Delayed descent clearance and dichotomy between FMS Database and the QWENN THREE RNAV STAR contributed to A320 flight crew's altitude excursion. Delayed descent clearance and dichotomy between FMS Database and the QWENN THREE RNAV STAR contributed to A320 flight crew's altitude excursion.
Synopsis
Delayed descent clearance and dichotomy between FMS Database and the QWENN THREE RNAV STAR contributed to A320 flight crew's altitude excursion. Delayed descent clearance and dichotomy between FMS Database and the QWENN THREE RNAV STAR contributed to A320 flight crew's altitude excursion.
Narrative
The chart and the box did not match up. First Officer's descent was managed and he flew the altitudes in the box. The Controller was busy and seemed to have forgotten about us and I was trying to get an approach clearance from him because I did not know if the box was right or the plate was right. The box was updated on May 7 I think and my plate said 6 Mar 2009. Which is the current plate. First Officer was flying the leg in to Salt Lake and we were on the QWENN Three arrival and we were told to cross NEEBO at 15000/250 KTS. Shortly after that we were cleared to descend via the QWENN three at which time he set 11000 in the FCU window and managed the descent. The arrival plate and the box did not appear the same. The plate had no speed restrictions but the box had 11000/230 KTS at QWENN. The Controller asked us what our speed was and I told him 250 and about ready to start slowing to 230 at which time he said to slow to 210. We crossed KAMMP at 11000 and I called the field a couple of times. The Controller was busy with another aircraft ahead of us on the left runway and when he finally answered he asked me what altitude I was at. When I said 9800 he screamed saying we were supposed to descend via the QWENN and told us to descend to 9000 and when we had the other aircraft in sight we were cleared for a visual to 34R. While taxiing in to the gate we were given a number to call. Pay close attention to the box and the plate and question a descrepancy.
Second reporter narrative
There is a new note on the arrival specifically for 34R that says to turn to and intercept the localizer inbound; after establishing on the 341 radial (this radial provides no guidance to the LOC on its own); course slightly diverges from LOC course; so the aggressiveness of intercept would seemed to be at our discretion. However; the LOC; as I recall; was alive after calling the field 'in sight' a couple of times; keeping an eye on the terrain we had just left behind; and watching as another aircraft aggressively 'S' turned not far ahead of us; to lose altitude for 34L and beginning to worry as we began to see the glideslope fall a couple of dots below our path. The captain suggested 9500 FT MSL forgetting to crosscheck the 'box;' against the controlling chart. While heads up for SW and the possibility of an impending challenge to a 'stabilized' 34R approach; if we didn't get lower in short order. I carelessly agreed; with inadequate cross-referencing; and started down. In post-failure retrospection; 11 thousand was the lowest altitude on the arrival chart; and 9500 was the highest 'established inbound' intercept altitude.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.