Narrative:

We were expecting an ILS to runway 06 at bdl. Winds were northeast and runway 6 had a CAT III approach. We were told the ILS to runway 24 was in use? While outside the final approach segment we were given an RVR which was below the required RVR. We were on the tower frequency and told him we could not continue due to the RVR. When at the final approach segment (2200' MSL) he again gave us another RVR which was below minimums and for the second time we told him it was still below minimums and asked him again for revised missed approach instructions. He apparently saw the RVR changing rapidly and was hoping to give us legal limits. That's possibly why he was slow to give us missed approach instructions. His next comment was to continue the approach possibly while he was coordinating with departure control for our missed approach. The problem is that we cannot start the final approach segment without legal minimums. Due to this statement confusion resulted and we went a small amount below 2200' before our missed approach was started. I believe the important thing is that we did execute a missed approach even though the RVR went above minimums about 3 seconds after our missed approach. I feel controllers should be familiar with the F.a.south. Requirement and far 121. While after touchdown on our approach to runway 06 we were told to clear the runway fast because a jetliner was on a 3/4 mi final!!! Braking action less than good and reduced visibility and an airliner is less than 1 mi behind us? Sounds like bdl approach and tower was not at peak performance that morning. Obviously runway 6 should have been the active (as we suggested on initial contact) with winds, ceiling, and visibility changing for the worst.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WITH RVR BELOW MINIMUMS ON RWY 06 AT BDL, ACR MLG FLT CREW EXPECTS MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC. ONCE THAT PROBLEM IS SORTED OUT, THE MLG EXECUTES AN APCH TO SUCCESSFUL LNDG ON OPPOSITE DIRECTION RWY 24, ONLY TO BE TOLD TO CLEAR THE RWY WITHOUT DELAY DUE TO ACR JET TRAFFIC IN THREE QUARTER MILE FINAL.

Narrative: WE WERE EXPECTING AN ILS TO RWY 06 AT BDL. WINDS WERE NE AND RWY 6 HAD A CAT III APCH. WE WERE TOLD THE ILS TO RWY 24 WAS IN USE? WHILE OUTSIDE THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT WE WERE GIVEN AN RVR WHICH WAS BELOW THE REQUIRED RVR. WE WERE ON THE TWR FREQ AND TOLD HIM WE COULD NOT CONTINUE DUE TO THE RVR. WHEN AT THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT (2200' MSL) HE AGAIN GAVE US ANOTHER RVR WHICH WAS BELOW MINIMUMS AND FOR THE SECOND TIME WE TOLD HIM IT WAS STILL BELOW MINIMUMS AND ASKED HIM AGAIN FOR REVISED MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS. HE APPARENTLY SAW THE RVR CHANGING RAPIDLY AND WAS HOPING TO GIVE US LEGAL LIMITS. THAT'S POSSIBLY WHY HE WAS SLOW TO GIVE US MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS. HIS NEXT COMMENT WAS TO CONTINUE THE APCH POSSIBLY WHILE HE WAS COORDINATING WITH DEP CTL FOR OUR MISSED APCH. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE CANNOT START THE FINAL APCH SEGMENT WITHOUT LEGAL MINIMUMS. DUE TO THIS STATEMENT CONFUSION RESULTED AND WE WENT A SMALL AMOUNT BELOW 2200' BEFORE OUR MISSED APCH WAS STARTED. I BELIEVE THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE DID EXECUTE A MISSED APCH EVEN THOUGH THE RVR WENT ABOVE MINIMUMS ABOUT 3 SECONDS AFTER OUR MISSED APCH. I FEEL CTLRS SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THE F.A.S. REQUIREMENT AND FAR 121. WHILE AFTER TOUCHDOWN ON OUR APCH TO RWY 06 WE WERE TOLD TO CLEAR THE RWY FAST BECAUSE A JETLINER WAS ON A 3/4 MI FINAL!!! BRAKING ACTION LESS THAN GOOD AND REDUCED VISIBILITY AND AN AIRLINER IS LESS THAN 1 MI BEHIND US? SOUNDS LIKE BDL APCH AND TWR WAS NOT AT PEAK PERFORMANCE THAT MORNING. OBVIOUSLY RWY 6 SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ACTIVE (AS WE SUGGESTED ON INITIAL CONTACT) WITH WINDS, CEILING, AND VISIBILITY CHANGING FOR THE WORST.

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