending through about 2;000 ft. at roughly 500 FPM we received a GPWS Warning for terrain and executed the escape maneuver and completed a go around. After communicating the go around to Tower we overflew the runway and made right traffic for Runway XX and made a normal landing without further issue.Task Saturation. Mechanical Irregularity causing a distraction in an area of high vulnerability leading us to overcompensate and use a steeper than normal descent rate. Confusing instructions from ATC regarding unfamiliar land marks at night. Cancellation of approach clearance and then a reissuance of the same clearance added distraction. Traffic in the area and in the vicinity of the field were and were not being shown on TCAS/ADSB adding additional distractions as we looked for traffic on approach; during go around; and subsequent normal landing.Call off of the approach for a re sequence or requesting an instrument approach to another runway could have alleviated this issue especially at night.
More incidents for this aircraft family
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.
Loading the flight search…
Pick an aircraft model — Boeing 737, Airbus A320, A380, Boeing 787 Dreamliner and more — enter your origin airport, and FlightFinder shows every route that plane flies from there with live fares.
We support Boeing 737/747/757/767/777/787, the full Airbus A220/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340/A350/A380 family, Embraer E170/E175/E190/E195, Bombardier CRJ and Dash 8, and the ATR 42/72 turboprops.
Search and schedules are free. Pro ($4.99/month, $39/year, or $99 one-time lifetime) unlocks the enriched flight card — on-time stats, CO₂ per passenger, amenities, live gate & weather — plus My Trips with push alerts.
Live schedules come from Amadeus, AeroDataBox and Travelpayouts. Observed routes (which aircraft actually flew a given city pair) are crowdsourced from adsb.lol ADS-B data under the Open Database License.