Narrative:

On descent into gsp from atl, ATIS advised that gsp was landing runway 3 with GS, middle marker, inner marker, and approach lights OTS. Reported ceiling was 400 ft overcast and 1 1/2 mi visibility. Under these conditions, the hat of 435 ft would have made visual acquisition of the runway in time to land highly unlikely. Winds at the time were 050-060 degrees at 11 KTS gusting to 13 KTS. This gave us a tailwind component of 10 KTS. So we elected to fly the ILS approach to runway 21 (all airport navaids/lights operating on this runway). It should be noted that the WX (ceiling and visibility) was deteriorating at gsp and at atl. We began shooting the approach with tower frequently calling out the winds. We did not feel at the time that the winds ever got out of limits. Neither one of us felt it appropriate to look at a wind chart on short final. The landing was uneventful. No limitations were exceeded. The reason for filling out this form is to document our decision making process should it ever come into question. Supplemental information from acn 396886: other aircraft had missed the approach to runway 3 after we landed. I think that vital ILS components and facilities such as GS transmitters and approach lighting system should have more reliability and backup capability. I also think it would be a good idea (if requested by a pilot) if wind components could be reported (tailwind and crosswind) making it easier for flcs to determine the legality of an approach/landing during difficult sits.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC CONCERNED WITH POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR LNDG WHEN TAILWIND COMPONENT FOR THEIR ACFT WAS AT THE MAX LIMIT OF PUBLISHED MINIMA.

Narrative: ON DSCNT INTO GSP FROM ATL, ATIS ADVISED THAT GSP WAS LNDG RWY 3 WITH GS, MIDDLE MARKER, INNER MARKER, AND APCH LIGHTS OTS. RPTED CEILING WAS 400 FT OVCST AND 1 1/2 MI VISIBILITY. UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, THE HAT OF 435 FT WOULD HAVE MADE VISUAL ACQUISITION OF THE RWY IN TIME TO LAND HIGHLY UNLIKELY. WINDS AT THE TIME WERE 050-060 DEGS AT 11 KTS GUSTING TO 13 KTS. THIS GAVE US A TAILWIND COMPONENT OF 10 KTS. SO WE ELECTED TO FLY THE ILS APCH TO RWY 21 (ALL ARPT NAVAIDS/LIGHTS OPERATING ON THIS RWY). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE WX (CEILING AND VISIBILITY) WAS DETERIORATING AT GSP AND AT ATL. WE BEGAN SHOOTING THE APCH WITH TWR FREQUENTLY CALLING OUT THE WINDS. WE DID NOT FEEL AT THE TIME THAT THE WINDS EVER GOT OUT OF LIMITS. NEITHER ONE OF US FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT A WIND CHART ON SHORT FINAL. THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. NO LIMITATIONS WERE EXCEEDED. THE REASON FOR FILLING OUT THIS FORM IS TO DOCUMENT OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS SHOULD IT EVER COME INTO QUESTION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 396886: OTHER ACFT HAD MISSED THE APCH TO RWY 3 AFTER WE LANDED. I THINK THAT VITAL ILS COMPONENTS AND FACILITIES SUCH AS GS XMITTERS AND APCH LIGHTING SYS SHOULD HAVE MORE RELIABILITY AND BACKUP CAPABILITY. I ALSO THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA (IF REQUESTED BY A PLT) IF WIND COMPONENTS COULD BE RPTED (TAILWIND AND XWIND) MAKING IT EASIER FOR FLCS TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF AN APCH/LNDG DURING DIFFICULT SITS.

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.