Narrative:

Confusing approach plate ILS runway 6L CAT ii and III. On nov/sat/01, I flew charter flight from abi en route to day. Prior to departure from dallas, dispatch advised that the WX was marginal at dayton. He informed me that day had fog, but that there was a CAT ii and III ILS. I was still operations briefing the crew, since they were new and had not flown a charter before. Dispatch then called and said that the WX for day was legal for dispatch and completing the flight. We then left for abi about 25 mins past schedule. The ferry flight and subsequent charter loading went as planned. En route to day, the first officer and I started reviewing the approach charts. I noticed that the ILS 6L ii and III at day had an RA minimum decision ht of 103 ft with a visibility RVR of 12 listed for the CAT ii ILS. It also listed a CAT III/a visibility of RVR 7 but no RA decision ht. This immediately confused me. I then referenced the fom and the charts for other similar CAT ii and III approach plates. The fom said 50 ft RA was the decision ht for CAT III/a approachs but nowhere was there a listing for this situation as depicted on the approach plate chart. As we got closer to day, we monitored ATIS and found that the visibility was RVR approach 800 ft. Mid 800 ft, and rollout 800 ft. I contacted dispatch and explained my confusion about the decision ht and inquired about the approach plate. I also opened the alternate package to use the dayton plate included there instead of the xerox plate from the dispatch charter package, thinking that there might be a difference. It was the same plate. I suggested to dispatch that the conservative way to go was to use the CAT III/a visibility minimum and the CAT ii ILS decision ht. Dispatch also checked with the chief pilot on duty concerning my question and he agreed with my assessment to fly the approach using CAT III/a visibility and CAT ii ILS hh of 103 ft instead of 50 since it was not published on the chart. Just before descent, ZID asked if we were CAT ii qualified. We answered yes. Approach control at day cleared us for the approach to the ILS runway 6L and we landed using hgs [heads up guidance display] procedures and a decision ht of 103 ft. When I returned to dallas and showed the approach to my chief pilot, he could not clarify the approach plate discrepancy concerning the decision ht. He said that he would look into it. Later, he contacted me and told me I was legal to fly the ILS to runway 6L as a CAT III/a, because it is in the operations specifications. He also told me that the airline had an agreement with the FAA to list these approachs as hgs on the chats and that this may account for the discrepancy. He suggested that I bring this to the company's attention via this report. In summary, there should be no ambiguity in our company approach charts, either the normal charts or the alternate package. When everyone, from the chief pilot's office, dispatch, and the captain are confused there is a potential safety problem. There should be no doubt as to what the decision ht is on a CAT III/a approach plate. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he now realizes that the chart he was referring to is correct and a copy of the official commercial IAP chart. However, he still believes that the company needs to show on the company chart their requirement of having a 50 ft decision ht for all CAT III ILS approachs used in conjunction with their required heads up display. Therefore, he is working with his company to have this noted on the alternate airport charts, one of which he was using, so that this guidance would be available on all company charts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-300 CAPT CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF A DECISION HT REF ON AN ILS CAT III PROC ON HIS COMPANY AND COMMERCIAL INST APCH CHARTS.

Narrative: CONFUSING APCH PLATE ILS RWY 6L CAT II AND III. ON NOV/SAT/01, I FLEW CHARTER FLT FROM ABI ENRTE TO DAY. PRIOR TO DEP FROM DALLAS, DISPATCH ADVISED THAT THE WX WAS MARGINAL AT DAYTON. HE INFORMED ME THAT DAY HAD FOG, BUT THAT THERE WAS A CAT II AND III ILS. I WAS STILL OPS BRIEFING THE CREW, SINCE THEY WERE NEW AND HAD NOT FLOWN A CHARTER BEFORE. DISPATCH THEN CALLED AND SAID THAT THE WX FOR DAY WAS LEGAL FOR DISPATCH AND COMPLETING THE FLT. WE THEN LEFT FOR ABI ABOUT 25 MINS PAST SCHEDULE. THE FERRY FLT AND SUBSEQUENT CHARTER LOADING WENT AS PLANNED. ENRTE TO DAY, THE FO AND I STARTED REVIEWING THE APCH CHARTS. I NOTICED THAT THE ILS 6L II AND III AT DAY HAD AN RA MINIMUM DECISION HT OF 103 FT WITH A VISIBILITY RVR OF 12 LISTED FOR THE CAT II ILS. IT ALSO LISTED A CAT III/A VISIBILITY OF RVR 7 BUT NO RA DECISION HT. THIS IMMEDIATELY CONFUSED ME. I THEN REFED THE FOM AND THE CHARTS FOR OTHER SIMILAR CAT II AND III APCH PLATES. THE FOM SAID 50 FT RA WAS THE DECISION HT FOR CAT III/A APCHS BUT NOWHERE WAS THERE A LISTING FOR THIS SIT AS DEPICTED ON THE APCH PLATE CHART. AS WE GOT CLOSER TO DAY, WE MONITORED ATIS AND FOUND THAT THE VISIBILITY WAS RVR APCH 800 FT. MID 800 FT, AND ROLLOUT 800 FT. I CONTACTED DISPATCH AND EXPLAINED MY CONFUSION ABOUT THE DECISION HT AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE APCH PLATE. I ALSO OPENED THE ALTERNATE PACKAGE TO USE THE DAYTON PLATE INCLUDED THERE INSTEAD OF THE XEROX PLATE FROM THE DISPATCH CHARTER PACKAGE, THINKING THAT THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE. IT WAS THE SAME PLATE. I SUGGESTED TO DISPATCH THAT THE CONSERVATIVE WAY TO GO WAS TO USE THE CAT III/A VISIBILITY MINIMUM AND THE CAT II ILS DECISION HT. DISPATCH ALSO CHKED WITH THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY CONCERNING MY QUESTION AND HE AGREED WITH MY ASSESSMENT TO FLY THE APCH USING CAT III/A VISIBILITY AND CAT II ILS HH OF 103 FT INSTEAD OF 50 SINCE IT WAS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE CHART. JUST BEFORE DSCNT, ZID ASKED IF WE WERE CAT II QUALIFIED. WE ANSWERED YES. APCH CTL AT DAY CLRED US FOR THE APCH TO THE ILS RWY 6L AND WE LANDED USING HGS [HEADS UP GUIDANCE DISPLAY] PROCS AND A DECISION HT OF 103 FT. WHEN I RETURNED TO DALLAS AND SHOWED THE APCH TO MY CHIEF PLT, HE COULD NOT CLARIFY THE APCH PLATE DISCREPANCY CONCERNING THE DECISION HT. HE SAID THAT HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT. LATER, HE CONTACTED ME AND TOLD ME I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE ILS TO RWY 6L AS A CAT III/A, BECAUSE IT IS IN THE OPS SPECS. HE ALSO TOLD ME THAT THE AIRLINE HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA TO LIST THESE APCHS AS HGS ON THE CHATS AND THAT THIS MAY ACCOUNT FOR THE DISCREPANCY. HE SUGGESTED THAT I BRING THIS TO THE COMPANY'S ATTN VIA THIS RPT. IN SUMMARY, THERE SHOULD BE NO AMBIGUITY IN OUR COMPANY APCH CHARTS, EITHER THE NORMAL CHARTS OR THE ALTERNATE PACKAGE. WHEN EVERYONE, FROM THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE, DISPATCH, AND THE CAPT ARE CONFUSED THERE IS A POTENTIAL SAFETY PROB. THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE DECISION HT IS ON A CAT III/A APCH PLATE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE NOW REALIZES THAT THE CHART HE WAS REFERRING TO IS CORRECT AND A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL COMMERCIAL IAP CHART. HOWEVER, HE STILL BELIEVES THAT THE COMPANY NEEDS TO SHOW ON THE COMPANY CHART THEIR REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A 50 FT DECISION HT FOR ALL CAT III ILS APCHS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR REQUIRED HEADS UP DISPLAY. THEREFORE, HE IS WORKING WITH HIS COMPANY TO HAVE THIS NOTED ON THE ALTERNATE ARPT CHARTS, ONE OF WHICH HE WAS USING, SO THAT THIS GUIDANCE WOULD BE AVAILABLE ON ALL COMPANY CHARTS.

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.