Flight crew disapproves of parallel instrument visual approach into stl. MD88.

Attributes
ACN	353589
Time
Date	199611
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : stl
State Reference	MO
Altitude	agl bound lower : 2000 agl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : stl
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	MD-88
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 320
ASRS Report	353589
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : returned to intended course or assigned course
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Airport
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified
Airport	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

This was my first exposure to stl's parallel/instrument/visual approachs to runways 12L/right and I was not impressed. They were conducting this operation in marginal conditions due to thick haze and overlying/shadowing cloud layer in vicinity of field. Several pilots complained about operations in WX to no avail. We were just able to see aircraft on lda runway 12L but never saw our own runway until 1-2 mi out. Whoever designed and whoever approved this procedure should be directly held responsible when an accident occurs. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: captain disliked the approach as he had difficulty seeing the runway all throughout the approach. He could always see the other aircraft, but not the intended runway to land on until he got close in for the landing. He doesn't like being cleared for an IFR approach and yet have to maintain a visual on the parallel aircraft. Captain felt it was a cheap way to increase airport capacity and that an accident will result from its use.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC DISAPPROVES OF PARALLEL INST VISUAL APCH INTO STL. MD88.

Narrative: THIS WAS MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO STL'S PARALLEL/INST/VISUAL APCHS TO RWYS 12L/R AND I WAS NOT IMPRESSED. THEY WERE CONDUCTING THIS OP IN MARGINAL CONDITIONS DUE TO THICK HAZE AND OVERLYING/SHADOWING CLOUD LAYER IN VICINITY OF FIELD. SEVERAL PLTS COMPLAINED ABOUT OPS IN WX TO NO AVAIL. WE WERE JUST ABLE TO SEE ACFT ON LDA RWY 12L BUT NEVER SAW OUR OWN RWY UNTIL 1-2 MI OUT. WHOEVER DESIGNED AND WHOEVER APPROVED THIS PROC SHOULD BE DIRECTLY HELD RESPONSIBLE WHEN AN ACCIDENT OCCURS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: CAPT DISLIKED THE APCH AS HE HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING THE RWY ALL THROUGHOUT THE APCH. HE COULD ALWAYS SEE THE OTHER ACFT, BUT NOT THE INTENDED RWY TO LAND ON UNTIL HE GOT CLOSE IN FOR THE LNDG. HE DOESN'T LIKE BEING CLRED FOR AN IFR APCH AND YET HAVE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL ON THE PARALLEL ACFT. CAPT FELT IT WAS A CHEAP WAY TO INCREASE ARPT CAPACITY AND THAT AN ACCIDENT WILL RESULT FROM ITS USE.

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.