Narrative:

Departed dca am:05 arrived gso at am:09 EST. Upon picking up our WX package prior to departing dca I noticed the gso WX to be: WX 1/16F 184/38/37/2307/006 R23 VR2 2 V35. But I over looked a gso NOTAM: fdc NOTAM 001 1/0699/gso/F1/T piedmont triad international. Greensboro. North/C. ILS 23 (catii) amdt 7..procedure na... When we contacted gso approach control we were asked what our mins for the approach to 23 were. We replaced 1200 RVR. At that time we were advised running 23 RVR to be 1200 ft. We were vectored to and cleared for the approach to runway 23. We conducted a complete automatic pilot monitored catii ILS approach. All aircraft system normal and all ILS signals appeared normal. I had the approach lights and runway touch down area in sight prior to DH. The landing was normal and we taxied off the runway at taxiway M which goes directly into our gate area. At no time were we advised, by anyone including gso approach control, of any problems with the catii ILS approach system to runway 23 at gso. After parking the aircraft I walked into gso operations and there was some discussion going on about the runway 23 catii approach not being authorized. I returned to the aircraft and rechked the WX packages and then noticed the above mentioned NOTAM. My copilot said the ATIS information did not mention any problems with the ILS system. I don't remember the words catii being used in any of our communication with gso approach control, by us or them. I assumed that when we told approach control our maneuvers for the approach were 1200 ft that they knew 1200 ft required catii approach procedure. Apparently they did not know that because if they did then we should have been advised that the catii approach was not authorized. It seems to be that the transfer of pertinent information to pilots from ATC and dispatchers could be improved.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MAKES APCH AND LNDG AT ARPT WHEN ARPT WX MINS FOR LNDG ARE LESS THAN REQUIRED.

Narrative: DEPARTED DCA AM:05 ARRIVED GSO AT AM:09 EST. UPON PICKING UP OUR WX PACKAGE PRIOR TO DEPARTING DCA I NOTICED THE GSO WX TO BE: WX 1/16F 184/38/37/2307/006 R23 VR2 2 V35. BUT I OVER LOOKED A GSO NOTAM: FDC NOTAM 001 1/0699/GSO/F1/T PIEDMONT TRIAD INTL. GREENSBORO. N/C. ILS 23 (CATII) AMDT 7..PROC NA... WHEN WE CONTACTED GSO APCH CTL WE WERE ASKED WHAT OUR MINS FOR THE APCH TO 23 WERE. WE REPLACED 1200 RVR. AT THAT TIME WE WERE ADVISED RUNNING 23 RVR TO BE 1200 FT. WE WERE VECTORED TO AND CLRED FOR THE APCH TO RWY 23. WE CONDUCTED A COMPLETE AUTO PLT MONITORED CATII ILS APCH. ALL ACFT SYS NORMAL AND ALL ILS SIGNALS APPEARED NORMAL. I HAD THE APCH LIGHTS AND RWY TOUCH DOWN AREA IN SIGHT PRIOR TO DH. THE LNDG WAS NORMAL AND WE TAXIED OFF THE RWY AT TAXIWAY M WHICH GOES DIRECTLY INTO OUR GATE AREA. AT NO TIME WERE WE ADVISED, BY ANYONE INCLUDING GSO APCH CTL, OF ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE CATII ILS APCH SYS TO RWY 23 AT GSO. AFTER PARKING THE ACFT I WALKED INTO GSO OPS AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION GOING ON ABOUT THE RWY 23 CATII APCH NOT BEING AUTHORIZED. I RETURNED TO THE ACFT AND RECHKED THE WX PACKAGES AND THEN NOTICED THE ABOVE MENTIONED NOTAM. MY COPLT SAID THE ATIS INFO DID NOT MENTION ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE ILS SYS. I DON'T REMEMBER THE WORDS CATII BEING USED IN ANY OF OUR COM WITH GSO APCH CTL, BY US OR THEM. I ASSUMED THAT WHEN WE TOLD APCH CTL OUR MANEUVERS FOR THE APCH WERE 1200 FT THAT THEY KNEW 1200 FT REQUIRED CATII APCH PROC. APPARENTLY THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT BECAUSE IF THEY DID THEN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE CATII APCH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE TRANSFER OF PERTINENT INFO TO PLTS FROM ATC AND DISPATCHERS COULD BE IMPROVED.

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.