Narrative:

I had flown into ric several times in the last month or so. There had been a NOTAM stating runway 34 CAT ii not available. However, a few days before this occurrence, that NOTAM had been removed. The day before this occurrence, we had advised ric approach control that due to marginal WX (300 ft overcast, 1 mi visibility) we would be requesting a CAT ii approach. The controller responded with it would be at least a 20 min delay before CAT ii was available. I asked why and he said they would have to send someone out to 'drive' down the runway and check all the lights, etc. Unable to accept a 20 min plus delay and with WX above CAT I mins, we agreed on the CAT I approach and completed it uneventfully. Later that afternoon I had a lengthy phone conversation with ATC at ric approach control regarding: the 20 min delay for CAT ii operations. I explained our position: that we dispatched to ric a fully qualified aircraft and crew for CAT ii operations based on the runway 34 CAT ii approach and no NOTAM, fdc NOTAM, or chart NOTAM stating it was not available or that there would be a delay in obtaining it. Therefore, we fully expected the CAT ii to be readily available upon our request. ATC said it was their procedure that when the WX indicated that CAT ii operations may be used, they would check the runway and lights in advance so it would be available. I explained that it may be their policy, but, in fact, that was not done. The WX had gone from VFR to 300 ft 1 mi in less than 2 hours. I would have thought that the trend would have been enough to have ATC do whatever was necessary to make CAT ii available. The very next morning, inbound to ric (about 100 mi out) the so advised me that ric WX was 1/4 mi fog. I asked him to obtain the runway 34 RVR. He called ric tower and got runway 34 RVR was 3000 ft. Although this was legal for CAT I, I felt (again) out best choice was to choose, brief, and execute the picma procedure for runway 34 CAT ii. Knowing what had happened the day before (20 mins plus delay), I instructed so to advise ric tower we would be requesting CAT ii approach. So then told me that tower stated they were getting an alarm on approach lights and that it meant 'at least 1 bulb may not be burning, but CAT ii operations are in progress.' we continued and when on final approach segment the tower advised tch RVR 1400 ft, midfield and rollout were also given (I can't remember the exact mid and rollout figures). Obviously this is CAT ii WX and since we were established on final segment we were legal to continue at least to CAT I minimums - which we did and landed uneventfully. (Throughout approach, approach and runway lights were clearly visible, fog was only 50-75 ft thick and I would not classify this as a 'tight approach'). My point is this: the airport, runway, approach landing system, and ground based equipment belong to ATC. It is their decision as to whether it is or is not operational. I feel it is contradicting for ATC to state there is an alarm on approach landing system, but CAT ii operations are in progress. We were not informed what portion (if any) of the lights were inoperative ie, approach lights, reils, cl, runway lights, etc. All we were told was that 'at least 1 bulb may be inoperative.' the ATC decision on whether CAT ii (or CAT I or CAT III for that matter) is available or not should be cut and dry. Either it is or it isn't. Does the fact that there is an alarm on ALS or localizer mean that the system is unusable/unreliable? If so, then ATC should state: ALS inoperative or localizer inoperative. If ATC feels the alarm is a false one, have it visually checked out. If all is well, then CAT I, ii, or III is available, period! Don't footnote with 'be advised alarm on ALS'. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated his company flight standards followed up on these incidents and was assured these were isolated incidents and not facility policy.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC REQUIRED A 20 MIN DELAY FOR CAT II ILS. NEXT DAY RPTED AN ARPT LIGHTING ALARM FOR CAT II.

Narrative: I HAD FLOWN INTO RIC SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST MONTH OR SO. THERE HAD BEEN A NOTAM STATING RWY 34 CAT II NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, A FEW DAYS BEFORE THIS OCCURRENCE, THAT NOTAM HAD BEEN REMOVED. THE DAY BEFORE THIS OCCURRENCE, WE HAD ADVISED RIC APCH CTL THAT DUE TO MARGINAL WX (300 FT OVCST, 1 MI VISIBILITY) WE WOULD BE REQUESTING A CAT II APCH. THE CTLR RESPONDED WITH IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A 20 MIN DELAY BEFORE CAT II WAS AVAILABLE. I ASKED WHY AND HE SAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEND SOMEONE OUT TO 'DRIVE' DOWN THE RWY AND CHK ALL THE LIGHTS, ETC. UNABLE TO ACCEPT A 20 MIN PLUS DELAY AND WITH WX ABOVE CAT I MINS, WE AGREED ON THE CAT I APCH AND COMPLETED IT UNEVENTFULLY. LATER THAT AFTERNOON I HAD A LENGTHY PHONE CONVERSATION WITH ATC AT RIC APCH CTL REGARDING: THE 20 MIN DELAY FOR CAT II OPS. I EXPLAINED OUR POS: THAT WE DISPATCHED TO RIC A FULLY QUALIFIED ACFT AND CREW FOR CAT II OPS BASED ON THE RWY 34 CAT II APCH AND NO NOTAM, FDC NOTAM, OR CHART NOTAM STATING IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE OR THAT THERE WOULD BE A DELAY IN OBTAINING IT. THEREFORE, WE FULLY EXPECTED THE CAT II TO BE READILY AVAILABLE UPON OUR REQUEST. ATC SAID IT WAS THEIR PROC THAT WHEN THE WX INDICATED THAT CAT II OPS MAY BE USED, THEY WOULD CHK THE RWY AND LIGHTS IN ADVANCE SO IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE. I EXPLAINED THAT IT MAY BE THEIR POLICY, BUT, IN FACT, THAT WAS NOT DONE. THE WX HAD GONE FROM VFR TO 300 FT 1 MI IN LESS THAN 2 HRS. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE TREND WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO HAVE ATC DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE CAT II AVAILABLE. THE VERY NEXT MORNING, INBOUND TO RIC (ABOUT 100 MI OUT) THE SO ADVISED ME THAT RIC WX WAS 1/4 MI FOG. I ASKED HIM TO OBTAIN THE RWY 34 RVR. HE CALLED RIC TWR AND GOT RWY 34 RVR WAS 3000 FT. ALTHOUGH THIS WAS LEGAL FOR CAT I, I FELT (AGAIN) OUT BEST CHOICE WAS TO CHOOSE, BRIEF, AND EXECUTE THE PICMA PROC FOR RWY 34 CAT II. KNOWING WHAT HAD HAPPENED THE DAY BEFORE (20 MINS PLUS DELAY), I INSTRUCTED SO TO ADVISE RIC TWR WE WOULD BE REQUESTING CAT II APCH. SO THEN TOLD ME THAT TWR STATED THEY WERE GETTING AN ALARM ON APCH LIGHTS AND THAT IT MEANT 'AT LEAST 1 BULB MAY NOT BE BURNING, BUT CAT II OPS ARE IN PROGRESS.' WE CONTINUED AND WHEN ON FINAL APCH SEGMENT THE TWR ADVISED TCH RVR 1400 FT, MIDFIELD AND ROLLOUT WERE ALSO GIVEN (I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT MID AND ROLLOUT FIGURES). OBVIOUSLY THIS IS CAT II WX AND SINCE WE WERE ESTABLISHED ON FINAL SEGMENT WE WERE LEGAL TO CONTINUE AT LEAST TO CAT I MINIMUMS - WHICH WE DID AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. (THROUGHOUT APCH, APCH AND RWY LIGHTS WERE CLRLY VISIBLE, FOG WAS ONLY 50-75 FT THICK AND I WOULD NOT CLASSIFY THIS AS A 'TIGHT APCH'). MY POINT IS THIS: THE ARPT, RWY, APCH LNDG SYS, AND GND BASED EQUIP BELONG TO ATC. IT IS THEIR DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT OPERATIONAL. I FEEL IT IS CONTRADICTING FOR ATC TO STATE THERE IS AN ALARM ON APCH LNDG SYS, BUT CAT II OPS ARE IN PROGRESS. WE WERE NOT INFORMED WHAT PORTION (IF ANY) OF THE LIGHTS WERE INOP IE, APCH LIGHTS, REILS, CL, RWY LIGHTS, ETC. ALL WE WERE TOLD WAS THAT 'AT LEAST 1 BULB MAY BE INOP.' THE ATC DECISION ON WHETHER CAT II (OR CAT I OR CAT III FOR THAT MATTER) IS AVAILABLE OR NOT SHOULD BE CUT AND DRY. EITHER IT IS OR IT ISN'T. DOES THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ALARM ON ALS OR LOC MEAN THAT THE SYS IS UNUSABLE/UNRELIABLE? IF SO, THEN ATC SHOULD STATE: ALS INOP OR LOC INOP. IF ATC FEELS THE ALARM IS A FALSE ONE, HAVE IT VISUALLY CHKED OUT. IF ALL IS WELL, THEN CAT I, II, OR III IS AVAILABLE, PERIOD! DON'T FOOTNOTE WITH 'BE ADVISED ALARM ON ALS'. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED HIS COMPANY FLT STANDARDS FOLLOWED UP ON THESE INCIDENTS AND WAS ASSURED THESE WERE ISOLATED INCIDENTS AND NOT FACILITY POLICY.

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.