Narrative:

During the period between the scheduled departure and actual departure, visibility, as reported by the tower, was frequently less than 600 ft on runway 3L. (The arrival equipment for this flight had been delayed, inbound, by dense fog which was less than CAT III minimums.) just before we pushed back to commence taxi, the visibility improved dramatically allowing you to see westerly from gate cx all the way across the field. At about the same time dtw tower reported the visibility at 1/2 mi. At about the same time a tower decision was made to shift to a runway 21 operation to include departures on runway 21C. We were given taxi instruction to follow the ramp southerly and easterly to runway 21C. As we followed this route we encountered patchy fog that reduced cockpit visibility to less than 300 ft. The following shortcomings in airport facilities were noted: 1) there are no taxi lines into, or out of the ramp area immediately adjacent to gates cx-cy that assure wingtip clearance between aircraft at other gates. This is not particularly a problem in good visibility but during periods of reduced visibility, as described here, it is. 2) the ramp taxiway paint lines, where they branch from taxiway F (near the B concourse) to taxiway V, do not positively identify taxiway H. Because of the reduced visibility and the expanse of concrete ramp in this vicinity, no signage can be seen either. The ramp taxi line is painted so that you can positively identify the line leading to taxiway V but you have to make an assumption about taxiway H. Once again, remember that local visibility conditions were reduced to 300 ft or less. 3) txwys H2, H1, and M3, as far as I could determine, were not identifiable by ramp paint nor signate from the main terminal ramp taxiway. There has already been 1 runway excursion, in low visibility, in this vicinity with disastrous consequences. It would seem that something would have ben learned from this accident. The tower was well aware of the local restrs in visibility by several aircraft in the area. 1 aircraft, in position on runway 21C, had even asked how far the runway centerline lights were spaced (he could only see 2 of them). It is one thing to have a 'legal' operation, ie, visibility reported by the tower at 1/2 mi, another to have a safe operation. Until the above noted shortcomings can be corrected, in my estimation, during reported periods of locally reduced visibility, this east side operation should be terminated. The east side of the airport is not set up for CAT III operations, and further no smgs pages are available, when locally reported visibility is reduced to this extent. I did make a takeoff with visibility slightly improved to perhaps 600-800 ft and tower reports in excess of 1/2 mi. In retrospect, given similar cimcumstances in the future, I would reject this as an unsafe operation because of the potential for someone to unwittingly blunder onto runway 21C, near its midpoint, during my takeoff. Airport management supervisor stated they have received an extension to be in compliance with new FAA standards. Supervisor said they are working with tower supervisor to get rid of confusing taxiway markings on airport and bring the airport into compliance with FAA standards.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X DOES NOT LIKE REDUCED VISIBILITY OP AT DTW. RWY SIGNAGE TXWY MARKINGS NOT STANDARD.

Narrative: DURING THE PERIOD BTWN THE SCHEDULED DEP AND ACTUAL DEP, VISIBILITY, AS RPTED BY THE TWR, WAS FREQUENTLY LESS THAN 600 FT ON RWY 3L. (THE ARR EQUIP FOR THIS FLT HAD BEEN DELAYED, INBOUND, BY DENSE FOG WHICH WAS LESS THAN CAT III MINIMUMS.) JUST BEFORE WE PUSHED BACK TO COMMENCE TAXI, THE VISIBILITY IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY ALLOWING YOU TO SEE WESTERLY FROM GATE CX ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FIELD. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME DTW TWR RPTED THE VISIBILITY AT 1/2 MI. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME A TWR DECISION WAS MADE TO SHIFT TO A RWY 21 OP TO INCLUDE DEPS ON RWY 21C. WE WERE GIVEN TAXI INSTRUCTION TO FOLLOW THE RAMP SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY TO RWY 21C. AS WE FOLLOWED THIS RTE WE ENCOUNTERED PATCHY FOG THAT REDUCED COCKPIT VISIBILITY TO LESS THAN 300 FT. THE FOLLOWING SHORTCOMINGS IN ARPT FACILITIES WERE NOTED: 1) THERE ARE NO TAXI LINES INTO, OR OUT OF THE RAMP AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO GATES CX-CY THAT ASSURE WINGTIP CLRNC BTWN ACFT AT OTHER GATES. THIS IS NOT PARTICULARLY A PROB IN GOOD VISIBILITY BUT DURING PERIODS OF REDUCED VISIBILITY, AS DESCRIBED HERE, IT IS. 2) THE RAMP TXWY PAINT LINES, WHERE THEY BRANCH FROM TXWY F (NEAR THE B CONCOURSE) TO TXWY V, DO NOT POSITIVELY IDENT TXWY H. BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED VISIBILITY AND THE EXPANSE OF CONCRETE RAMP IN THIS VICINITY, NO SIGNAGE CAN BE SEEN EITHER. THE RAMP TAXI LINE IS PAINTED SO THAT YOU CAN POSITIVELY IDENT THE LINE LEADING TO TXWY V BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT TXWY H. ONCE AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT LCL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS WERE REDUCED TO 300 FT OR LESS. 3) TXWYS H2, H1, AND M3, AS FAR AS I COULD DETERMINE, WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE BY RAMP PAINT NOR SIGNATE FROM THE MAIN TERMINAL RAMP TXWY. THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN 1 RWY EXCURSION, IN LOW VISIBILITY, IN THIS VICINITY WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES. IT WOULD SEEM THAT SOMETHING WOULD HAVE BEN LEARNED FROM THIS ACCIDENT. THE TWR WAS WELL AWARE OF THE LCL RESTRS IN VISIBILITY BY SEVERAL ACFT IN THE AREA. 1 ACFT, IN POS ON RWY 21C, HAD EVEN ASKED HOW FAR THE RWY CTRLINE LIGHTS WERE SPACED (HE COULD ONLY SEE 2 OF THEM). IT IS ONE THING TO HAVE A 'LEGAL' OP, IE, VISIBILITY RPTED BY THE TWR AT 1/2 MI, ANOTHER TO HAVE A SAFE OP. UNTIL THE ABOVE NOTED SHORTCOMINGS CAN BE CORRECTED, IN MY ESTIMATION, DURING RPTED PERIODS OF LOCALLY REDUCED VISIBILITY, THIS E SIDE OP SHOULD BE TERMINATED. THE E SIDE OF THE ARPT IS NOT SET UP FOR CAT III OPS, AND FURTHER NO SMGS PAGES ARE AVAILABLE, WHEN LOCALLY RPTED VISIBILITY IS REDUCED TO THIS EXTENT. I DID MAKE A TKOF WITH VISIBILITY SLIGHTLY IMPROVED TO PERHAPS 600-800 FT AND TWR RPTS IN EXCESS OF 1/2 MI. IN RETROSPECT, GIVEN SIMILAR CIMCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD REJECT THIS AS AN UNSAFE OP BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMEONE TO UNWITTINGLY BLUNDER ONTO RWY 21C, NEAR ITS MIDPOINT, DURING MY TKOF. ARPT MGMNT SUPVR STATED THEY HAVE RECEIVED AN EXTENSION TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NEW FAA STANDARDS. SUPVR SAID THEY ARE WORKING WITH TWR SUPVR TO GET RID OF CONFUSING TXWY MARKINGS ON ARPT AND BRING THE ARPT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH FAA STANDARDS.

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.