Air Carrier flight crew reports confusion over the requirement to fly the holding pattern procedure turn from SUG to the ILS 34 approach at AVL.
Synopsis
Air Carrier flight crew reports confusion over the requirement to fly the holding pattern procedure turn from SUG to the ILS 34 approach at AVL.
Narrative
We were on our last leg of the day; flying into AVL. It was leg 5 for me on 11th hour of duty; leg 7 for the Captain almost 14 hours of duty; night; raining; non-towered; mountainous terrain airport; with an apparently confusing approach. Not a good setup. We were expecting the ILS 34; and I briefed and set up the approach. We were filed direct SUG direct AVL. Around SUG; we were told to descend to 7;000 FT. We were told maintain 7;000; then given direct Broad River (BRA) and cleared for the ILS 34 approach. In looking at the approach plate; the minimum altitude between SUG and BRA is 5;500 FT and the minimum altitude at BRA is 4;400 FT. No where on the plate does it say you must cross BRA at a higher altitude and use the procedure turn to descend. On the plate for ILS 16 in AVL it does depict this and is clear about it. So we began our descent so that we could cross BRA at 4;400 and continue on the ILS 34. ATC informed us we had busted altitude and to climb back to 7;000 until crossing BRA. At this time; we were not expecting to do a procedure turn; and the FMS was setup to continue the approach from BRA; so at 7;000; we turned inbound; knowing that there was no way we could land with a stabilized approach from this altitude. The Captain informed ATC; and she told us that we were expected to perform the procedure turn on the approach. We made a left 180 and then she vectored us out back towards SUG to send us in again. This second time; we made the procedure turn and landed uneventfully.To the best of my memory; I do not recall the Controller clearing us for the 'full' approach. I think that would have made a difference in how we handled the situation. There are two prongs to that. If she did say cleared for the FULL approach; neither of us heard or acknowledged it. I think that is attributable to fatigue issues having to do with such a late flight; after a long day; with many factors complicating the flight. Also; she should have challenged the Captain's read back when he did not acknowledge the full approach and clarified that we needed to perform the procedure turn. If she did not say cleared for the 'full' approach but we still should have done it; then we need to review phraseology and what the Controllers' commands do mean. It is possible that operating in the usual towered environment; we become so used to 'cleared for the approach' meaning straight in when you get the localizer; when technically something else may be expected. In conclusion; I think we need to be highly vigilant to pinpoint any operations that may be out of the ordinary and be prepared to check and double check what we are doing. I think being aware of our physical limits when approaching fatigue and how they will affect our performance is also very important. Lastly; we need to be sure we understand what ATC expects of us; and clarify it with them whenever necessary.
Second reporter narrative
We were cleared to the BRA NDB (on the ILS 34/AVL) at 7;000 FT. We were proceeding direct the NDB; and were with 10 miles of the navaid; when ZTL gave the instruction 'maintain 7;000 to BRA; cleared for the ILS 34 to KAVL'. We looked at this as a crew and determined that; since the approach plate indicated that we could cross BRA at 4;400 FT; that a descent was in order; otherwise we would have been too high to make a stabilized approach to Runway 34. ZTL questioned our descent and instructed us to climb back up to 7;000 FT; and again cleared us for the approach. We stated that we would not be able to make the required descent rate and asked ZTL what they wanted us to do. It was at this point that ZTL suggested that we enter the published hold and descend that way. (They never stated to us 'cleared for the FULL approach; which would have flagged us to do the procedure turn.) We were apparently expected to know that this was the standard procedure for this approach into this airport at night; but none of this information is stated on the approach plate. The plate does not make the procedure turn mandatory; hence the confusion. The Controller could have used the standard phraseology of 'Cleared for the Full Approach'; but didn't.How this situation could have been avoided. 1) Additional information on the approach plate. 2) Use of more standardized phraseology by the Controller. 3) Crew should have been more questioning of ATC with apparently conflicting instructions. 4) After a 13 HR duty/almost 8 hour-7 leg day; being dispatched/scheduled to a mountainous airport at night is simply unsafe and the culmination of a fatigue inducing day. A less fatiguing day might have mitigated this event.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.