 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Two instrument pilots aboard a C172 on an instrument time building flight found their home airport below minimums due to low ground fog upon their return. Visibility during their second attempt improved enough for them to land safely although technically illegally.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 929144 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201101 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | EVB.Airport |
| State Reference | FL |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Landing |
| Route In Use | Vectors |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Single Pilot Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Private |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 60 Flight Crew Total 210 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Private Flight Crew Instrument |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 75.2 Flight Crew Total 170 Flight Crew Type 170 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural FAR Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence |
Narrative:
My time-building partner and I were going to evb flying a cessna 172. In our flight planning we didn't see any hazardous weather so it wasn't necessary to file an alternate airport on our IFR flight plan.on the way back to evb approach told us that RNAV runway 29 was in use in new smyrna. We checked the ATIS and the conditions were winds calm; 1/2 mile visibility; and fog. According to this weather report we were not able to shoot the RNAV runway 29 approach because it didn't meet the prescribed weather minimum for that approach (one mile visibility). However; we made the decision to try to shoot it and see if the visibility was greater than reported. When we were vectored from the north to the final approach fix we were able to see the beacon and when we were on the final approach course we realized we had at least 2 1/2 miles of visibility; we could see the PAPI lights from more than 2 miles away but not the runway lights. (The tower was still open at the time.)we continued with the approach and upon reaching the da; the PAPI lights were still clearly visible but the runway lights were still missing so we decided to go down to 100 ft AGL where we found the PAPI lights were still visible; the taxiway lights were visible; the runway was visible; but the runway lights were off. We immediately made a missed approach.we decided to try to do the approach again and if we couldn't make it we were planning to go to sanford. On the final approach course the PAPI lights were again clearly visible from more than 2 miles away. I turned the runway lights to maximum intensity and these were also clearly visible. My partner made a safe landing and we taxied to the ramp without any problem. But now I am in trouble with my flight school because there is no way to prove that we had more than 2 miles of visibility.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Two instrument pilots aboard a C172 on an instrument time building flight found their home airport below minimums due to low ground fog upon their return. Visibility during their second attempt improved enough for them to land safely although technically illegally.
Narrative: My time-building partner and I were going to EVB flying a Cessna 172. In our flight planning we didn't see any hazardous weather so it wasn't necessary to file an alternate airport on our IFR flight plan.On the way back to EVB approach told us that RNAV Runway 29 was in use in New Smyrna. We checked the ATIS and the conditions were winds calm; 1/2 mile visibility; and fog. According to this weather report we were not able to shoot the RNAV Runway 29 approach because it didn't meet the prescribed weather minimum for that approach (one mile visibility). However; we made the decision to try to shoot it and see if the visibility was greater than reported. When we were vectored from the north to the final approach fix we were able to see the beacon and when we were on the final approach course we realized we had at least 2 1/2 miles of visibility; we could see the PAPI lights from more than 2 miles away but not the runway lights. (The Tower was still open at the time.)We continued with the approach and upon reaching the DA; the PAPI lights were still clearly visible but the runway lights were still missing so we decided to go down to 100 FT AGL where we found the PAPI lights were still visible; the taxiway lights were visible; the runway was visible; but the runway lights were off. We immediately made a missed approach.We decided to try to do the approach again and if we couldn't make it we were planning to go to Sanford. On the final approach course the PAPI lights were again clearly visible from more than 2 miles away. I turned the runway lights to maximum intensity and these were also clearly visible. My partner made a safe landing and we taxied to the ramp without any problem. But now I am in trouble with my flight school because there is no way to prove that we had more than 2 miles of visibility.
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.