 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew of an medium large transport canceled IFR and were cleared for a visual approach even though the latest WX report indicated the airport was IFR. The flight crew subsequently lost sight of the airport and continued via an ILS approach without an ATC clearance.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 325110 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199601 |
| Day | Tue |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : oak |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : oak artcc : sked |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing other |
| Route In Use | approach : visual arrival other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : cfi |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 6000 flight time type : 850 |
| ASRS Report | 325110 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter : vfr in imc non adherence : far other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Weather |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
We accepted, and the controller issued a visual clearance to runway 29 when XA45Z WX was IMC, ceiling 20 broken visibility 1 1/2 mi. On downwind the captain (PF) informed me that he had the field in sight and asked me to call it in sight to the controller. I indicated that the field was IFR so that the controller could not issue a visual approach. The captain indicated that that didn't matter so long as we had the field in sight or the preceding aircraft in sight. The controller pointed out our preceding traffic which we saw. As instructed by the captain, I called the traffic and the field in sight. The controller cleared us for the visual approach to follow preceding traffic. Once on final we did lose the preceding traffic and the field and the captain flew the ILS even though we were cleared for the visual and the field was IFR. Once on the next leg I pulled out the commercial book and pointed out that 3 mi visibility and ceiling 1000 ft were necessary to shoot the visual approach. He concurred and admitted he had not known that was necessary if the field or the preceding aircraft was in sight. We both thought the field would remain in sight throughout the approach. It wasn't until we were on a 5 mi final that we realized it was foggier than it looked on downwind. I felt it was safer to comply with the captain's instructions and argue about regulations on the ground since I, too, thought in spite of the latest WX observation that the field could be kept in sight. When we lost sight of the field we were already talking to oak tower and should have indicated that to the tower and requested the ILS officially.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC OF AN MLG CANCELED IFR AND WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH EVEN THOUGH THE LATEST WX RPT INDICATED THE ARPT WAS IFR. THE FLC SUBSEQUENTLY LOST SIGHT OF THE ARPT AND CONTINUED VIA AN ILS APCH WITHOUT AN ATC CLRNC.
Narrative: WE ACCEPTED, AND THE CTLR ISSUED A VISUAL CLRNC TO RWY 29 WHEN XA45Z WX WAS IMC, CEILING 20 BROKEN VISIBILITY 1 1/2 MI. ON DOWNWIND THE CAPT (PF) INFORMED ME THAT HE HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT AND ASKED ME TO CALL IT IN SIGHT TO THE CTLR. I INDICATED THAT THE FIELD WAS IFR SO THAT THE CTLR COULD NOT ISSUE A VISUAL APCH. THE CAPT INDICATED THAT THAT DIDN'T MATTER SO LONG AS WE HAD THE FIELD IN SIGHT OR THE PRECEDING ACFT IN SIGHT. THE CTLR POINTED OUT OUR PRECEDING TFC WHICH WE SAW. AS INSTRUCTED BY THE CAPT, I CALLED THE TFC AND THE FIELD IN SIGHT. THE CTLR CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO FOLLOW PRECEDING TFC. ONCE ON FINAL WE DID LOSE THE PRECEDING TFC AND THE FIELD AND THE CAPT FLEW THE ILS EVEN THOUGH WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL AND THE FIELD WAS IFR. ONCE ON THE NEXT LEG I PULLED OUT THE COMMERCIAL BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT 3 MI VISIBILITY AND CEILING 1000 FT WERE NECESSARY TO SHOOT THE VISUAL APCH. HE CONCURRED AND ADMITTED HE HAD NOT KNOWN THAT WAS NECESSARY IF THE FIELD OR THE PRECEDING ACFT WAS IN SIGHT. WE BOTH THOUGHT THE FIELD WOULD REMAIN IN SIGHT THROUGHOUT THE APCH. IT WASN'T UNTIL WE WERE ON A 5 MI FINAL THAT WE REALIZED IT WAS FOGGIER THAN IT LOOKED ON DOWNWIND. I FELT IT WAS SAFER TO COMPLY WITH THE CAPT'S INSTRUCTIONS AND ARGUE ABOUT REGS ON THE GND SINCE I, TOO, THOUGHT IN SPITE OF THE LATEST WX OBSERVATION THAT THE FIELD COULD BE KEPT IN SIGHT. WHEN WE LOST SIGHT OF THE FIELD WE WERE ALREADY TALKING TO OAK TWR AND SHOULD HAVE INDICATED THAT TO THE TWR AND REQUESTED THE ILS OFFICIALLY.
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.