Narrative:

En route to rdu; obtained the rdu ATIS. Visibility was reported as 2 mi with runway 23R in use. The captain briefed a flaps 40 degree approach. After switching to approach control; we heard them tell another aircraft in front of us that touchdown RVR was 1200 ft but that previous aircraft were picking up the field visually and multiple aircraft had shot approachs and landed. CAT 2 and CAT 3 approachs were not available due to reduced runway lighting. The previous aircraft accepted the approach and landed. The captain stated that he did not understand how anyone could accept a CAT 1 approach with visibility less than required even though we could see the runway from 11 mi out. The captain expressed his concerns to tower and was told that it was not approach control's responsibility to determine legality; and that they just issue approachs. At that point the captain made the decision to go around at approximately 2200 ft MSL. After an uneventful go around; aircraft control was xferred to the first officer so that the captain could contact dispatch. Dispatch agreed that the approachs were not legal at this point; and that we had plenty of fuel to hold and wait for the visibility to improve. Shortly after talking with dispatch RVR was reported at or above 3500 ft. We were turned onto the localizer; cleared for the approach and switched to tower. We discussed that we needed at least 1800 ft and that after the FAF we could continue for a 'look see.' on final just prior to the FAF (bodly) the RVR was reported at 1800 ft. I switched to tower and we were cleared to land. Tower stated that previous aircraft had all seen the runway and that tower could see the aircraft and the field but that RVR had been going up and down and that they were not sure that the equipment was working correctly. We picked up the field at about 7 mi out and maintained the field visually the entire approach. We landed without incident and taxied to the gate. After landing the captain and I talked about the approach and how confusing everything was with RVR constantly changing; the tower's comments; how we had the field visually at more than 7 mi but how they would not issue visual approachs because of the reported visibility. The captain also questioned if I had heard an RVR of 1200 ft during our approach and if it was prior to the FAF. I did not remember hearing that and with our previous go around and discussion about our requirements for the approach; I don't think we would have continued if we were not legal. We heard so many RVR reports to us; preceding aircraft; following aircraft; ATIS reports; tower comments during this approach; that it is all sort of jumbled together. Although I think we were legal for the approach; I also learned valuable lessons from this experience. I agree with the captain that the approach decision is similar to a takeoff/abort decision; in that it happens in real time and doesn't allow for discussion; you just have to make the decision. This really shows that a good briefing of 'what ifs' before helps prepare you to make the correct decision. This event was made rather confusing because we could have flown a visual approach from more than 7 mi out; yet tower could not issue visual approachs yet they would issue ILS approachs that no one had the visibility to legally shoot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CREW ABANDONS APCH AFTER LEARNING THE ARPT IS BELOW LNDG MINIMUMS.

Narrative: ENRTE TO RDU; OBTAINED THE RDU ATIS. VISIBILITY WAS RPTED AS 2 MI WITH RWY 23R IN USE. THE CAPT BRIEFED A FLAPS 40 DEG APCH. AFTER SWITCHING TO APCH CTL; WE HEARD THEM TELL ANOTHER ACFT IN FRONT OF US THAT TOUCHDOWN RVR WAS 1200 FT BUT THAT PREVIOUS ACFT WERE PICKING UP THE FIELD VISUALLY AND MULTIPLE ACFT HAD SHOT APCHS AND LANDED. CAT 2 AND CAT 3 APCHS WERE NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO REDUCED RWY LIGHTING. THE PREVIOUS ACFT ACCEPTED THE APCH AND LANDED. THE CAPT STATED THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE COULD ACCEPT A CAT 1 APCH WITH VISIBILITY LESS THAN REQUIRED EVEN THOUGH WE COULD SEE THE RWY FROM 11 MI OUT. THE CAPT EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS TO TWR AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS NOT APCH CTL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE LEGALITY; AND THAT THEY JUST ISSUE APCHS. AT THAT POINT THE CAPT MADE THE DECISION TO GO AROUND AT APPROX 2200 FT MSL. AFTER AN UNEVENTFUL GAR; ACFT CTL WAS XFERRED TO THE FO SO THAT THE CAPT COULD CONTACT DISPATCH. DISPATCH AGREED THAT THE APCHS WERE NOT LEGAL AT THIS POINT; AND THAT WE HAD PLENTY OF FUEL TO HOLD AND WAIT FOR THE VISIBILITY TO IMPROVE. SHORTLY AFTER TALKING WITH DISPATCH RVR WAS RPTED AT OR ABOVE 3500 FT. WE WERE TURNED ONTO THE LOC; CLRED FOR THE APCH AND SWITCHED TO TWR. WE DISCUSSED THAT WE NEEDED AT LEAST 1800 FT AND THAT AFTER THE FAF WE COULD CONTINUE FOR A 'LOOK SEE.' ON FINAL JUST PRIOR TO THE FAF (BODLY) THE RVR WAS RPTED AT 1800 FT. I SWITCHED TO TWR AND WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. TWR STATED THAT PREVIOUS ACFT HAD ALL SEEN THE RWY AND THAT TWR COULD SEE THE ACFT AND THE FIELD BUT THAT RVR HAD BEEN GOING UP AND DOWN AND THAT THEY WERE NOT SURE THAT THE EQUIP WAS WORKING CORRECTLY. WE PICKED UP THE FIELD AT ABOUT 7 MI OUT AND MAINTAINED THE FIELD VISUALLY THE ENTIRE APCH. WE LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT AND TAXIED TO THE GATE. AFTER LNDG THE CAPT AND I TALKED ABOUT THE APCH AND HOW CONFUSING EVERYTHING WAS WITH RVR CONSTANTLY CHANGING; THE TWR'S COMMENTS; HOW WE HAD THE FIELD VISUALLY AT MORE THAN 7 MI BUT HOW THEY WOULD NOT ISSUE VISUAL APCHS BECAUSE OF THE RPTED VISIBILITY. THE CAPT ALSO QUESTIONED IF I HAD HEARD AN RVR OF 1200 FT DURING OUR APCH AND IF IT WAS PRIOR TO THE FAF. I DID NOT REMEMBER HEARING THAT AND WITH OUR PREVIOUS GAR AND DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APCH; I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE CONTINUED IF WE WERE NOT LEGAL. WE HEARD SO MANY RVR RPTS TO US; PRECEDING ACFT; FOLLOWING ACFT; ATIS RPTS; TWR COMMENTS DURING THIS APCH; THAT IT IS ALL SORT OF JUMBLED TOGETHER. ALTHOUGH I THINK WE WERE LEGAL FOR THE APCH; I ALSO LEARNED VALUABLE LESSONS FROM THIS EXPERIENCE. I AGREE WITH THE CAPT THAT THE APCH DECISION IS SIMILAR TO A TKOF/ABORT DECISION; IN THAT IT HAPPENS IN REAL TIME AND DOESN'T ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION; YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION. THIS REALLY SHOWS THAT A GOOD BRIEFING OF 'WHAT IFS' BEFORE HELPS PREPARE YOU TO MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION. THIS EVENT WAS MADE RATHER CONFUSING BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE FLOWN A VISUAL APCH FROM MORE THAN 7 MI OUT; YET TWR COULD NOT ISSUE VISUAL APCHS YET THEY WOULD ISSUE ILS APCHS THAT NO ONE HAD THE VISIBILITY TO LEGALLY SHOOT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.