A B757 crew reported that new Company procedures for the MIA QUITO arrival accompanied with changing ATC procedures left the flight crew unable to slow and descend the aircraft comfortably.
Synopsis
A B757 crew reported that new Company procedures for the MIA QUITO arrival accompanied with changing ATC procedures left the flight crew unable to slow and descend the aircraft comfortably.
Narrative
On arrival into the MIA area; we were cleared for the ILS 9 and told to cross GRITT at 3;000 FT. We were attempting to use the new VNAV arrival procedures. Approach asked us to keep up our speed and while concentrating on this we descended approximately to 2;700 FT about a mile to half a mile from GRITT. We noticed this and corrected back to 3;000 FT immediately. There was no TCAS alert nor did ATC ask about the altitude. Additionally; approach asked us to maintain 170 KTS to the final approach fix. This complicated the situation by trying to comply with the speed and be configured and stabilized by 1;000 FT without using the speed brakes with flaps 25. The VNAV arrival procedures works fine until ATC starts giving speed changes; also we were on a vector to intercept the localizer; which we did just outside GRITT. Trying to comply with configuration; speed; altitude requirements along with rarely used VNAV procedures resulted in too many distractions. Perhaps we should adjust VNAV procedures to be used only when shooting a full arrival to ensure enough time to be configured and on speed by final.
Second reporter narrative
[While] flying LOC/VNAV approach for practice per instructions of Check Airman and Flight Training instructions/suggestions at last recurrent. Usual slam dunk from CURSO2 Arrival with direct CURSO and kept high and fast for spacing. We were cleared ILS at 3;000 FT and I set FAF altitude (1;500) in window for VNAV descent after GRITT. Then was told keep speed up/no speed given. I realized that at 25 flaps and 170 KTS and on glideslope that you cannot slow down to get to 30 flaps unless you have a strong headwind; which we did not have. I thought the only way to keep the speed and then get configured by the altitude and parameters required by ops procedures was to descend to 1;500 then slow in level flight. The other alternative was to use speed brakes with flaps greater than 20 degrees; also prohibited. I expected the aircraft to level at 3;000 but it did not and then I realized that my clearance was cleared ILS not visual as we would have done at other airports. I assumed direct control of the aircraft and returned to 3;000 FT until GRITT; 1.5 miles ahead where the glideslope descent began. Maximum deviation I saw was 150 FT low before GRITT. I then slowed to configure per ops manual. ATC gave me maintain 170 KTS to INESS after I was well below 170. When the radio cleared; I refused the 170 KTS. ATC got upset and sent a 747 behind me around; blaming me on the radio. I don't know for certain why the plane went through 3;000 FT; maybe when I heard cleared ILS; I hit the ILS/GS button and took it out of LNAV/VNAV. It is certain that I was confused for a moment at that point as the aircraft did not react as I expected. Fatigue - the night prior; we spent 1/3 of cruise picking through thunderstorms and the entire descent with major deviations over the Pacific until we found a corridor between the mountains and storms to get into our overnight. It took a couple of hours to wind down and sleep. The required caffeine the night before woke me up early and thus I had a short night sleep with a short nap mid morning. On departure we again had storms and about and hour and a half dealing with ATC changes; lost clearances; new takeoff data; no radar; storms overhead; all with no ACARS. Gentleman; we have a serious problem with the disconnect between company procedures and ATC. I am totally confident in flying the QUITO RNAV approach; in its entirety; with no ATC changes! But flight department wants us to practice at least the LOC/VNAV mode. But our training and ATC practices do not prepare us to use this approach in the chaotic ATC environment where your intercept altitude and position constantly changes. This is even worse at very busy airports where you are vectors of unknown length. ATC speed control - 170 KTS to the marker (or any point to the glideslope) is undoable without a strong headwind; heavy airplane; level into the glideslope or the use of speed brakes with flaps greater than 20 degrees. Our company 767 Chief Pilot told me that our Check Airman told ATC that 170 KTS to the marker was the maximum; but this is not correct especially if you are on the glideslope coming into the marker. This does cause much stress; adds confusion; creates go-arounds or requires violating our ops procedures. Since we're already liable for two cockpit displays and 2 different FMCs and practicing new types of approaches on the line; maybe there is more than enough stress in our cockpits without generating more. Don't fly practice autolands; RNAV approaches; or VNAV descent approaches. Declare to every approach control 'only able maximum 150 KTS at the marker.' Carry more fuel for more probable go-arounds. Company needs to coordinate different more realistic approach parameters with ATC.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.