Narrative:

Received vectors for visual approach to runway 23. Arrs were using ILS 5, orf VORTAC was notamed off the air. Crew acquired airport environment and was cleared visual for runway 23. Tuned ILS 23 and got inaccurate signals for reliable backup of visual approach. Crew monitored LNAV for position. After cleared for the visual approach, approach control switched us to orf tower. Due to the close proximity of the airfield (7 mi by LNAV) at an altitude of 3000 ft, the crew lost acquisition of the runway 23 environment. We asked the tower controller to turn the approach lighting system on runway 23 to full bright so we could positively identify the landing runway (note: ILS for runway 23 was switched on for runway 5, which both the approach and tower controllers had not mentioned). Tower controller would not turn on the runway 23 approach lights to bright until runway 5 landing traffic had cleared the runway. As a result, we were unable to continue the visual approach. We advised tower that we were switching back to approach for vectors to ILS at orf. Approach controller cleared us for maneuvering airspace just as the runway 23 approach lights were acquired. We advised orf approach control of positive runway 23 contact and were instructed to switch to tower. The approach was safe but at a higher descent rate and visual approach angle than normal. After landing, the tower apologized about the approach lights being delayed. She had thought we wanted the runway lights up full, and couldn't comply because of a runway 5 arrival. This misunderstanding almost caused a missed approach. She then proceeded to warn us not to switch from her tower frequency back to approach frequency without her knowledge. We did, however, inform her prior to the switch.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B737-300 CREW HAD DIFFICULTY FINDING THE RWY AT ORF. NIGHT OP. ARPT PROB ILS SELECTED FOR OPPOSITE RWY. ATCT LCL CTLR WOULD NOT TURN UP RWY LIGHTS, ORF VOR OFF THE AIR BY NOTAM.

Narrative: RECEIVED VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 23. ARRS WERE USING ILS 5, ORF VORTAC WAS NOTAMED OFF THE AIR. CREW ACQUIRED ARPT ENVIRONMENT AND WAS CLRED VISUAL FOR RWY 23. TUNED ILS 23 AND GOT INACCURATE SIGNALS FOR RELIABLE BACKUP OF VISUAL APCH. CREW MONITORED LNAV FOR POS. AFTER CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH, APCH CTL SWITCHED US TO ORF TWR. DUE TO THE CLOSE PROX OF THE AIRFIELD (7 MI BY LNAV) AT AN ALT OF 3000 FT, THE CREW LOST ACQUISITION OF THE RWY 23 ENVIRONMENT. WE ASKED THE TWR CTLR TO TURN THE APCH LIGHTING SYS ON RWY 23 TO FULL BRIGHT SO WE COULD POSITIVELY IDENT THE LNDG RWY (NOTE: ILS FOR RWY 23 WAS SWITCHED ON FOR RWY 5, WHICH BOTH THE APCH AND TWR CTLRS HAD NOT MENTIONED). TWR CTLR WOULD NOT TURN ON THE RWY 23 APCH LIGHTS TO BRIGHT UNTIL RWY 5 LNDG TFC HAD CLRED THE RWY. AS A RESULT, WE WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE THE VISUAL APCH. WE ADVISED TWR THAT WE WERE SWITCHING BACK TO APCH FOR VECTORS TO ILS AT ORF. APCH CTLR CLRED US FOR MANEUVERING AIRSPACE JUST AS THE RWY 23 APCH LIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED. WE ADVISED ORF APCH CTL OF POSITIVE RWY 23 CONTACT AND WERE INSTRUCTED TO SWITCH TO TWR. THE APCH WAS SAFE BUT AT A HIGHER DSCNT RATE AND VISUAL APCH ANGLE THAN NORMAL. AFTER LNDG, THE TWR APOLOGIZED ABOUT THE APCH LIGHTS BEING DELAYED. SHE HAD THOUGHT WE WANTED THE RWY LIGHTS UP FULL, AND COULDN'T COMPLY BECAUSE OF A RWY 5 ARR. THIS MISUNDERSTANDING ALMOST CAUSED A MISSED APCH. SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO WARN US NOT TO SWITCH FROM HER TWR FREQ BACK TO APCH FREQ WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE. WE DID, HOWEVER, INFORM HER PRIOR TO THE SWITCH.

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.