A B767 FLC IS OVERLOADED WITH ARR CHANGES AND SUFFERS A HDG TRACK DEV ON THE CIVET STAR E OF LAX; CA.

Date: 2001-06 · Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: approach

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-less-severe|deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-clearance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|other-fll-workload

Synopsis

A B767 FLC IS OVERLOADED WITH ARR CHANGES AND SUFFERS A HDG TRACK DEV ON THE CIVET STAR E OF LAX; CA.

Narrative

WE WERE FILED FOR THE CIVET ARR INTO LAX. APPROX 5-10 MI FROM THE CIVET INTXN WE WERE CLRED VIA PDZ 4 ARR FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY 'CROSS CIVET AT OR ABOVE 14000 FT.' WE WERE CONSTANTLY GIVEN CHANGES OF ARRS AND/OR RWYS AT VERY CLOSE DISTANCES TO LAX WITH LITTLE OR NO NOTICE. IT IS VERY COMMON TO GET THE CIVET ARR TO RWY 25L FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER BY THE MITTS 1 TO RWY 24R. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED THIS POSSIBILITY IN OUR BRIEFING AND IN FACT HAD THE MITTS 1 LOADED IN RTE 2 ON THE FMC. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE; WE WERE VERY UNEXPECTEDLY GIVEN THE PDZ 4 FOLLOWED BY 'CROSS CIVET AT OR ABOVE 10400 FT.' THE CAPT ENTERED THIS ARR WHILE I LOOKED FOR THE COMMERCIAL ARR PLATE. BY THE TIME THE ARR WAS ENTERED INTO THE FMC AND I DISCOVERED THAT CIVET IS NOT ON THE PDZ 4 ARR; WE WERE APPROX 2 MI PAST CIVET WITH A CORRESPONDING RTE DISCONTINUITY ON THE FMC. I TOLD THE CAPT TO ASK THE CTLR WHAT ARR HE WANTED US ON; AS CIVET WAS NOT ON THE PDZ 4. THE CTLR SAID 'THE CIVET; THE CIVET; YOU ARE 2 MI W OF COURSE; TURN R HDG 310 DEGS AND INTERCEPT RWY 25L.' BY THIS TIME THE CAPT HAD PDZ 4 AND RWY 24R PROGRAMMED INTO THE FMC AND THE RWY 24R ILS FREQ IN THE ILS RAW DATA RADIO. BY THE TIME NOW WE RESHIFTED GEARS; FOUND THE APCH PLATE; DIALED IN THE FREQ TO RWY 25L; AND REPROGRAMMED THE FMC FOR THE APCH; THE CTLR SAID 'YOU ARE CLRED TO BREMR AND THE CIVET 4 ARR TO RWY 25L.' AT THIS TIME WE WERE A VERY SHORT DISTANCE FROM BREMR; PERHAPS 5 MI. THE CAPT ENTERED BREMR INTO THE FMC. I VERIFIED IT AND TOLD HIM TO EXECUTE IT. I THEN REACHED UP AND ENGAGED THE LNAV ON THE MCP AND VERIFIED IT VIA THE LNAV FMA ANNUNCIATION ON THE ADI. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LNAV ENGAGEMENT THE AUTOPLT BEGAN A L TURN ON COURSE ON THE ARR AS WE WERE THEN OVER BREMR. I THEN LOOKED DOWN TO MY ARR CHART TO SEE WHAT OUR NEXT ALT FOR DSCNT WAS. THE CAPT PUT THE NEXT ALT OF 10000 FT FOR ARNES INTO THE ALT INDICATOR WINDOW. WHEN I LOOKED UP FROM THE CHART TO VERIFY THAT ALT; I NOTICED THE AIRPLANE STARTED A SLOW R TURN BACK TOWARD THE HDG BUG THAT WAS NOT YET MOVED FROM THE PREVIOUS 310 DEG HDG SET BEFORE. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE AIRPLANE AWAY FROM THE AUTOPLT AND HAND FLEW THE REMAINDER OF THE APCH AND ARR. THE CTLR WHO MUST HAVE NOW BEEN WATCHING US VERY CLOSELY SAID THAT HE NOW SHOWED US N OF COURSE AND TO TURN BACK L TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 25L LOC. I HAVE NO IDEA NOR DOES THE CAPT HOW THE AIRPLANE CAME OUT OF LNAV AND BACK INTO HDG SELECT. THIS DEV WAS CAUGHT VERY QUICKLY AND THE AIRPLANE HAND FLOWN UNEVENTFULLY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE FLT. AS FAR AS WE KNOW THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT OR ANY OTHER PROB. CLRLY THE CTLR DID NOT MEAN TO GIVE US THE PDZ 4 ARR; AS HE CLRLY STATED HE WANTED US ON THE CIVET 4 WHEN WE ASKED HIM ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY OF THE CLRNC. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS EVER OUT OF CTL OR THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO HAND FLY IT ANY EARLIER THAN I DID. THE REASON I SAY THIS IS THAT WE WERE EXTREMELY BUSY CONSTANTLY CHANGING GEARS THE ENTIRE TIME ALL THIS WAS GOING ON. WHEN THE AIRPLANE FLEW STRAIGHT AHEAD AFTER XING CIVET DUE TO THE RTE DISCONTINUITY IT WAS DOING EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IF I WERE HAND FLYING IT AS PER OUR CLRNC. THERE WAS NO WHERE TO GO AFTER CIVET BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ON THE PDZ 4 ARR. THE AUTOPLT ACTUALLY ALLOWED US TO GET THE CHARTS OUT AND FIGURE OUT THE MESS THAT WE FOUND OURSELVES IN. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE TO TOTALLY SHIFT GEARS IN ONE OF THESE AIRPLANES WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA A CHANGE IS COMING. I THINK THAT IT MAY BE EASY FOR A CTLR LOOKING AT HIS SCREEN TO SAY 'I NEED SPACING HERE; SO LET'S MOVE THIS GUY TO THE RWY;' WHEN IT ISN'T NEAR THAT EASY FOR A PLT WHO HAS TO FIND THE NEW ARR; NEW APCH PLATE; FIGURE THE INFO PRESENTED ON THOSE PLATES; GET DOWN; SLOW DOWN; ETC. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CURRENT METHOD OF 2 ARR CHANGES AND 3 RWY CHANGES WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON AT ALL IS CONDUCIVE TO SAFE FLT OPS. AT AN EXTREMELY BUSY ARPT; THAT HAS AN EXTREMELY LARGE AMOUNT OF TFC AND THE BUSIEST TIME OF A FLT; FLCS ARE FORCED TO BE HEADSDOWN AS THEY ARE FORCED TO FIND NEW PLATES AND DIGEST THE INFO PRESENTED ON THEM. THEN THROW IN JUST 1 SMALL MISTAKE -- BE IT CTLR OR PLT -- AND IT IS VERY EASY TO GET BEHIND AN AIRPLANE QUICKLY. AT THE VERY LEAST; I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT AN ARR CHANGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNLESS TOLD BY A PREVIOUS CTLR TO POSSIBLY EXPECT THAT CHANGE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. THAT WAY; AS IN THIS CASE; THAT PROC CAN BE LOOKED AT AND ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND (IE; CIVET NOT ON PDZ 4).

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.