Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
During ILS approach to Runway 17C at DFW; ATC (Approach Control) directed the crew to intercept the Localizer (LOC) for Runway 17C on a 200 heading outside of PENNY. The crew had been cleared to intercept the LOC outside PENNY at 5;000 FT MSL. The reason for the higher than normal altitude and distance out from the runway was due to an overcast with cloud tops at approximately 4;700 FT MSL and a heavy aircraft landing before us. Approaching PENNY; ATC cleared the flight for the approach and the pilot not flying was 'extending the centerline' of the ILS for [Runway] 17C. Also; the pilot not flying had failed to set the proper localizer frequency for the approach and was accomplishing that task simultaneously; while communicating the approach clearance with ATC. Note: The pilot flying did have the proper course/frequency set for the ILS 17C and had 'armed' the ILS in the flight director upon receiving approach clearance. Also; the autopilot selector switch was set to AP2 since the First Officer was the pilot flying.Approaching PENNY the aircraft was configured at Slats Ext/Flaps 15 and airspeed was approximately 200 KIAS. At PENNY or right after; the crew noticed that the aircraft was not starting down the glideslope. Attempts to 'check' the LOC frequency and glideslope did not alter the flight path. Approximately 15 to 20 seconds later; ATC canceled the approach clearance and queried the crew as to whether they had intercepted the LOC to [Runway] 17C and directed the crew to descend and maintain 3;000 FT MSL. It is noted that ATC did ask the crew if they were intercepting the LOC and the crew responded affirmatively that 'we are correcting'. However; ATC did not give the crew a heading to correct back to the LOC. The crew expeditiously complied with ATC's instructions and configured the aircraft for landing. At approximately 3;200 FT MSL; the aircraft 'broke out' of the cloud bases and the crew found themselves visually aligned between Runways 17L and 17C. The crew then asked for a visual approach to [Runway] 17C and ATC cleared us as asked. A 15 to 20 degree correction was required to safely intercept the visual centerline of Runway 17C. Configuration and stable approach requirements were met sufficiently to continue the approach and land. The remainder of the approach was uneventful.It is estimated that winds aloft at 5;000 FT MSL were 260-270 degrees at 42-45 KIAS. Also winds at 3;000 FT MSL were 250-260 degrees at 23-28 KIAS. In my estimation; the failure of the instrument approach was primarily due to one or two of three reasons: 1) The crew did not hear the proper heading (200 degrees was readback and set in the FGP) issued by ATC and failed to intercept the LOC for the approach. It could have been the crew heard the final intercept heading incorrectly; in which case; the crew would have never intercepted the final approach course. 2) Due to strong crosswinds at altitude; ATC did not give the crew a sufficient intercept heading to capture the LOC prior to PENNY. 3) Both the crew and ATC did not properly monitor and crosscheck the position of the aircraft soon enough to prevent an aborted instrument approach.
An aircraft on approach to DFW Runway 17C failed to track the localizer in a crosswind and ATC failed to issue an intercept heading. During an ATC directed descent to 3;000 FT the crew acquired the airport visually and so continued the approach.