Narrative:

We are a CAT 1 operation, but canadian rules at yhm allow us to shoot a 'look-see' approach if the RVR is at least 1200 ft. Started approach, used autoplt (but it would not resensitize into manual) approach not stable. At 100 ft autoplt off, crosswind approximately 15000 ft, aircraft drifted to right of runway, initiated a go around. Second approach, hand flown, drifted to the left and recorrected. After taxi in and park, the airport security came over to look at the aircraft. They remarked that someone had taken out some runway edge lights and touched down in the grass on the right side of the runway. They also said some runway edge lights were broken on the left side of the runway (several aircraft had landed during this time period). Myself, maintenance, and airport security inspected the aircraft and found no damage or mud. Later, maintenance changed 1 tire for cuts. Suggestions: the normal minimums for runway 12 is 2400 ft and 1/2 mi. CAT 1 approachs (even 'look-see'), should not be allowed with poor WX. The runway is also dangerous, no centerline lights and 200 ft wide. The airport needs centerline lights. Also CAT 1 crews are not normally familiar with xwinds of 15+ KTS and RVR below 1800 ft. Supplemental information from acn 390489: during a 'look see' ILS approach (autoplt coupled) to runway 12L at hamilton, ontario, canada, everything looked normal until below 50 ft AGL. During the flare the aircraft drifted right of centerline towards the right side edge lights, I called for a go around. The captain executed 'a crisp' go around and we touched down on the runway to the left of the right side runway edge lights and were immediately airborne again. After this go around, the captain said he was going to hand-fly the next approach using the flight director, the winds were xwinds with low visibility. During this approach everything was the same as the first approach passing over the center of the threshold. We touched down to the left of centerline closer to the left side runway edge lights than to the center of the runway. I said 'go right, go right, go right,' we moved to the center of the runway and the rollout was normal. Postflt inspection revealed no damage to the aircraft. On the second approach I do not know how we ended up touching down on the left side of the runway nor did I observe us drifting left. Factors: low visibility (2000-2400 ft RVR), poor depth perception on a 200 ft wide runway with no centerline lights, night operations with rain (windshield wipers on), fairly strong gusty xwinds and this was the third flight this crew had flown together in 2 days. The second flight that night. I do not know why I did not notice us tracking off the center of the runway after we passed over the threshold on both approachs. There are no judgements or decisions which I would do differently. I believe that our standard operating procedures and CRM procedures kept our aircraft on the runway. There are no factors which affected our human performance that I am aware of. Supplemental information from acn 390681: concern on my part lies with allowing a look see approach in very marginal conditions to a wide runway with no centerline lighting and a 15 KT crosswind. Lateral positioning of the aircraft is very difficult to determine, on a wide runway at night with no centerline lighting. It is possible that our aircraft contacted the lights, but I would like to see addressed 'look see' approachs to wide runways with no centerline lighting. I feel wind restrs should be greater on 'look see' approachs. I would also like to see centerline lighting a requirement for 'look see' approachs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B727 FREIGHTER FLC MAY HAVE STRUCK RWY LIGHTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RWY DURING AN APCH AND GAR AND AN APCH AND LNDG.

Narrative: WE ARE A CAT 1 OP, BUT CANADIAN RULES AT YHM ALLOW US TO SHOOT A 'LOOK-SEE' APCH IF THE RVR IS AT LEAST 1200 FT. STARTED APCH, USED AUTOPLT (BUT IT WOULD NOT RESENSITIZE INTO MANUAL) APCH NOT STABLE. AT 100 FT AUTOPLT OFF, XWIND APPROX 15000 FT, ACFT DRIFTED TO R OF RWY, INITIATED A GAR. SECOND APCH, HAND FLOWN, DRIFTED TO THE L AND RECORRECTED. AFTER TAXI IN AND PARK, THE ARPT SECURITY CAME OVER TO LOOK AT THE ACFT. THEY REMARKED THAT SOMEONE HAD TAKEN OUT SOME RWY EDGE LIGHTS AND TOUCHED DOWN IN THE GRASS ON THE R SIDE OF THE RWY. THEY ALSO SAID SOME RWY EDGE LIGHTS WERE BROKEN ON THE L SIDE OF THE RWY (SEVERAL ACFT HAD LANDED DURING THIS TIME PERIOD). MYSELF, MAINT, AND ARPT SECURITY INSPECTED THE ACFT AND FOUND NO DAMAGE OR MUD. LATER, MAINT CHANGED 1 TIRE FOR CUTS. SUGGESTIONS: THE NORMAL MINIMUMS FOR RWY 12 IS 2400 FT AND 1/2 MI. CAT 1 APCHS (EVEN 'LOOK-SEE'), SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITH POOR WX. THE RWY IS ALSO DANGEROUS, NO CTRLINE LIGHTS AND 200 FT WIDE. THE ARPT NEEDS CTRLINE LIGHTS. ALSO CAT 1 CREWS ARE NOT NORMALLY FAMILIAR WITH XWINDS OF 15+ KTS AND RVR BELOW 1800 FT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 390489: DURING A 'LOOK SEE' ILS APCH (AUTOPLT COUPLED) TO RWY 12L AT HAMILTON, ONTARIO, CANADA, EVERYTHING LOOKED NORMAL UNTIL BELOW 50 FT AGL. DURING THE FLARE THE ACFT DRIFTED R OF CTRLINE TOWARDS THE R SIDE EDGE LIGHTS, I CALLED FOR A GAR. THE CAPT EXECUTED 'A CRISP' GAR AND WE TOUCHED DOWN ON THE RWY TO THE L OF THE R SIDE RWY EDGE LIGHTS AND WERE IMMEDIATELY AIRBORNE AGAIN. AFTER THIS GAR, THE CAPT SAID HE WAS GOING TO HAND-FLY THE NEXT APCH USING THE FLT DIRECTOR, THE WINDS WERE XWINDS WITH LOW VISIBILITY. DURING THIS APCH EVERYTHING WAS THE SAME AS THE FIRST APCH PASSING OVER THE CTR OF THE THRESHOLD. WE TOUCHED DOWN TO THE L OF CTRLINE CLOSER TO THE L SIDE RWY EDGE LIGHTS THAN TO THE CTR OF THE RWY. I SAID 'GO R, GO R, GO R,' WE MOVED TO THE CTR OF THE RWY AND THE ROLLOUT WAS NORMAL. POSTFLT INSPECTION REVEALED NO DAMAGE TO THE ACFT. ON THE SECOND APCH I DO NOT KNOW HOW WE ENDED UP TOUCHING DOWN ON THE L SIDE OF THE RWY NOR DID I OBSERVE US DRIFTING L. FACTORS: LOW VISIBILITY (2000-2400 FT RVR), POOR DEPTH PERCEPTION ON A 200 FT WIDE RWY WITH NO CTRLINE LIGHTS, NIGHT OPS WITH RAIN (WINDSHIELD WIPERS ON), FAIRLY STRONG GUSTY XWINDS AND THIS WAS THE THIRD FLT THIS CREW HAD FLOWN TOGETHER IN 2 DAYS. THE SECOND FLT THAT NIGHT. I DO NOT KNOW WHY I DID NOT NOTICE US TRACKING OFF THE CTR OF THE RWY AFTER WE PASSED OVER THE THRESHOLD ON BOTH APCHS. THERE ARE NO JUDGEMENTS OR DECISIONS WHICH I WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY. I BELIEVE THAT OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCS AND CRM PROCS KEPT OUR ACFT ON THE RWY. THERE ARE NO FACTORS WHICH AFFECTED OUR HUMAN PERFORMANCE THAT I AM AWARE OF. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 390681: CONCERN ON MY PART LIES WITH ALLOWING A LOOK SEE APCH IN VERY MARGINAL CONDITIONS TO A WIDE RWY WITH NO CTRLINE LIGHTING AND A 15 KT XWIND. LATERAL POSITIONING OF THE ACFT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE, ON A WIDE RWY AT NIGHT WITH NO CTRLINE LIGHTING. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OUR ACFT CONTACTED THE LIGHTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED 'LOOK SEE' APCHS TO WIDE RWYS WITH NO CTRLINE LIGHTING. I FEEL WIND RESTRS SHOULD BE GREATER ON 'LOOK SEE' APCHS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE CTRLINE LIGHTING A REQUIREMENT FOR 'LOOK SEE' APCHS.

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.