Narrative:

I was flying as first officer and check airman in an mdt while giving a line check to another check airman with our airline's poi on the jumpseat. The flight was the first scheduled for our airline under a wet lease agreement with another airline. The flight was between mem and mgm. Neither of us had been to mgm before. We were cleared for the ILS runway 27 at mgm via the transition route from the VOR to the OM by ZTL. The area was full of thunderstorms, lightning, turbulence, and heavy rain. The pilot flying and receiving the check said he saw the airport at the OM and turned toward the airport. I requested a visual approach from mgm tower and was cleared. A few seconds later the tower reported visibility going down rapidly and we lost the airport prior to reaching the map. The pilot flying elected to pull up to the VOR and rather than pull up to the missed approach altitude he went to the MSA which was 3000'. The missed approach altitude was 2000'. When we were turned over to center, he had to climb an air carrier jet to 4000' who was being vectored for the ILS at 3000'. There was no indication of an imminent traffic conflict. When asked why he went to the MSA rather than the missed approach altitude, the pilot said that the missed approach altitude is only safe from the map to the holding fix, and since he was in minimum visibility conditions over unfamiliar terrain, he felt that the MSA was a safer altitude. This however put us in conflict with air carrier. There should be clarification as to the course of action a pilot should take in a non radar environment when severe WX will not allow the pilot to continue an approach to the map.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW WERE UNABLE TO COMPLETE VISUAL APCH BECAUSE OD DETERIORATING WX CONDITIONS.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AS F/O AND CHECK AIRMAN IN AN MDT WHILE GIVING A LINE CHECK TO ANOTHER CHECK AIRMAN WITH OUR AIRLINE'S POI ON THE JUMPSEAT. THE FLT WAS THE FIRST SCHEDULED FOR OUR AIRLINE UNDER A WET LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER AIRLINE. THE FLT WAS BETWEEN MEM AND MGM. NEITHER OF US HAD BEEN TO MGM BEFORE. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 27 AT MGM VIA THE TRANSITION ROUTE FROM THE VOR TO THE OM BY ZTL. THE AREA WAS FULL OF TSTMS, LIGHTNING, TURBULENCE, AND HEAVY RAIN. THE PLT FLYING AND RECEIVING THE CHECK SAID HE SAW THE ARPT AT THE OM AND TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT. I REQUESTED A VISUAL APCH FROM MGM TWR AND WAS CLRED. A FEW SECONDS LATER THE TWR REPORTED VISIBILITY GOING DOWN RAPIDLY AND WE LOST THE ARPT PRIOR TO REACHING THE MAP. THE PLT FLYING ELECTED TO PULL UP TO THE VOR AND RATHER THAN PULL UP TO THE MISSED APCH ALT HE WENT TO THE MSA WHICH WAS 3000'. THE MISSED APCH ALT WAS 2000'. WHEN WE WERE TURNED OVER TO CENTER, HE HAD TO CLIMB AN ACR JET TO 4000' WHO WAS BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS AT 3000'. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF AN IMMINENT TFC CONFLICT. WHEN ASKED WHY HE WENT TO THE MSA RATHER THAN THE MISSED APCH ALT, THE PLT SAID THAT THE MISSED APCH ALT IS ONLY SAFE FROM THE MAP TO THE HOLDING FIX, AND SINCE HE WAS IN MINIMUM VISIBILITY CONDITIONS OVER UNFAMILIAR TERRAIN, HE FELT THAT THE MSA WAS A SAFER ALT. THIS HOWEVER PUT US IN CONFLICT WITH ACR. THERE SHOULD BE CLARIFICATION AS TO THE COURSE OF ACTION A PLT SHOULD TAKE IN A NON RADAR ENVIRONMENT WHEN SEVERE WX WILL NOT ALLOW THE PLT TO CONTINUE AN APCH TO THE MAP.

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.