Narrative:

In 12/88 flight was dispatched from guam to manila west/O an alternate. WX was forecast to be VFR. NOTAMS for manila reported runway 06-24 (primary runway) to be closed for repair until XA30 local. Manila approach cleared flight to FL130 at XA26 local. During descent manila approach advised flight that runway 06-24 would be closed until XB00 local and asked intentions. Flight requested runway 13 or 31. Mnl approach advised flight that runway 06-24 would now be open in 5 mins and flight was instructed to hold at mnl VOR. ATIS WX was reporting clear skies, visibility 3 KM haze, winds calm. At 13000' flight could see the airport from overhead during holding. After 1 turn in holding flight was vectored for a 06 VOR approach. Fuel was 7800 pounds leaving holding. The VOR-06 approach was flown as published to minimums. At minimums 06 runway environment was not in sight. During execution of missed approach runway 06 was visible. Vertical visibility was very good, however horizontal visibility was restrictive. Fuel after missed approach was 6600 pounds. Flight asked for an ILS 24 approach. Approach advised runway 24 closed. Flight was vectored for another approach for runway 06 following widebody transport. On base leg flight asked approach the visibility. The visibility was reported as 1 KM by approach. Minimums for 06 VOR are 1.6 KM. Flight elected to continue the VOR 06 approach due to minimum fuel. The widebody transport missed approach in front of flight. At minimums flight was visibility with runway 06 and made an uneventful landing. Taxi in fuel was 4800#. The situation that led to this low fuel on landing were as follows: 1) reporting WX at dispatch was not close to accurate. B) runway was not opened in accordance with NOTAM time. C) on arrival with visibility restriction ILS 24 would have been more appropriate for landing traffic. To prevent any further recurrence request mnl use runway 24 ILS during restrictive visibility. With the morning sun and haze runway 06 is very difficult to see. The VOR-06 is also an offset approach. Have strobes installed for runway 06-24. Have more accurate WX reporting. Have the airport and facs available in accordance with NOTAMS. Have a more realistic alternate for manila. Mactan international is much too far; clark ab would be a better alternate. Supplemental information from acn 100761: I think we could have declared an emergency on the first go around and flown to clark ab. We, as many other crews, are reluctant to declare an emergency and risk administrative trouble. Funny as it sounds, these things cross your mind when one should be concentrating on a successful conclusion to the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT CONTINUED APCH AND LNDG IN WX REPORTED BELOW ARPT WX MINIMUMS FOR LNDG.

Narrative: IN 12/88 FLT WAS DISPATCHED FROM GUAM TO MANILA W/O AN ALTERNATE. WX WAS FORECAST TO BE VFR. NOTAMS FOR MANILA RPTED RWY 06-24 (PRIMARY RWY) TO BE CLOSED FOR REPAIR UNTIL XA30 LCL. MANILA APCH CLRED FLT TO FL130 AT XA26 LCL. DURING DSCNT MANILA APCH ADVISED FLT THAT RWY 06-24 WOULD BE CLOSED UNTIL XB00 LCL AND ASKED INTENTIONS. FLT REQUESTED RWY 13 OR 31. MNL APCH ADVISED FLT THAT RWY 06-24 WOULD NOW BE OPEN IN 5 MINS AND FLT WAS INSTRUCTED TO HOLD AT MNL VOR. ATIS WX WAS RPTING CLEAR SKIES, VISIBILITY 3 KM HAZE, WINDS CALM. AT 13000' FLT COULD SEE THE ARPT FROM OVERHEAD DURING HOLDING. AFTER 1 TURN IN HOLDING FLT WAS VECTORED FOR A 06 VOR APCH. FUEL WAS 7800 LBS LEAVING HOLDING. THE VOR-06 APCH WAS FLOWN AS PUBLISHED TO MINIMUMS. AT MINIMUMS 06 RWY ENVIRONMENT WAS NOT IN SIGHT. DURING EXECUTION OF MISSED APCH RWY 06 WAS VISIBLE. VERT VISIBILITY WAS VERY GOOD, HOWEVER HORIZ VISIBILITY WAS RESTRICTIVE. FUEL AFTER MISSED APCH WAS 6600 LBS. FLT ASKED FOR AN ILS 24 APCH. APCH ADVISED RWY 24 CLOSED. FLT WAS VECTORED FOR ANOTHER APCH FOR RWY 06 FOLLOWING WDB. ON BASE LEG FLT ASKED APCH THE VISIBILITY. THE VISIBILITY WAS RPTED AS 1 KM BY APCH. MINIMUMS FOR 06 VOR ARE 1.6 KM. FLT ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE VOR 06 APCH DUE TO MINIMUM FUEL. THE WDB MISSED APCH IN FRONT OF FLT. AT MINIMUMS FLT WAS VIS WITH RWY 06 AND MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. TAXI IN FUEL WAS 4800#. THE SITUATION THAT LED TO THIS LOW FUEL ON LNDG WERE AS FOLLOWS: 1) RPTING WX AT DISPATCH WAS NOT CLOSE TO ACCURATE. B) RWY WAS NOT OPENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTAM TIME. C) ON ARR WITH VISIBILITY RESTRICTION ILS 24 WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE FOR LNDG TFC. TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER RECURRENCE REQUEST MNL USE RWY 24 ILS DURING RESTRICTIVE VISIBILITY. WITH THE MORNING SUN AND HAZE RWY 06 IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE. THE VOR-06 IS ALSO AN OFFSET APCH. HAVE STROBES INSTALLED FOR RWY 06-24. HAVE MORE ACCURATE WX RPTING. HAVE THE ARPT AND FACS AVAILABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTAMS. HAVE A MORE REALISTIC ALTERNATE FOR MANILA. MACTAN INTL IS MUCH TOO FAR; CLARK AB WOULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 100761: I THINK WE COULD HAVE DECLARED AN EMER ON THE FIRST GAR AND FLOWN TO CLARK AB. WE, AS MANY OTHER CREWS, ARE RELUCTANT TO DECLARE AN EMER AND RISK ADMINISTRATIVE TROUBLE. FUNNY AS IT SOUNDS, THESE THINGS CROSS YOUR MIND WHEN ONE SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ON A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION TO THE FLT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.