Narrative:

The event began as we were in cruise to buf. When the captain requested the ATIS into buf we both noticed that they were using ILS approach runway 5; coupled approach runway 5 not authorized. Both of us thought this was strange because we had never seen coupled approach not authorized in an ATIS. When we were handed off from center to buf approach we inquired what caused the coupled approach to not be authorized and the approach controller said something along the lines of 'the localizer antenna was to close to the ground and the tower is working on it'; which we did not really get what that meant. We were then put on a heading to intercept the localizer runway 5 and descend to 4000 feet and shortly thereafter we were cleared for the approach. I leveled the plane off at 4000 feet on the localizer and waited for the glide slope intercept to descend. I noted that the MSA at this area was 3300 feet within 25 miles of plazz. After we initially were established on the localizer I noticed that the localizer would intermittently go away. Since I was hand flying at this point I just stayed on my heading; referenced the mfd to stay roughly on course; and then tracked the localizer when it was displayed on the pfd. I asked the captain what we should do; and he said if I was comfortable we should wait until glide slope intercept and if the localizer is constantly working at that time we should be able to do the approach; and if at any time we lose navigation in the final descent then I can execute the missed approach; and I agreed that this seemed like the reasonable thing to do. We told approach several times while we were level at 4000 that the localizer was not working properly. Right before he handed us off to tower the approach controller said something along the lines of 'that's probably why they don't authorize coupled approaches' in response to us saying we were losing the localizer. We switched to tower frequency just before descending and told them we were having some trouble with the localizer but it seems stable and accurate now; which it did. Our entire time inside the FAF the localizer was displayed on the pfd and captured.however; when we broke out of the clouds at approximately 400 feet the localizer was indicating that the aircraft was to the right of the runway centerline; but we were actually about 100 feet left of the centerline. Clearly the localizer was not properly working because at break out we were not where the instruments said we should be. I was able to get on centerline visually and perform a landing in the touchdown zone. When the captain was turning the plane off the runway I told him the localizer was not working properly. The biggest error I made was not fully briefing myself on the ATIS. As we were on the final approach course outside the FAF I mentioned is there any other approaches that will get us in there and the captain said yes. I did not realize the ATIS said runway 32 ILS was available; and at this point I should have requested that we ask for that approach. For some reason I had it in my mind that runway 5/23 was the only precision approach into buf. The biggest threat to me was that clearly buf knows something about their ILS runway 5 is not working properly because they tell pilots not to couple the autopilot; but instead of shutting down that approach and fixing the issue; they are letting pilots fly this dangerous approach. We broke out at 400 feet and were not where the instruments indicated we should be. Also outside of the FAF we should have been navigating via the localizer but since it was not functioning we were really just flying the mfd line; but that is not a big issue for me since we were still in radar coverage and were above the MSA. More importantly ILS approaches are designed so that the plane can break out basically the same way every time; on glide slope and on centerline to make for an easy transition to visually landing. To break out well to the left of runway centerline; especially when the instruments showed we should have been a little to the right; is highly undesired. Honestly in the future I won't trust ATC as much. I assumed that buf would not clear us for an approach that wasn't working; but I think they must have known something was wrong yet they cleared us for the approach. We complained with tower after landing and I called our dispatcher about one hour after the flight and told them I thought all flights going to buf should have a note in the dispatch saying the ILS runway 5 has an issue reported by a pilot and if you encounter an issue you should report it formally to the tower and also just consider using another approach. The dispatcher told me since the approach was not notam'ed he had no clue the note in that ATIS even existed. Obviously I do not want any pilot to have an issue on this runway so I hope pilots or the company complain to the FAA or airport authority so this approach can be fixed. In hindsight to think that anyone including myself is doing approaches into very low visibility and down to 200 feet on an ILS that does not function to near perfection terrifies me.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier First Officer discovers via BUF ATIS that coupled approaches to Runway 5 are not authorized. During the hand flown approach irregularities in the LOC are noted. Upon breaking out at 400 feet the localizer indicates the aircraft is to the right of centerline but in fact the aircraft is 100 feet to the left of centerline.

Narrative: The event began as we were in cruise to BUF. When the Captain requested the ATIS into BUF we both noticed that they were using ILS Approach Runway 5; Coupled Approach Runway 5 not authorized. Both of us thought this was strange because we had never seen Coupled Approach not Authorized in an ATIS. When we were handed off from Center to BUF Approach we inquired what caused the Coupled Approach to not be authorized and the approach controller said something along the lines of 'the localizer antenna was to close to the ground and the tower is working on it'; which we did not really get what that meant. We were then put on a heading to intercept the localizer Runway 5 and descend to 4000 feet and shortly thereafter we were cleared for the approach. I leveled the plane off at 4000 feet on the localizer and waited for the glide slope intercept to descend. I noted that the MSA at this area was 3300 feet within 25 miles of PLAZZ. After we initially were established on the LOC I noticed that the LOC would intermittently go away. Since I was hand flying at this point I just stayed on my heading; referenced the MFD to stay roughly on course; and then tracked the LOC when it was displayed on the PFD. I asked the Captain what we should do; and he said if I was comfortable we should wait until glide slope intercept and if the LOC is constantly working at that time we should be able to do the approach; and if at any time we lose navigation in the final descent then I can execute the missed approach; and I agreed that this seemed like the reasonable thing to do. We told Approach several times while we were level at 4000 that the localizer was not working properly. Right before he handed us off to Tower the approach controller said something along the lines of 'that's probably why they don't authorize coupled approaches' in response to us saying we were losing the localizer. We switched to Tower frequency just before descending and told them we were having some trouble with the localizer but it seems stable and accurate now; which it did. Our entire time inside the FAF the localizer was displayed on the PFD and captured.However; when we broke out of the clouds at approximately 400 feet the localizer was indicating that the aircraft was to the right of the runway centerline; but we were actually about 100 feet left of the centerline. Clearly the localizer was not properly working because at break out we were not where the instruments said we should be. I was able to get on centerline visually and perform a landing in the touchdown zone. When the Captain was turning the plane off the runway I told him the LOC was not working properly. The biggest error I made was not fully briefing myself on the ATIS. As we were on the final approach course outside the FAF I mentioned is there any other approaches that will get us in there and the Captain said yes. I did not realize the ATIS said Runway 32 ILS was available; and at this point I should have requested that we ask for that approach. For some reason I had it in my mind that Runway 5/23 was the only Precision Approach into BUF. The biggest threat to me was that clearly BUF knows something about their ILS Runway 5 is not working properly because they tell pilots not to couple the autopilot; but instead of shutting down that approach and fixing the issue; they are letting pilots fly this dangerous approach. We broke out at 400 feet and were not where the instruments indicated we should be. Also outside of the FAF we should have been navigating via the LOC but since it was not functioning we were really just flying the MFD line; but that is not a big issue for me since we were still in radar coverage and were above the MSA. More importantly ILS approaches are designed so that the plane can break out basically the same way every time; on glide slope and on centerline to make for an easy transition to visually landing. To break out well to the left of runway centerline; especially when the instruments showed we should have been a little to the right; is highly undesired. Honestly in the future I won't trust ATC as much. I assumed that BUF would not clear us for an approach that wasn't working; but I think they must have known something was wrong yet they cleared us for the approach. We complained with Tower after landing and I called our Dispatcher about one hour after the flight and told them I thought all flights going to BUF should have a note in the dispatch saying the ILS Runway 5 has an issue reported by a pilot and if you encounter an issue you should report it formally to the Tower and also just consider using another approach. The Dispatcher told me since the Approach was not Notam'ed he had no clue the note in that ATIS even existed. Obviously I do not want any pilot to have an issue on this runway so I hope pilots or the company complain to the FAA or airport authority so this approach can be fixed. In hindsight to think that anyone including myself is doing approaches into very low visibility and down to 200 feet on an ILS that does not function to near perfection terrifies me.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.