Intended to fly a CAT III-a approach but wound up flying a CAT I approach.

Attributes
ACN	264352
Time
Date	199402
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : phl
State Reference	PA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : phl
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : straight in enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument pilot : atp pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 120
ASRS Report	264352
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe altitude deviation : overshoot non adherence : far other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	atc equipment other atc equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On a CAT III-a approach to runway 9R phl, we were vectored for approach and intercepted the localizer about 1 1/2 mi outside the OM. As we intercepted the localizer, and shortly thereafter the GS, I advised the captain that he needed to engage the second autoplt for the CAT III-a approach. We intercepted the GS before this was done and the second autoplt was locked out. The captain elected to disengage the autoplt and try to engage both autoplts again. Only 1 would engage. The other was locked out. The captain disengaged the autoplt again at this time and hand flew the approach. He was left of course about a DOT, and low about 2 dots on the GS. Phl tower advised a 'low altitude alert' and the captain corrected and flew the rest of the approach. Conditions were rapidly improving and we broke out at about 250 ft AGL with about 3/4 of a mi visibility. The aircraft was landed uneventfully. I feel we were turned in too close to the OM and this precipitated a situation where the safe operation of the flight was compromised for a CAT III-a approach. We intercepted too close at the OM at too great an angle. While monitoring the intercept, the localizer and GS simultaneously, we were distracted enough to overlook the engagement of the second autoplt channel, and it was down hill from there. If it were actually CAT ii or III-a minimums, we would have gone around at CAT I minimums.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INTENDED TO FLY A CAT III-A APCH BUT WOUND UP FLYING A CAT I APCH.

Narrative: ON A CAT III-A APCH TO RWY 9R PHL, WE WERE VECTORED FOR APCH AND INTERCEPTED THE LOC ABOUT 1 1/2 MI OUTSIDE THE OM. AS WE INTERCEPTED THE LOC, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE GS, I ADVISED THE CAPT THAT HE NEEDED TO ENGAGE THE SECOND AUTOPLT FOR THE CAT III-A APCH. WE INTERCEPTED THE GS BEFORE THIS WAS DONE AND THE SECOND AUTOPLT WAS LOCKED OUT. THE CAPT ELECTED TO DISENGAGE THE AUTOPLT AND TRY TO ENGAGE BOTH AUTOPLTS AGAIN. ONLY 1 WOULD ENGAGE. THE OTHER WAS LOCKED OUT. THE CAPT DISENGAGED THE AUTOPLT AGAIN AT THIS TIME AND HAND FLEW THE APCH. HE WAS L OF COURSE ABOUT A DOT, AND LOW ABOUT 2 DOTS ON THE GS. PHL TWR ADVISED A 'LOW ALT ALERT' AND THE CAPT CORRECTED AND FLEW THE REST OF THE APCH. CONDITIONS WERE RAPIDLY IMPROVING AND WE BROKE OUT AT ABOUT 250 FT AGL WITH ABOUT 3/4 OF A MI VISIBILITY. THE ACFT WAS LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. I FEEL WE WERE TURNED IN TOO CLOSE TO THE OM AND THIS PRECIPITATED A SIT WHERE THE SAFE OP OF THE FLT WAS COMPROMISED FOR A CAT III-A APCH. WE INTERCEPTED TOO CLOSE AT THE OM AT TOO GREAT AN ANGLE. WHILE MONITORING THE INTERCEPT, THE LOC AND GS SIMULTANEOUSLY, WE WERE DISTRACTED ENOUGH TO OVERLOOK THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE SECOND AUTOPLT CHANNEL, AND IT WAS DOWN HILL FROM THERE. IF IT WERE ACTUALLY CAT II OR III-A MINIMUMS, WE WOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AT CAT I MINIMUMS.

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.