2025-03 · NASA ASRS report 2222342
A corporate flight crew reported receiving a 'Low Altitude Alert' from Aspen Tower while conducting a special qualifications localizer approach versus approach ATC cleared. Two approaches with similar names caused confusion and communication errors.
On today's flight from ZZZ to ASE; we experienced a possible approach deviation during the final stages of the flight. For this flight SIC was acting as the PF and PIC was the PNF. This flight presented several challenges as it was conducted in a high-terrain; high-elevation environment in a very short distance. In addition adverse weather conditions with strong winds; intermittent snow showers; icing; and turbulence increased the pilot workload. Before departure; we were advised about a 4-hour EDEC (Expect Departure Clearance Time) delay at ZZZ due to weather at the destination.PF contacted ZZZ ATC via phone and asked them to communicate to ATC that upon our arrival at ASE; we are able to conduct the special approach; the LOC DME 15; with a circle to land on runway 33; which we were qualified approved to conduct. Based on these info about our capabilities our EDEC was voided and we were given permission to depart on time. During the descent phase; while the PF was listening for ATIS updates; I (as the PNF) contacted Aspen Approach as instructed by Denver Center. The controller asked if we could accept an approach with a high tailwind conditions exceeding the limits for a straight-in landing. As planned and briefed; I requested the LOC DME 15 approach and requested approach to relay to ASE tower our intention to circle to land for runway 33.Shortly after; we received vectors for sequence and descent instructions. These required rapid speed adjustments and aircraft configuration; which increased our workload; especially under the adverse weather conditions (IMC; Icing; turbulence)Which require deployment of the airbrakes (boards) to be deployed causing additional airspeed monitoring requirements and abnormal noise levels. As we approached the final course; it became clear that the vectors were taking us through the final approach course. The PF requested a direct course on the FMS while I was simultaneously communicating with approach receiving our approach clearance. Once we switched to tower frequency; I checked in; stating that we were on the LOC DME 15 approach with the intention to circle to land on runway 33. The tower acknowledged; but then moments later issued a low altitude alert. I clarified that we were conducting the LOC DME 15 and not the LOC DME E. Tower came back stating that we were cleared for the LOC DME E thus the low altitude alert.After confirming we had visual contact with the runway; we proceeded with the circle-to-land maneuver and landed without further incident. Following the landing; the ground controller provided a phone number for a possible pilot deviation. The PF called the number and provided his license information. During the call PF was informed that the communication would be logged; and it was suggested that in future; we specify the 'special' approach to avoid confusion. Furthermore he mentioned that they have been many instances of miscommunication in the past regarding these two approaches due to the similarity in name.Please note. The flight segment involved a high workload; and I cannot confidently recall every ATC communication with certainty. While reflecting and evaluating potential scenarios; I don't want to dismiss the possibility of pilot communication errors. The possible threats that I can think of include miscommunication due to similar approach names. The approach in use was the LOC DME E for runway 15; while the special approach is the LOC DME 15. I would like to believe that if LOC DME E was assigned; we would have caught it; as we always request the LOC DME 15; even in VMC conditions; to maintain the required currency. Confirmation bias from pilots and/or ATC: Due to the similarity in names; the crew may have assumed the LOC DME approach referred to the special approach; while ATC was referring to the LOC DME E. A failure of CRM on the pilots' side. In high-workload ineffective Crew Resource Management (CRM); may have led to missed cues or incorrect interpretation of instructions; reducing the team's ability to manage the situation effectively. To prevent similar incidents in the future; we should enhance Crew Resource Management (CRM) with a focus on clear communication during high-workload situations. Prevent communication interference. As suggested by tower ensure approach requests are clearly specified by adding the word 'special'. Review standard operating procedures. Conduct thorough post-flight debriefings to improve communication and decision-making for future flights.
Subject: Report on Possible Pilot Deviation Involving ATC Communication. Flight Details. Flight Route: ZZZ to ASE (Aspen/Pitkin County Airport). Crew.- SIC (Second-In-Command) - Pilot Flying (PF)- PIC (Pilot-In-Command) - Pilot Monitoring (PNF)Incident Overview: Flight from ZZZ to ASE; received a 4-hour EDEC (Expect Departure Clearance Time) delay prior to departure due to High traffic volume and adverse weather conditions at our destination ASE Aspen Reporting Tail winds of 330 at 9 knots and gusts to 18 knots; which exceeded the aircraft's limitation of a Maximum of 10 Knots of tail wind for runway 15. ASE was experiencing strong winds and occasional low ceilings which precluded the use of straight-in approaches as well as intermittent snow showers and icing in the clouds. Many aircraft were diverting; so the PF contacted local ZZZ ATC clearance delivery and requested that they contact Denver Approach and Aspen Approach controllers and informing them that we were qualified to fly the Aspen special approach Localizer DME 15 at ASE and were capable of also performing a circle-to-land maneuver for runway 33 at the termination of the Special approach; Based on this information; ATC immediately cleared us for departure without further delay.Prior to arrival in Aspen airspace the Crew loaded and briefed the Aspen Special Approach Localizer DME 15; Upon entering Denver Center airspace; we were transferred to Aspen Approach. At this time; the PF was receiving updated ATIS on radio 1 while the PNF established initial contact with Approach on radio 2. The controller asked whether we could accept an approach despite the fact that the tailwind was above the limit for a straight-in landing. The PNF requested the LOC DME 15 approach as planned and asked Approach to inform the tower that we intended to circle-to-land runway 33. ATC proceeded to give us vectors for sequencing; followed by descent instructions and a major reduction in speed. The aircraft was configured for the Special approach which is also a steep approach of 4.5 degrees and this increases the decent angle and sink rate exponentially with a tail wind and an additional factor of speed is increased by the use of Wing and Engine Anti-Ice requiring Speed Brakes at setting 1 being deployed. This is an extremely difficult and challenging approach. As we neared the final course in IMC and Icing conditions with icing accumulation; we received our final turn and altitude instruction. However; it became evident that due to the vectoring from ATC we were going to overshoot the course. The PF instructed the PNF to set a direct-to waypoint to get re-established on the final course.The PNF continued to handle radio communications. After being transferred to Tower; the PNF checked in with Aspen Tower and confirmed that we were on the LOC DME 15 approach and requested a circle-to-land for Runway 33. The Tower acknowledged our request.A few minutes later; Tower issued a low-altitude alert based on The minimums of the LOC DME E; which the PNF acknowledged by stating that we were on the special approach which has much lower minimums Tower thanked us for the confirmation. Shortly afterward; Tower informed us that we had not been cleared for the LOC DME 15 approach but rather the LOC DME E approach for Runway 15. Tower asked if we had visual contact with the runway; to which the PNF confirmed that we did.We proceeded with the circle-to-land maneuver and completed an uneventful landing on runway 33. After switching to ground frequency; the ground controller advised us to copy a phone number for a possible pilot deviation. The PF called the provided Tower number and was asked for his Name and pilot license number and telephone number. The individual on the Tower line mentioned that they needed to log the event; citing that this type of approach miscommunication is a frequent occurrence. The PF also recommended that future approach requests specifically reference the 'special approach'to avoid potential confusion. The outcome of this occurrence clearly indicated that 2 completely different instrument approach's exist with Very Very simular names ; LOC DME E ( High Minimums ) and LOC DME 15 ( LOW Minimums and Special FAA Training and Authorization required). As a positive learning experience from this event and proceeding forward; to avoid any confusion in the future the crew will rename and emphasize the approach as the ' Special Approach Localizer DME 15 ' and the crew will request a Feader Fix which also confirms the Special Approach.Although no violations occurred it was a clear message of how easily Communications Errors can occur based on expectations and preconceived requirements. And the positive outcome of this situation is the ongoing safety net that Aspen Tower provided with a monitor for low altitude alert.
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.