37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 311105 |
Time | |
Date | 199507 |
Day | Fri |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : clt |
State Reference | NC |
Altitude | msl bound lower : 1500 msl bound upper : 1500 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | Mixed |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tracon : clt |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time total : 6000 flight time type : 900 |
ASRS Report | 311105 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
Events | |
Anomaly | inflight encounter : weather non adherence : far other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | Other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
WX (rain shower) in clt area. On ATIS, runway in use was given as runway 18R. While being vectored by approach, advised to expect runway 23. At final approach fix, tower advised of gusty wind conditions and we abandoned the approach. We were given a heading of 180 degrees and altitude of 2700 ft. Approach said to expect ILS to runway 36R. A couple of mins later, approach said to expect ILS to runway 36L. After we were on base southeast of the airport, probably about 7-8 mi out, the controller said to expect ASR and he would be turning us on in a short time. I could almost make out the airport, but told the first officer, that we could do a visual if he could turn us toward the airport, which he did. There was also a question in my mind about whether or not we could legally do the approach since the ASR plates had been removed from our manuals, so I verbalized to the first officer that we would need to see the airport, so we could request a visual approach. I believed then and now, that in order to do an ASR (which we are authority/authorized to do in operations specifications), you would have to have VFR minimums (1000-3000 ft) to continue the approach. Between us and the airport, we had more than that. For a backup, I had the ILS runway 36L tuned. We could see a significant portion of the runway when we turned toward the airport at 5.5 mi. The rest of the runway was in the rain shower. The controller said we could begin descent and to call the tower which we did. We asked for the wind and was given 310 degrees 20 KTS. No mention was ever made about windshear or what the prevailing visibility or ceiling was. On about a 1 mi final, the tower said there was heavy rain at the airport, but we could still see what I estimated to be 1/3 of the runway. Once over the runway, we did indeed encounter moderate to heavy rain and a small gust that caused me to land longer than I intended. We turned on the wipers and used rain repellent to improve our visibility. We turned off at the last high speed of runway 36L with normal braking. In retrospect, I am not sure about the legality of the approach clearance (ASR). We were never given any updated ceiling and visibility information to my knowledge. The WX where we were was definitely VFR, but based on our other observations in retrospect, the tower was probably not reporting VFR since we couldn't see it. Another concern in retrospect was my decision to continue when we heard the heavy rain announcement from the tower. The first officer even verbalized his concern. In our later discussion on the ground, we believe cockpit resource management failed, because he didn't get a resolution to his being uncomfortable. Other contributing factors was the multiple expect approachs (total of 5 -- ILS runway 18R, back course runway 23, ILS runway 36R, ILS runway 36L, ASR runway 36L), abandonment of the back course runway 23 because of gusty wind, lateness of flight because of mechanical delay, short overnight, last leg of the day and trip.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FAR -- NON PRECISION APCH PROC -- ACR MAKES A VISUAL APCH IN LESS THAN VISUAL WX CONDITIONS.
Narrative: WX (RAIN SHOWER) IN CLT AREA. ON ATIS, RWY IN USE WAS GIVEN AS RWY 18R. WHILE BEING VECTORED BY APCH, ADVISED TO EXPECT RWY 23. AT FINAL APCH FIX, TWR ADVISED OF GUSTY WIND CONDITIONS AND WE ABANDONED THE APCH. WE WERE GIVEN A HDG OF 180 DEGS AND ALT OF 2700 FT. APCH SAID TO EXPECT ILS TO RWY 36R. A COUPLE OF MINS LATER, APCH SAID TO EXPECT ILS TO RWY 36L. AFTER WE WERE ON BASE SE OF THE ARPT, PROBABLY ABOUT 7-8 MI OUT, THE CTLR SAID TO EXPECT ASR AND HE WOULD BE TURNING US ON IN A SHORT TIME. I COULD ALMOST MAKE OUT THE ARPT, BUT TOLD THE FO, THAT WE COULD DO A VISUAL IF HE COULD TURN US TOWARD THE ARPT, WHICH HE DID. THERE WAS ALSO A QUESTION IN MY MIND ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD LEGALLY DO THE APCH SINCE THE ASR PLATES HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR MANUALS, SO I VERBALIZED TO THE FO THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SEE THE ARPT, SO WE COULD REQUEST A VISUAL APCH. I BELIEVED THEN AND NOW, THAT IN ORDER TO DO AN ASR (WHICH WE ARE AUTH TO DO IN OPS SPECS), YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE VFR MINIMUMS (1000-3000 FT) TO CONTINUE THE APCH. BTWN US AND THE ARPT, WE HAD MORE THAN THAT. FOR A BACKUP, I HAD THE ILS RWY 36L TUNED. WE COULD SEE A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE RWY WHEN WE TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT AT 5.5 MI. THE REST OF THE RWY WAS IN THE RAIN SHOWER. THE CTLR SAID WE COULD BEGIN DSCNT AND TO CALL THE TWR WHICH WE DID. WE ASKED FOR THE WIND AND WAS GIVEN 310 DEGS 20 KTS. NO MENTION WAS EVER MADE ABOUT WINDSHEAR OR WHAT THE PREVAILING VISIBILITY OR CEILING WAS. ON ABOUT A 1 MI FINAL, THE TWR SAID THERE WAS HVY RAIN AT THE ARPT, BUT WE COULD STILL SEE WHAT I ESTIMATED TO BE 1/3 OF THE RWY. ONCE OVER THE RWY, WE DID INDEED ENCOUNTER MODERATE TO HVY RAIN AND A SMALL GUST THAT CAUSED ME TO LAND LONGER THAN I INTENDED. WE TURNED ON THE WIPERS AND USED RAIN REPELLENT TO IMPROVE OUR VISIBILITY. WE TURNED OFF AT THE LAST HIGH SPD OF RWY 36L WITH NORMAL BRAKING. IN RETROSPECT, I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE APCH CLRNC (ASR). WE WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY UPDATED CEILING AND VISIBILITY INFO TO MY KNOWLEDGE. THE WX WHERE WE WERE WAS DEFINITELY VFR, BUT BASED ON OUR OTHER OBSERVATIONS IN RETROSPECT, THE TWR WAS PROBABLY NOT RPTING VFR SINCE WE COULDN'T SEE IT. ANOTHER CONCERN IN RETROSPECT WAS MY DECISION TO CONTINUE WHEN WE HEARD THE HVY RAIN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE TWR. THE FO EVEN VERBALIZED HIS CONCERN. IN OUR LATER DISCUSSION ON THE GND, WE BELIEVE COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT FAILED, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET A RESOLUTION TO HIS BEING UNCOMFORTABLE. OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WAS THE MULTIPLE EXPECT APCHS (TOTAL OF 5 -- ILS RWY 18R, BC RWY 23, ILS RWY 36R, ILS RWY 36L, ASR RWY 36L), ABANDONMENT OF THE BC RWY 23 BECAUSE OF GUSTY WIND, LATENESS OF FLT BECAUSE OF MECHANICAL DELAY, SHORT OVERNIGHT, LAST LEG OF THE DAY AND TRIP.
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.