Narrative:

Flight from den to ict in 3/89 when we made a diversion to sln, an airport that is not authority/authorized for use in our airline's operations specifications. The reason we chose to divert to sln, despite having neither authorization nor approach charts for this airport, was due to an unforecast, but extensive development of thunderstorms around and at ict, and a low fuel state that developed in our attempts to locate a suitable arrival path to the airport. Although mci was provided as an alternate in our dispatch, we, after querying center as to the en route thunderstorm situation, decided that we had no way of determining that we could in fact arrive there with safe fuel. Therefore the captain, with my concurrence, elected to land in sln, an airport which he was familiar with, was close and was VFR. I should also mention that 12-15 mins after departure we received a SELCAL from our system control advising us of a tornado watch just issued for central ks. 10 mins later we received another notification from system control alerting us to a SIGMET of the same nature. Several concerns arise in my mind re: these events. First is the preferability of having an accurate forecast re: the possibility of thunderstorms before departure where at all possible. A question exists in my mind as to whether a more accurate indication of the possibility of thunderstorms might have been possible. Earlier. Secondly, I feel that further evolvement of a rapid dissemination system for WX available through center and approach control is desirable, particularly one that provides better information re: open approach corridors.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INFLT WX ENCOUNTER, UNABLE LAND AT PLANNED DESTINATION. LANDED AT UNAUTH ARPT.

Narrative: FLT FROM DEN TO ICT IN 3/89 WHEN WE MADE A DIVERSION TO SLN, AN ARPT THAT IS NOT AUTH FOR USE IN OUR AIRLINE'S OPS SPECS. THE REASON WE CHOSE TO DIVERT TO SLN, DESPITE HAVING NEITHER AUTHORIZATION NOR APCH CHARTS FOR THIS ARPT, WAS DUE TO AN UNFORECAST, BUT EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF TSTMS AROUND AND AT ICT, AND A LOW FUEL STATE THAT DEVELOPED IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO LOCATE A SUITABLE ARR PATH TO THE ARPT. ALTHOUGH MCI WAS PROVIDED AS AN ALTERNATE IN OUR DISPATCH, WE, AFTER QUERYING CENTER AS TO THE ENRTE TSTM SITUATION, DECIDED THAT WE HAD NO WAY OF DETERMINING THAT WE COULD IN FACT ARRIVE THERE WITH SAFE FUEL. THEREFORE THE CAPT, WITH MY CONCURRENCE, ELECTED TO LAND IN SLN, AN ARPT WHICH HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH, WAS CLOSE AND WAS VFR. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT 12-15 MINS AFTER DEP WE RECEIVED A SELCAL FROM OUR SYS CONTROL ADVISING US OF A TORNADO WATCH JUST ISSUED FOR CENTRAL KS. 10 MINS LATER WE RECEIVED ANOTHER NOTIFICATION FROM SYS CTL ALERTING US TO A SIGMET OF THE SAME NATURE. SEVERAL CONCERNS ARISE IN MY MIND RE: THESE EVENTS. FIRST IS THE PREFERABILITY OF HAVING AN ACCURATE FORECAST RE: THE POSSIBILITY OF TSTMS BEFORE DEP WHERE AT ALL POSSIBLE. A QUESTION EXISTS IN MY MIND AS TO WHETHER A MORE ACCURATE INDICATION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF TSTMS MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. EARLIER. SECONDLY, I FEEL THAT FURTHER EVOLVEMENT OF A RAPID DISSEMINATION SYS FOR WX AVAILABLE THROUGH CENTER AND APCH CTL IS DESIRABLE, PARTICULARLY ONE THAT PROVIDES BETTER INFO RE: OPEN APCH CORRIDORS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.