Narrative:

Official WX at phl 10 SM -RA OVC017. We were running visual approachs to runway 35 even though the ceiling was less than 500 ft above the MVA (1500 ft). It is not clear to me why we as a regulatory agency would even try to circumvent our own rule or how we would try to explain it. It is a different radar sector that runs approachs to runway 9R than to runway 35. In order for the sector that runs approachs to runway 35 to handoff an aircraft to the sector that runs approachs to runway 9R they would have to coordinate a sequence with the controller that just handed off the aircraft to them. In order for the aircraft to see the airport they had to be descended to an altitude below the minimum crossing altitude (1800 ft) for the FAF for runway 9R. There is no way somebody familiar with our operation would not be aware of these things. Winds did not prohibit landing runway 17. It is not clear why we did not run converging approachs to runway 9 and runway 17 since the converging approach was designed for just such WX conditions. Supplemental information from acn 762877: supervisor insisted that controllers initiate vectors that would ultimately result in aircraft being positioned for visual approachs even though the ceiling was less than 500 ft above the MVA. The supervisor stated this was a legal operation because the ATIS did not advertise visual approachs; we were not telling them to expect a visual approach; and that 'we have been doing it that way for 25 yrs.' he also stated that the area manager had been called and he was in agreement that this operation was not in violation of ATP order 7110.65 7-4-2.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PHL CTLRS VOICED CONCERN REGARDING SUPVR DIRECTION TO CONDUCT VISUAL APCHS WHEN WX WAS BELOW MIN LISTED IN ATP 7110.65.

Narrative: OFFICIAL WX AT PHL 10 SM -RA OVC017. WE WERE RUNNING VISUAL APCHS TO RWY 35 EVEN THOUGH THE CEILING WAS LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE THE MVA (1500 FT). IT IS NOT CLR TO ME WHY WE AS A REGULATORY AGENCY WOULD EVEN TRY TO CIRCUMVENT OUR OWN RULE OR HOW WE WOULD TRY TO EXPLAIN IT. IT IS A DIFFERENT RADAR SECTOR THAT RUNS APCHS TO RWY 9R THAN TO RWY 35. IN ORDER FOR THE SECTOR THAT RUNS APCHS TO RWY 35 TO HDOF AN ACFT TO THE SECTOR THAT RUNS APCHS TO RWY 9R THEY WOULD HAVE TO COORDINATE A SEQUENCE WITH THE CTLR THAT JUST HANDED OFF THE ACFT TO THEM. IN ORDER FOR THE ACFT TO SEE THE ARPT THEY HAD TO BE DSNDED TO AN ALT BELOW THE MINIMUM XING ALT (1800 FT) FOR THE FAF FOR RWY 9R. THERE IS NO WAY SOMEBODY FAMILIAR WITH OUR OP WOULD NOT BE AWARE OF THESE THINGS. WINDS DID NOT PROHIBIT LNDG RWY 17. IT IS NOT CLR WHY WE DID NOT RUN CONVERGING APCHS TO RWY 9 AND RWY 17 SINCE THE CONVERGING APCH WAS DESIGNED FOR JUST SUCH WX CONDITIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 762877: SUPVR INSISTED THAT CTLRS INITIATE VECTORS THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN ACFT BEING POSITIONED FOR VISUAL APCHS EVEN THOUGH THE CEILING WAS LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE THE MVA. THE SUPVR STATED THIS WAS A LEGAL OP BECAUSE THE ATIS DID NOT ADVERTISE VISUAL APCHS; WE WERE NOT TELLING THEM TO EXPECT A VISUAL APCH; AND THAT 'WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT THAT WAY FOR 25 YRS.' HE ALSO STATED THAT THE AREA MGR HAD BEEN CALLED AND HE WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS OP WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ATP ORDER 7110.65 7-4-2.

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.