Narrative:

Just prior to beginning descent, we received WX report of better than 10 mi visibility. Approach told us we were #1 and to expect no delay. The WX changed during the course of our approach with a fog bank developing. This information never was understood by us. The controller did pass some WX information to us, but the combination of language, concentration on a difficult approach procedure, and we had a visual on the field for most of the approach so his information really didn't get across to us. We called the field in sight above minimums and were told that the tower did not have us in sight. We told the controller that we had a clear view of the runway environment and requested confirmation of landing clearance. The controller stopped talking to us. We landed with no problem, rolled into moderate fog part way down the runway and then discovered that the field was closed for WX. With the information we had prior to beginning the approach, WX was never even considered to be a consideration until we encountered the fog on rollout. Language contributed to the confusion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this was the reporter's first trip into quito. He had not yet become used to their brand of english nor the changeable WX. Uio tower reported the WX to be only 2 KM while the aircraft was on approach, but 4 KM is needed for the approach. This information passed by the flight crew as they were able to see the runway all of the time. The air carrier's ground personnel assured the flight crew that there was nothing to worry about from uio ATC. The reporter has learned since this incident that the WX at uio can change very rapidly as clouds drift by. As the map procedure at uio is 'an emergency procedure in itself,' the reporter feels that it is safer to land with slightly reduced visibility than to execute the map.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR LGT MAY HAVE LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC AT UIO.

Narrative: JUST PRIOR TO BEGINNING DSCNT, WE RECEIVED WX RPT OF BETTER THAN 10 MI VISIBILITY. APCH TOLD US WE WERE #1 AND TO EXPECT NO DELAY. THE WX CHANGED DURING THE COURSE OF OUR APCH WITH A FOG BANK DEVELOPING. THIS INFO NEVER WAS UNDERSTOOD BY US. THE CTLR DID PASS SOME WX INFO TO US, BUT THE COMBINATION OF LANGUAGE, CONCENTRATION ON A DIFFICULT APCH PROC, AND WE HAD A VISUAL ON THE FIELD FOR MOST OF THE APCH SO HIS INFO REALLY DIDN'T GET ACROSS TO US. WE CALLED THE FIELD IN SIGHT ABOVE MINIMUMS AND WERE TOLD THAT THE TWR DID NOT HAVE US IN SIGHT. WE TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE HAD A CLR VIEW OF THE RWY ENVIRONMENT AND REQUESTED CONFIRMATION OF LNDG CLRNC. THE CTLR STOPPED TALKING TO US. WE LANDED WITH NO PROB, ROLLED INTO MODERATE FOG PART WAY DOWN THE RWY AND THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE FIELD WAS CLOSED FOR WX. WITH THE INFO WE HAD PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE APCH, WX WAS NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE A CONSIDERATION UNTIL WE ENCOUNTERED THE FOG ON ROLLOUT. LANGUAGE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS WAS THE RPTR'S FIRST TRIP INTO QUITO. HE HAD NOT YET BECOME USED TO THEIR BRAND OF ENGLISH NOR THE CHANGEABLE WX. UIO TWR RPTED THE WX TO BE ONLY 2 KM WHILE THE ACFT WAS ON APCH, BUT 4 KM IS NEEDED FOR THE APCH. THIS INFO PASSED BY THE FLC AS THEY WERE ABLE TO SEE THE RWY ALL OF THE TIME. THE ACR'S GND PERSONNEL ASSURED THE FLC THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT FROM UIO ATC. THE RPTR HAS LEARNED SINCE THIS INCIDENT THAT THE WX AT UIO CAN CHANGE VERY RAPIDLY AS CLOUDS DRIFT BY. AS THE MAP PROC AT UIO IS 'AN EMER PROC IN ITSELF,' THE RPTR FEELS THAT IT IS SAFER TO LAND WITH SLIGHTLY REDUCED VISIBILITY THAN TO EXECUTE THE MAP.

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.