Narrative:

ILS precision runway monitor approachs were in progress at msp. I elected not to accept the precision runway monitor procedure. I was requested to call on arrival in msp. I spoke with mr X at msp TRACON. He inquired as to the reason for not accepting the precision runway monitor procedure. I informed him of the following reason: 1) the first officer I flying with was new on the airplane -- less than 100 hours. 2) windshear advisories were in effect at msp. 3) moderate turbulence was also reported on the ATIS. I advised him that this was the first leg I had flown with this new first officer and the breakout maneuver on the B757 is an involved procedure. Under these conditions it was a better decision not to accept the precision runway monitor. Mr X informed me they did not receive enough advanced notice to properly handle our request. He also stated that they are now required to file a deviation report for non participating precision runway monitor aircraft. Human performance considerations.' as previously mentioned, I believe not accepting the precision runway monitor procedure was the proper course of action. The advance notice issue was confusing to both the first officer and myself. The B757 cockpit operating manual/operating bulletin states that 'notification should take place when the aircraft is within 200 NM of the airport.' the ATIS requested that aircraft 'advise ??msp?? (This abbreviation contained msp but the other letters were not logical in the context of ATC control facilities) if unable to accept ILS precision runway monitor procedure.' msp TRACON contends that the notification was too late. The nonstandard abbreviations should be avoided in these messages. A long hand spelling of the appropriate facility could have made this situation avoidable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT ELECTS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRECISION RWY MONITOR APCH TO MSP, MN. TRACON MGMNT CONTENDS THEY WERE NOT ADVISED EARLY ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE REQUEST PROPERLY.

Narrative: ILS PRECISION RWY MONITOR APCHS WERE IN PROGRESS AT MSP. I ELECTED NOT TO ACCEPT THE PRECISION RWY MONITOR PROC. I WAS REQUESTED TO CALL ON ARR IN MSP. I SPOKE WITH MR X AT MSP TRACON. HE INQUIRED AS TO THE REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE PRECISION RWY MONITOR PROC. I INFORMED HIM OF THE FOLLOWING REASON: 1) THE FO I FLYING WITH WAS NEW ON THE AIRPLANE -- LESS THAN 100 HRS. 2) WINDSHEAR ADVISORIES WERE IN EFFECT AT MSP. 3) MODERATE TURB WAS ALSO RPTED ON THE ATIS. I ADVISED HIM THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST LEG I HAD FLOWN WITH THIS NEW FO AND THE BREAKOUT MANEUVER ON THE B757 IS AN INVOLVED PROC. UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IT WAS A BETTER DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT THE PRECISION RWY MONITOR. MR X INFORMED ME THEY DID NOT RECEIVE ENOUGH ADVANCED NOTICE TO PROPERLY HANDLE OUR REQUEST. HE ALSO STATED THAT THEY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO FILE A DEV RPT FOR NON PARTICIPATING PRECISION RWY MONITOR ACFT. HUMAN PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS.' AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, I BELIEVE NOT ACCEPTING THE PRECISION RWY MONITOR PROC WAS THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION. THE ADVANCE NOTICE ISSUE WAS CONFUSING TO BOTH THE FO AND MYSELF. THE B757 COCKPIT OPERATING MANUAL/OPERATING BULLETIN STATES THAT 'NOTIFICATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE WHEN THE ACFT IS WITHIN 200 NM OF THE ARPT.' THE ATIS REQUESTED THAT ACFT 'ADVISE ??MSP?? (THIS ABBREVIATION CONTAINED MSP BUT THE OTHER LETTERS WERE NOT LOGICAL IN THE CONTEXT OF ATC CTL FACILITIES) IF UNABLE TO ACCEPT ILS PRECISION RWY MONITOR PROC.' MSP TRACON CONTENDS THAT THE NOTIFICATION WAS TOO LATE. THE NONSTANDARD ABBREVIATIONS SHOULD BE AVOIDED IN THESE MESSAGES. A LONG HAND SPELLING OF THE APPROPRIATE FACILITY COULD HAVE MADE THIS SIT AVOIDABLE.

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.