Narrative:

Flight day-tri arrived in tri-cities area approximately 10 min prior to tower/approach control opening. Flight departed with 21,500 pounds of fuel with an estimated en route burn of 7500 pounds and arrival gross weight right at maximum landing weight of 142,500 pounds. Forecast WX was for few scattered layers around 3000' and visibility 2 or 3 in fog/haze. ATIS and atlanta center reported comparable conditions. Atlanta center cleared flight for an ILS 23 at tri. A full procedure turn approach from the LOM was begun. Being close to tower opening we switched to tower during procedure turn inbound and ILS intercept. Tower reported touchdown RVR at 1000 and rollout RVR at 4000. I immediately abandoned the approach and requested an ILS to runway 5. During the straight ahead vector, the airport was sighted below us with the northeast half covered with fog and the sun portion clear. A quick change of approach charts with frequencys and DH adjustments was made. Shortly after intercepting the localizer tower reported RVR runway 5 at 1000. We had runway 5 in sight and reported same to tower who cleared us to land. A normal landing proceeded without ever going IMC until about 2000' down runway 5, when we entered the fog bank. Due to the extensive amount of low altitude maneuvering actual fuel burn was over 10,000 pounds. In retrospect to ensure complying with all approach criteria I should have diverted to tys as an alternate (similar forecast at tri) rather than race the fog to runway 5 at tri. The lower than comfortable fuel state strongly influenced me to complete what I felt was a safe comfortable ILS/visual approach to runway 5 at tri, even though I was not legally established on the final segment of the approach and tower reported it below mins. An uneventful divert to tys would have concluded with about 6000 pounds fuel remaining (below my comfort level). My concerns about how I got set up in a foggy environment with min fuel is in how the WX is reported. Had ATIS or atlanta center reported what the tower had been able to, we would not have dirtied up and wasted fuel and time setting up for an impossible approach to runway 23. My major judgement error was in electing a second approach when the trip began with min required fuel. Why do ATC facs give clrncs to do illegal apches or lndgs? If it is illegal for a pilot to continue an approach it should be illegal/unsafe for ATC to clear us for the same. It is and was apparent to me that the upwind of the 2 transmissometers for runways touchdown was in the fog. If the runway was not in sight when tower called the RVR at 1000, I would have taken my 11,000 pounds of fuel and diverted to tys.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A COMBINATION OF POOR WX FORECAST AND SCHEDULE PRESSURE LEADS FLT CREW INTO LNDG WITH LESS THAN COMFORTABLE FUEL RESERVES AND BELOW MINIMUM LIMITS FOR LNDG.

Narrative: FLT DAY-TRI ARRIVED IN TRI-CITIES AREA APPROX 10 MIN PRIOR TO TWR/APCH CTL OPENING. FLT DEPARTED WITH 21,500 LBS OF FUEL WITH AN ESTIMATED ENRTE BURN OF 7500 LBS AND ARRIVAL GROSS WEIGHT RIGHT AT MAX LNDG WEIGHT OF 142,500 LBS. FORECAST WX WAS FOR FEW SCATTERED LAYERS AROUND 3000' AND VISIBILITY 2 OR 3 IN FOG/HAZE. ATIS AND ATLANTA CENTER REPORTED COMPARABLE CONDITIONS. ATLANTA CENTER CLRED FLT FOR AN ILS 23 AT TRI. A FULL PROC TURN APCH FROM THE LOM WAS BEGUN. BEING CLOSE TO TWR OPENING WE SWITCHED TO TWR DURING PROC TURN INBND AND ILS INTERCEPT. TWR REPORTED TOUCHDOWN RVR AT 1000 AND ROLLOUT RVR AT 4000. I IMMEDIATELY ABANDONED THE APCH AND REQUESTED AN ILS TO RWY 5. DURING THE STRAIGHT AHEAD VECTOR, THE ARPT WAS SIGHTED BELOW US WITH THE NE HALF COVERED WITH FOG AND THE SUN PORTION CLEAR. A QUICK CHANGE OF APCH CHARTS WITH FREQS AND DH ADJUSTMENTS WAS MADE. SHORTLY AFTER INTERCEPTING THE LOC TWR REPORTED RVR RWY 5 AT 1000. WE HAD RWY 5 IN SIGHT AND REPORTED SAME TO TWR WHO CLRED US TO LAND. A NORMAL LNDG PROCEEDED WITHOUT EVER GOING IMC UNTIL ABOUT 2000' DOWN RWY 5, WHEN WE ENTERED THE FOG BANK. DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF LOW ALT MANEUVERING ACTUAL FUEL BURN WAS OVER 10,000 LBS. IN RETROSPECT TO ENSURE COMPLYING WITH ALL APCH CRITERIA I SHOULD HAVE DIVERTED TO TYS AS AN ALTERNATE (SIMILAR FORECAST AT TRI) RATHER THAN RACE THE FOG TO RWY 5 AT TRI. THE LOWER THAN COMFORTABLE FUEL STATE STRONGLY INFLUENCED ME TO COMPLETE WHAT I FELT WAS A SAFE COMFORTABLE ILS/VISUAL APCH TO RWY 5 AT TRI, EVEN THOUGH I WAS NOT LEGALLY ESTABLISHED ON THE FINAL SEGMENT OF THE APCH AND TWR REPORTED IT BELOW MINS. AN UNEVENTFUL DIVERT TO TYS WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED WITH ABOUT 6000 LBS FUEL REMAINING (BELOW MY COMFORT LEVEL). MY CONCERNS ABOUT HOW I GOT SET UP IN A FOGGY ENVIRONMENT WITH MIN FUEL IS IN HOW THE WX IS REPORTED. HAD ATIS OR ATLANTA CENTER REPORTED WHAT THE TWR HAD BEEN ABLE TO, WE WOULD NOT HAVE DIRTIED UP AND WASTED FUEL AND TIME SETTING UP FOR AN IMPOSSIBLE APCH TO RWY 23. MY MAJOR JUDGEMENT ERROR WAS IN ELECTING A SECOND APCH WHEN THE TRIP BEGAN WITH MIN REQUIRED FUEL. WHY DO ATC FACS GIVE CLRNCS TO DO ILLEGAL APCHES OR LNDGS? IF IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A PLT TO CONTINUE AN APCH IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL/UNSAFE FOR ATC TO CLEAR US FOR THE SAME. IT IS AND WAS APPARENT TO ME THAT THE UPWIND OF THE 2 TRANSMISSOMETERS FOR RWYS TOUCHDOWN WAS IN THE FOG. IF THE RWY WAS NOT IN SIGHT WHEN TWR CALLED THE RVR AT 1000, I WOULD HAVE TAKEN MY 11,000 LBS OF FUEL AND DIVERTED TO TYS.

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.