Narrative:

We arrived in bdl and they were landing runway 6. The weather was clear; visibility unrestricted; it was dark/night conditions and the winds light/variable. We briefed the visual approach and backed it up by the ILS. ATC assigned us direct to the runway 6 FAF (hunny). However; we could not get a visual on the field. The approach controller asked us if we were visual on at least two occasions; and we said we were not. I checked the airfield diagram to locate the beacon on the airport; and confirmed the beacon was operating with ATC (he said it was). I had the ILS frequency on my side; and my first officer tuned to the airfield VOR (bdl). We had good reception on both. Our arrival track to the FAF was from about twenty-five degrees right of centerline. The final altitude assignment was 2500 ft MSL (FAF altitude is 1800 ft MSL). About one mile from hunny; we picked up the runway lights and they were much closer than I'd been looking. After requesting and getting permission to 's' turn to help us descend to the normal glide path; and after one turn across final; I determined that we could not meet the stable approach criteria and abandoned the approach. We were vectored for a second approach (still hard to see the airport/runway until nearly aligned); and made a normal visual approach and landing. Approaching FAF 'hunny' there were two problems: 1) environmental and 2) approach control. We did not see the runway or airport until it was too late to safely continue the approach. The approach lighting was not turned on; and the beacon was 'buried' in a large number of bright yellow lights which illuminate the cargo ramps on the same side as the beacon. In fact; I did not see the beacon until the very short final. Bradley field effectively has no usable beacon if arriving from the south. That; plus no approach lighting in use; made a visual runway pick-up nearly impossible; unless you know which crowd of bright lights on the horizon belongs to the airport (and there are several; I discovered I'd been looking at a group of lights several miles further away than the actual airfield; when my first officer picked up the runway). ATC needs to inspect the beacon for night visual pick-up from the south; further; the airport folks need to illuminate approach lighting to aid visual pick-up further from the airport. We used the guides we had available in the cockpit. I crosschecked the number two RMI bearing pointer and DME. What I should have done was slow and configure sooner (I was only to flaps 5 and 190 KTS when we picked up the runway at about one mile from hunny; at 2500 ft MSL). However; given our altitude and distance to the runway at visual pick-up; the descent to normal glide path would have initially been quite steep. If I'd had some visual cues to go by sooner; I think I'd have gotten configured and on path successfully. The other problem was ATC. We were descended from 4000 MSL to 2500 MSL; and queried twice as to whether we had a visual on the field. We replied negative both times; and had asked if the beacon was operating as well. All of those should have cued the controller that we needed to transition to an ILS approach; I think. My experience has been that if not visual by a certain point; then vectors to the instrument final are given. That didn't happen. Looking back; I think I was waiting for the controller to pick up on our lack of a visual; and set us up for the instrument approach. I was thus lulled into a false sense of security (allowed myself to drop DME from my crosscheck; and didn't realize just how close I was to the FAF without being configured and slowed). I don't think the controller did anything incorrectly; but the combination of a lack of lighting; late visual pick-up; not interpreting DME cues; and no help from ATC put us in a position from which we couldn't continue the approach. Bdl needs to relocate its beacon; turn on approach lights at night; even when cavu; and be prepared to assign vectors to an instrument approach if pilots do not visually acquire the airport. Good on us for not trying to salvage a bad approach; but we should have used DME cues to get the airplane configured sooner. Mark the last one up to being used to the situational awareness-building picture you get in the glass cockpit navigation display; and past experience with ATC being more proactive than what we experienced last night.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier Captain executed a go-around approaching BDL on a night visual approach to Runway 6 because the airport was not detected in the surrounding lights until the aircraft was on short final and not in a position to land.

Narrative: We arrived in BDL and they were landing Runway 6. The weather was clear; visibility unrestricted; it was dark/night conditions and the winds light/variable. We briefed the visual approach and backed it up by the ILS. ATC assigned us direct to the Runway 6 FAF (HUNNY). However; we could not get a visual on the field. The Approach Controller asked us if we were visual on at least two occasions; and we said we were not. I checked the airfield diagram to locate the beacon on the airport; and confirmed the beacon was operating with ATC (he said it was). I had the ILS frequency on my side; and my First Officer tuned to the airfield VOR (BDL). We had good reception on both. Our arrival track to the FAF was from about twenty-five degrees right of centerline. The final altitude assignment was 2500 FT MSL (FAF altitude is 1800 FT MSL). About one mile from HUNNY; we picked up the runway lights and they were much closer than I'd been looking. After requesting and getting permission to 's' turn to help us descend to the normal glide path; and after one turn across final; I determined that we could not meet the stable approach criteria and abandoned the approach. We were vectored for a second approach (still hard to see the airport/runway until nearly aligned); and made a normal visual approach and landing. Approaching FAF 'HUNNY' there were two problems: 1) environmental and 2) Approach Control. We did not see the runway or airport until it was too late to safely continue the approach. The approach lighting was not turned on; and the beacon was 'buried' in a large number of bright yellow lights which illuminate the cargo ramps on the same side as the beacon. In fact; I did not see the beacon until the very short final. Bradley Field effectively has no usable beacon if arriving from the south. That; plus no approach lighting in use; made a visual runway pick-up nearly impossible; unless you know which crowd of bright lights on the horizon belongs to the airport (and there are several; I discovered I'd been looking at a group of lights several miles further away than the actual airfield; when my First Officer picked up the runway). ATC needs to inspect the beacon for night visual pick-up from the south; further; the airport folks need to illuminate approach lighting to aid visual pick-up further from the airport. We used the guides we had available in the cockpit. I crosschecked the number two RMI bearing pointer and DME. What I should have done was slow and configure sooner (I was only to flaps 5 and 190 KTS when we picked up the runway at about one mile from HUNNY; at 2500 FT MSL). However; given our altitude and distance to the runway at visual pick-up; the descent to normal glide path would have initially been quite steep. If I'd had some visual cues to go by sooner; I think I'd have gotten configured and on path successfully. The other problem was ATC. We were descended from 4000 MSL to 2500 MSL; and queried twice as to whether we had a visual on the field. We replied negative both times; and had asked if the beacon was operating as well. All of those should have cued the Controller that we needed to transition to an ILS approach; I think. My experience has been that if not visual by a certain point; then vectors to the instrument final are given. That didn't happen. Looking back; I think I was waiting for the Controller to pick up on our lack of a visual; and set us up for the instrument approach. I was thus lulled into a false sense of security (allowed myself to drop DME from my crosscheck; and didn't realize just how close I was to the FAF without being configured and slowed). I don't think the Controller did anything incorrectly; but the combination of a lack of lighting; late visual pick-up; not interpreting DME cues; and no help from ATC put us in a position from which we couldn't continue the approach. BDL needs to relocate its beacon; turn on approach lights at night; even when CAVU; and be prepared to assign vectors to an instrument approach if pilots do not visually acquire the airport. Good on us for not trying to salvage a bad approach; but we should have used DME cues to get the airplane configured sooner. Mark the last one up to being used to the situational awareness-building picture you get in the glass cockpit NAV display; and past experience with ATC being more proactive than what we experienced last night.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.