Air carrier inbound to ewr voiced concern regarding the lack of RVR information being provided by th...

Attributes
ACN	817530
Time
Date	200812
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ewr.airport
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	msl single value : 30000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zny.artcc tower : zzz.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 280 flight time type : 3700
ASRS Report	817530
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance ATC Human Performance Environmental Factor Weather
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

ATIS at ewr had been reporting 1/8 miles; 200-300 ft overcast. Prior to descent we asked if they were flying approaches because weather appeared below minimums. We asked center to verify the actual weather that let approaches continue. We said based on ATIS the field was below our minimums. No RVR was reported on ATIS. The controller did not help; only stated it if it below your minimums we will have to hold you. Based on far/aim us 7-1-33; the tower is required to report RVR when it is below 6;000 ft. This is a trap because even when weather on ATIS is reported below minimums; we have to descend and wait until we are turned over to tower in order to see if we're legal for approach. This is too late in the approach phase. On this particular approach; the first officer had to request the weather information just prior to FAF to confirm our legality. We received extremely poor ATC service during this flight. There should be some mention either by center if asked or some mention on ATIS as to RVR to give us a better understanding to field conditions. I understand why a constant RVR update cannot be made on ATIS.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier inbound to EWR voiced concern regarding the lack of RVR information being provided by the ZNY controller; alleging subject information is necessary prior to being transferred to the Approach Controller.

Narrative: ATIS at EWR had been reporting 1/8 miles; 200-300 FT overcast. Prior to descent we asked if they were flying approaches because weather appeared below minimums. We asked Center to verify the actual weather that let approaches continue. We said based on ATIS the field was below our minimums. No RVR was reported on ATIS. The Controller did not help; only stated it if it below your minimums we will have to hold you. Based on FAR/AIM US 7-1-33; the Tower is required to report RVR when it is below 6;000 FT. This is a trap because even when weather on ATIS is reported below minimums; we have to descend and wait until we are turned over to Tower in order to see if we're legal for approach. This is too late in the approach phase. On this particular approach; the First Officer had to request the weather information just prior to FAF to confirm our legality. We received extremely poor ATC service during this flight. There should be some mention either by Center if asked or some mention on ATIS as to RVR to give us a better understanding to field conditions. I understand why a constant RVR update cannot be made on ATIS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.

Air carrier inbound to ewr voiced concern regarding the lack of RVR information being provided by the ZNY controller; alleging subject information is necessary prior to being transferred to the approach controller.