Narrative:

Before entering jax approach airspace we briefed the weather that was in the current ATIS and according to what was being described it was VMC conditions at jax. We then proceeded to plan to do a visual approach into runway 8 backed up by the ILS. As we entered jax approach we were given vectors for the visual to runway 8. As we got closer to the field we began to realize that even though we were not in IMC conditions at the altitude that we were at; looking down it was beginning to look like the field was covered in what looked like fog that was becoming increasingly dense by the minute. There were other aircraft in the vicinity that were taking visuals to runway 8. Those aircraft were coming from a different angle so they may have had better contact with the airport than we had. We were coming in on the left base versus a straight in approach; it was also at night. ATC asked if we had the traffic in sight; which was an A320 aircraft; we did not have clear sight of the traffic much less the field at that time. ATC then asked about having an extended base turn; which we accepted in order to position ourselves for a better view of the traffic that was being talked about and the field. We were then vectored for our base turn and given a decent at that point we had the A320 traffic in sight; but the field was not in sight. ATC asked if we had the traffic in sight; which we replied that we did. ATC then immediately gave us a clearance to follow the traffic and that we were also cleared for the visual approach and to go over to tower.what was concerning at this point was that we were cleared for the visual without asking us if we had the field in sight! Yes; we did have the traffic in sight at that moment; but a few seconds later the traffic was not in sight because the weather was deteriorating at the field. In other words just because we have the traffic in sight does not mean we are in a position to not only follow that traffic while at the same time maintain visual separation and conduct the visual approach. At that point it felt that we were being rushed into an approach that was not legal for us to conduct. We advised them that we were unable the visual approach that we were going to do an ILS and switched to tower frequency as instructed. When we switched to tower they asked if we were doing the visual approach we responded and advised them that we could not do the visual approach. At that point it is understandable that we did not have a specific clearance for the ILS and we confirmed that with tower. We were expecting tower to understand our circumstance and either change our clearance from a visual to an ILS or give us vectors to get reestablished for the ILS. When we contacted tower we were outside of the LOM and in position for a smooth transition to the ILS to runway 8. Instead of getting useful instructions from tower to help us out we get a lecture about how we shouldn't be doing what we are doing; at that point we are on short final getting configured and calling for checklists. I understand towers concern to let us know what we should be doing versus doing what we had to do in order to be safe; but that conversation could have waited till we landed and if we were in an undesirable state at the point of contact with tower he should have had us go around or re-vectored us for the ILS. We then conducted the ILS safely with a stabilized aircraft and taxied to our gate. After we landed we decided to retrieve the new ATIS because the weather we were given with the current ATIS did not match with the weather we were experiencing and a special ATIS came out 2 minutes after we landed stating that the ceilings now were BKN008. That weather should have been posted much sooner than 2 minutes after we landed because we were experiencing that weather when we contacted approach until we landed.on our end we could have requested the ILS sooner; we assumed that they knew that the weather had changed at the field andthat they would eventually give us the ILS. It was false assumption and a lesson learned. They may not be seeing what we are seeing. We could have communicated also to approach earlier that the weather was no longer suitable for visuals as well.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-175 flight crew reported receiving ATIS information indicating VMC at JAX and planned accordingly. Approaching the airport in deteriorating conditions; they were cleared for the visual approach without the airport in sight. Tower was informed that an ILS was required. The Tower berated the crew for not requesting the ILS sooner.

Narrative: Before entering JAX Approach airspace we briefed the weather that was in the current ATIS and according to what was being described it was VMC conditions at JAX. We then proceeded to plan to do a visual approach into runway 8 backed up by the ILS. As we entered JAX Approach we were given vectors for the visual to runway 8. As we got closer to the field we began to realize that even though we were not in IMC conditions at the altitude that we were at; looking down it was beginning to look like the field was covered in what looked like fog that was becoming increasingly dense by the minute. There were other aircraft in the vicinity that were taking visuals to runway 8. Those aircraft were coming from a different angle so they may have had better contact with the airport than we had. We were coming in on the left base versus a straight in approach; it was also at night. ATC asked if we had the traffic in sight; which was an A320 aircraft; we did not have clear sight of the traffic much less the field at that time. ATC then asked about having an extended base turn; which we accepted in order to position ourselves for a better view of the traffic that was being talked about and the field. We were then vectored for our base turn and given a decent at that point we had the A320 traffic in sight; but the field was not in sight. ATC asked if we had the traffic in sight; which we replied that we did. ATC then immediately gave us a clearance to follow the traffic and that we were also cleared for the visual approach and to go over to tower.What was concerning at this point was that we were cleared for the visual without asking us if we had the field in sight! Yes; we did have the traffic in sight at that moment; but a few seconds later the traffic was not in sight because the weather was deteriorating at the field. In other words just because we have the traffic in sight does not mean we are in a position to not only follow that traffic while at the same time maintain visual separation and conduct the visual approach. At that point it felt that we were being rushed into an approach that was not legal for us to conduct. We advised them that we were unable the visual approach that we were going to do an ILS and switched to tower frequency as instructed. When we switched to tower they asked if we were doing the visual approach we responded and advised them that we could not do the visual approach. At that point it is understandable that we did not have a specific clearance for the ILS and we confirmed that with tower. We were expecting tower to understand our circumstance and either change our clearance from a visual to an ILS or give us vectors to get reestablished for the ILS. When we contacted tower we were outside of the LOM and in position for a smooth transition to the ILS to runway 8. Instead of getting useful instructions from tower to help us out we get a lecture about how we shouldn't be doing what we are doing; at that point we are on short final getting configured and calling for checklists. I understand towers concern to let us know what we should be doing versus doing what we had to do in order to be safe; but that conversation could have waited till we landed and if we were in an undesirable state at the point of contact with tower he should have had us go around or re-vectored us for the ILS. We then conducted the ILS safely with a stabilized aircraft and taxied to our gate. After we landed we decided to retrieve the new ATIS because the weather we were given with the current ATIS did not match with the weather we were experiencing and a special ATIS came out 2 minutes after we landed stating that the ceilings now were BKN008. That weather should have been posted much sooner than 2 minutes after we landed because we were experiencing that weather when we contacted approach until we landed.On our end we could have requested the ILS sooner; we assumed that they knew that the weather had changed at the field andthat they would eventually give us the ILS. It was false assumption and a lesson learned. They may not be seeing what we are seeing. We could have communicated also to approach earlier that the weather was no longer suitable for visuals as well.

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.