 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
The pilot of a light twin engine aircraft reported an approach and landing in deteriorating conditions that may have taken place below approach minimums.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1327806 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201601 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | EVB.Airport |
| State Reference | FL |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft Low Wing 2 Eng Retractable Gear |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Other RNAV 7 |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Instructor |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Instrument |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50 Flight Crew Total 1700 Flight Crew Type 50 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural FAR Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue |
Narrative:
Training cross country flight from evb [up north and back to] evb. During planning; forecast ceiling in evb was to be 700 feet according to available resources and pilot reports. Flight north uneventful; but took a little longer than expected. We departed evb with 3.5 hours worth of fuel at planned performance. On the return leg; the headwind was stronger than expected; and over daytona we had approximately 1 hour of total fuel remaining. Reported weather in evb was 700 feet overcast according to the AWOS. We asked dab for direct routing due to fuel concerns; but did not declare minimum fuel because the weather was reporting above minimums in evb. At the FAF we were told to switch to tower and upon calling them they said that 'the ceiling is 400 feet'. The minimums for the approach are 440; but it was unclear if it was a pilot report; or AWOS reading. Another aircraft had attempted the RNAV 2 previously so I assumed that it was a pilot report from that aircraft to the south. Tower also said that conditions to the south of us were worse; implying that the ceiling on our approach (runway 7) could be better. We continued the approach with autopilot and at 440 I noted what I believed to be the runway threshold. I also could see the PAPI. This was at 1.5 NM which puts us above the required visibility of 1 NM. So I continued the approach below minimums having the runway threshold and PAPI in sight. As I got to ~400 feet I saw that what I thought was the threshold was actually the road in front of the runway; but at that time I could see the full runway and was below the ceiling. We continued straight in for 7 and landed without incident. A combination of assumptions about weather and fuel caused us to try and force the approach in marginal conditions. That and the reported AWOS ceiling of 700 feet gave us reason to expect success on the approach. Conditions continued to deteriorate after landing and I realized that the ceiling was likely dropping throughout the approach.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: The pilot of a light twin engine aircraft reported an approach and landing in deteriorating conditions that may have taken place below approach minimums.
Narrative: Training cross country flight from EVB [up north and back to] EVB. During planning; forecast ceiling in EVB was to be 700 feet according to available resources and pilot reports. Flight north uneventful; but took a little longer than expected. We departed EVB with 3.5 hours worth of fuel at planned performance. On the return leg; the headwind was stronger than expected; and over Daytona we had approximately 1 hour of total fuel remaining. Reported weather in EVB was 700 feet overcast according to the AWOS. We asked DAB for direct routing due to fuel concerns; but did not declare minimum fuel because the weather was reporting above minimums in EVB. At the FAF we were told to switch to Tower and upon calling them they said that 'the ceiling is 400 feet'. The minimums for the approach are 440; but it was unclear if it was a pilot report; or AWOS reading. Another aircraft had attempted the RNAV 2 previously so I assumed that it was a pilot report from that aircraft to the south. Tower also said that conditions to the south of us were worse; implying that the ceiling on our approach (Runway 7) could be better. We continued the approach with autopilot and at 440 I noted what I believed to be the runway threshold. I also could see the PAPI. This was at 1.5 NM which puts us above the required visibility of 1 NM. So I continued the approach below minimums having the runway threshold and PAPI in sight. As I got to ~400 feet I saw that what I thought was the threshold was actually the road in front of the runway; but at that time I could see the full runway and was below the ceiling. We continued straight in for 7 and landed without incident. A combination of assumptions about weather and fuel caused us to try and force the approach in marginal conditions. That and the reported AWOS ceiling of 700 feet gave us reason to expect success on the approach. Conditions continued to deteriorate after landing and I realized that the ceiling was likely dropping throughout the approach.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.