Narrative:

Wx [at destination] was low IMC with fog (but still marginally above cat I mins; and forecast to remain so all morning). We operated B717 aircraft. It had an open write-up for mmr #1 being faulty (captain's glideslope being unreliable...MEL 34-32-01); and an open write up for the autoland downgrade; MEL 22-10-01-X. We fully complied with all 'O' procedures; as they existed. The flight was uneventful; and the return flt was also uneventful until inside the outer marker. We were assigned ILS xx in ZZZ. We briefed and flew the approach profile; with the autopilot coupled. Inside the outer marker I lost my glideslope indication as did the first officer and the autopilot autodisengaged. I executed a manual go around. As we assumed that neither glideslope would be useable; we then asked for; and were approved by ATC; for the RNAV xx. We 'changed destination'; and briefed the approach using prof and we reset the rnp to 3. Our final vector altitude was 3;000 feet; and were cleared for the approach. Approaching the outer marker (2700 crossing altitude depicted); the aircraft would not prof down; so I utilized vertical speed to initiate it down; but it would only hold the previous altitude. Additionally while the autopilot was supposedly tracking the magenta final approach course line; approach asked us if we needed assistance laterally. Our depiction indicated that we were holding .1 miles south of final approach course; but ATC said that we were 'well south' of course line. Due to the lateral nav; as well as vertical nav; issues; I executed another go around. For the third approach; we requested a dive-and-drive localizer. We were assigned the localizer xx. We briefed; and flew the localizer xx approach which was uneventful. (We did note during this approach that the prof function was still problematical.) discrepancies were entered on aircraft logbook. Note: we had originally arrived from ZZZ1 on another aircraft; and were switched into this aircraft which had sat on the ground all night in ZZZ. Maintenance procedures were suspect. A) we had three mels on my dispatch release; but only two were in the logbook; but three MEL placards were on the center pedestal; B) four open nef placards were in the logbook; but only two were on the center pedestal; C) the MEL on my dispatch release for autoland downgrade did match the MEL listed on the logbook page where it was written up; nor with the placard on the pedestal. It took the maintenace technician 45 minutes in coordination with dispatch; moc; and with myself to get the logbook; and dispatch release to all agree. It was a mess.three issues: 1) maintenance technicians (graveyard shift) are not being vigilant to comply with all procedures in deferring items; and with properly clearing mels (we took a major delay due to incompetence or lack of awareness on the part of graveyard mtx shift and the day shift maintenance technician had to help us unscrew the paperwork mess we were left with); 2) I question the company's protocol in dispatching a plane with such a significant nav degradation; and with the existing wx; 3) the combination of the two mels I had; do not restrict one from operating in the existing wx I experienced...perhaps they should.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B717 Captain reported they were dispatched into low IMC with a downgraded autoland system. They flew two missed approaches before successfully flying a localizer approach. Inaccurate MELs were an issue.

Narrative: Wx [at destination] was low IMC with fog (but still marginally above Cat I mins; and forecast to remain so all morning). We operated B717 aircraft. It had an open write-up for MMR #1 being faulty (Captain's glideslope being unreliable...MEL 34-32-01); and an open write up for the Autoland downgrade; MEL 22-10-01-X. We fully complied with all 'O' procedures; as they existed. The flight was uneventful; and the return flt was also uneventful until inside the outer marker. We were assigned ILS XX in ZZZ. We briefed and flew the approach profile; with the autopilot coupled. Inside the outer marker I lost my glideslope indication as did the FO and the autopilot autodisengaged. I executed a manual go around. As we assumed that neither glideslope would be useable; we then asked for; and were approved by ATC; for the RNAV XX. We 'changed destination'; and briefed the approach using PROF and we reset the RNP to 3. Our final vector altitude was 3;000 feet; and were cleared for the approach. Approaching the outer marker (2700 crossing altitude depicted); the aircraft would not PROF down; so I utilized VERT SPD to initiate it down; but it would only hold the previous altitude. Additionally while the autopilot was supposedly tracking the magenta final approach course line; Approach asked us if we needed assistance laterally. Our depiction indicated that we were holding .1 miles south of final approach course; but ATC said that we were 'well south' of course line. Due to the lateral nav; as well as vertical nav; issues; I executed another go around. For the third approach; we requested a dive-and-drive LOC. We were assigned the LOC XX. We briefed; and flew the LOC XX approach which was uneventful. (We did note during this approach that the PROF function was still problematical.) Discrepancies were entered on aircraft logbook. Note: We had originally arrived from ZZZ1 on another aircraft; and were switched into this aircraft which had sat on the ground all night in ZZZ. Maintenance procedures were suspect. A) We had three MELs on my dispatch release; but only two were in the logbook; but three MEL placards were on the center pedestal; B) four open NEF placards were in the logbook; but only two were on the center pedestal; C) the MEL on my dispatch release for Autoland downgrade did match the MEL listed on the logbook page where it was written up; nor with the placard on the pedestal. It took the maintenace technician 45 minutes in coordination with dispatch; MOC; and with myself to get the logbook; and dispatch release to all agree. It was a mess.Three issues: 1) Maintenance technicians (graveyard shift) are not being vigilant to comply with all procedures in deferring items; and with properly clearing MELs (we took a major delay due to incompetence or lack of awareness on the part of graveyard mtx shift and the day shift maintenance technician had to help us unscrew the paperwork mess we were left with); 2) I question the Company's protocol in dispatching a plane with such a significant nav degradation; and with the existing wx; 3) The combination of the two MELs I had; do not restrict one from operating in the existing wx I experienced...perhaps they should.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.