Narrative:

The first officer flew the approach being vectored to runway 21L. The airport had a thin overcast layer on the ATIS, however we were in visibility conditions on top of the overcast. While being vectored for the ILS I was aware of 1 aircraft in front of us and aircraft Y front and to our right for runway 21R. The approach controller asked if I had the aircraft Y to my right front in sight and I reported that I did. We were told to keep him in sight and we were cleared for the ILS to runway 21L. He appeared to be lined up and no factor and I keyed on the phrase 'cleared for the approach runway 21L.' as I crossed the OM I contacted tower and was asked if I still had aircraft Y on runway 21R in sight. I reported I did not, as he just disappeared into the overcast. We were at approximately 2400' MSL and were told to turn 20 degrees left and climb to 3000' MSL. Another approach followed and after landing I was asked by ground to contact the tower. They explained why I was pulled off the approach. The reason was because we were less than 2 mi from air carrier Y on the parallel runway and he was not in our sight. I feel 2 procedures would help here. I feel that I should not have reported the aircraft in sight with the sky conditions being reported as overcast,however when I was asked if I had him in sight, I felt I should report it the way I saw it to help the controller. I keyed on the 'cleared for the approach' phrase and probably could have helped the controller by having the initiative to advise that I wouldn't be able to maintain visibility contact to the runway. We were reducing our speed and the 1.5 mi between us looked approximately 2 mi to me. Lastly, if we were conducting ILS procedures perhaps it would be best for controllers not to ask pilots what we see unless we can complete visibility approachs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ATC CLRNC. PLT DEVIATION.

Narrative: THE F/O FLEW THE APCH BEING VECTORED TO RWY 21L. THE ARPT HAD A THIN OVCST LAYER ON THE ATIS, HOWEVER WE WERE IN VIS CONDITIONS ON TOP OF THE OVCST. WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS I WAS AWARE OF 1 ACFT IN FRONT OF US AND ACFT Y FRONT AND TO OUR RIGHT FOR RWY 21R. THE APCH CTLR ASKED IF I HAD THE ACFT Y TO MY RIGHT FRONT IN SIGHT AND I RPTED THAT I DID. WE WERE TOLD TO KEEP HIM IN SIGHT AND WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS TO RWY 21L. HE APPEARED TO BE LINED UP AND NO FACTOR AND I KEYED ON THE PHRASE 'CLRED FOR THE APCH RWY 21L.' AS I CROSSED THE OM I CONTACTED TWR AND WAS ASKED IF I STILL HAD ACFT Y ON RWY 21R IN SIGHT. I RPTED I DID NOT, AS HE JUST DISAPPEARED INTO THE OVCST. WE WERE AT APPROX 2400' MSL AND WERE TOLD TO TURN 20 DEGS LEFT AND CLB TO 3000' MSL. ANOTHER APCH FOLLOWED AND AFTER LNDG I WAS ASKED BY GND TO CONTACT THE TWR. THEY EXPLAINED WHY I WAS PULLED OFF THE APCH. THE REASON WAS BECAUSE WE WERE LESS THAN 2 MI FROM ACR Y ON THE PARALLEL RWY AND HE WAS NOT IN OUR SIGHT. I FEEL 2 PROCS WOULD HELP HERE. I FEEL THAT I SHOULD NOT HAVE RPTED THE ACFT IN SIGHT WITH THE SKY CONDITIONS BEING RPTED AS OVCST,HOWEVER WHEN I WAS ASKED IF I HAD HIM IN SIGHT, I FELT I SHOULD RPT IT THE WAY I SAW IT TO HELP THE CTLR. I KEYED ON THE 'CLRED FOR THE APCH' PHRASE AND PROBABLY COULD HAVE HELPED THE CTLR BY HAVING THE INITIATIVE TO ADVISE THAT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN VIS CONTACT TO THE RWY. WE WERE REDUCING OUR SPD AND THE 1.5 MI BTWN US LOOKED APPROX 2 MI TO ME. LASTLY, IF WE WERE CONDUCTING ILS PROCS PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BEST FOR CTLRS NOT TO ASK PLTS WHAT WE SEE UNLESS WE CAN COMPLETE VIS APCHS.

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.