 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Small aircraft makes IFR approach and landing at minimum conditions and is accused by ATC of violating minimums.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 126531 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198910 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : pou |
| State Reference | NY |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : private pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 18 flight time total : 260 flight time type : 8 |
| ASRS Report | 162531 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | government : faa |
| Function | controller : local |
| Qualification | controller : non radar |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other controllera |
| Resolutory Action | other |
| Consequence | faa : reviewed incident with flight crew |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | ATC Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
While on a flight plan (IFR) to dutchess county airport, the tower reported 1/4 mi visibility in fog. Boston center cleared my aircraft for the ILS 6 approach. While executing the first approach, I descended to the decision height but could see only the RAIL lights and started a missed approach. Boston center then instructed me to hold at kingston VOR. After reaching kingston, center cleared us for another ILS 6 approach. Dutchess county was still reporting 1/4 mi visibility. (The ILS 6 approach calls for 1 mi min visibility.) I was handed off to the tower and reported the outer marker inbound. The tower then cleared me to land. At 500' (406' DH) I reported the runway in sight, and made the landing. I was then asked by ATC to call the tower and the supervisor claimed I was in violation of FARS. I disagree, the flight visibility was better than 1 mi, even though the tower claims 1/4. The RAIL's threshold lights, and runway markers were clearly and distinctly in sight before descent to decision height.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SMA MAKES IFR APCH AND LNDG AT MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND IS ACCUSED BY ATC OF VIOLATING MINIMUMS.
Narrative: WHILE ON A FLT PLAN (IFR) TO DUTCHESS COUNTY ARPT, THE TWR REPORTED 1/4 MI VISIBILITY IN FOG. BOSTON CENTER CLRED MY ACFT FOR THE ILS 6 APCH. WHILE EXECUTING THE FIRST APCH, I DESCENDED TO THE DECISION HEIGHT BUT COULD SEE ONLY THE RAIL LIGHTS AND STARTED A MISSED APCH. BOSTON CENTER THEN INSTRUCTED ME TO HOLD AT KINGSTON VOR. AFTER REACHING KINGSTON, CENTER CLRED US FOR ANOTHER ILS 6 APCH. DUTCHESS COUNTY WAS STILL REPORTING 1/4 MI VISIBILITY. (THE ILS 6 APCH CALLS FOR 1 MI MIN VISIBILITY.) I WAS HANDED OFF TO THE TWR AND REPORTED THE OUTER MARKER INBND. THE TWR THEN CLRED ME TO LAND. AT 500' (406' DH) I REPORTED THE RWY IN SIGHT, AND MADE THE LNDG. I WAS THEN ASKED BY ATC TO CALL THE TWR AND THE SUPVR CLAIMED I WAS IN VIOLATION OF FARS. I DISAGREE, THE FLT VISIBILITY WAS BETTER THAN 1 MI, EVEN THOUGH THE TWR CLAIMS 1/4. THE RAIL'S THRESHOLD LIGHTS, AND RWY MARKERS WERE CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY IN SIGHT BEFORE DSCNT TO DECISION HEIGHT.
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.