Narrative:

We were descending into abe for landing and were informed that we would be getting vectors for a visibility approach to runway 24 at abe. Approximately 7 mi northeast of abe we were turned toward the airport and cleared to descend to 2000'. Approach asked us if we had the airport in sight. We replied that we were looking into the sun and could not see anything. Another aircraft made the same remark to approach control. At 5 mi northeast we were turned to a 200 degree heading and asked if we saw the airport. The reply was negative. The combination of a setting sun and a layer of smoke below us made visibility very poor on the ground below us. The next transmission from ATC informed us that we were 3 mi northeast did we see the airport. We replied no we could not see anything. Right after the reply I saw the runway approximately 1 mi to our right at about a 40 degree angle to the runway and at 2000'. ATC instructed us to turn right to 090 degree and climb to 2500. We acknowledged. Before we started climbing ATC called traffic at 12 O'clock and 2000' climb immediately to 2500' and turn to 090 degree. We complied and they informed us they were going to vector us out for a visibility to runway 24. We replied negative we can not see enough to accept a visibility, and requested a localizer B/C approach to runway 24. We were vectored for the instrument approach and made a successful landing. I believe ATC should not insist on visibility approachs when visibility in-flight is reported as being not favorable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT ACCEPTED VECTORS FOR A VISUAL APCH WHEN FLT VISIBILITY PREVENTED THEM FROM SEEING THE ARPT. ON GAR THEY WERE VECTORED AWAY FROM CONFLICTING TRAFFIC.

Narrative: WE WERE DSNDING INTO ABE FOR LNDG AND WERE INFORMED THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING VECTORS FOR A VIS APCH TO RWY 24 AT ABE. APPROX 7 MI NE OF ABE WE WERE TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT AND CLRED TO DSND TO 2000'. APCH ASKED US IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE LOOKING INTO THE SUN AND COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING. ANOTHER ACFT MADE THE SAME REMARK TO APCH CTL. AT 5 MI NE WE WERE TURNED TO A 200 DEG HDG AND ASKED IF WE SAW THE ARPT. THE REPLY WAS NEGATIVE. THE COMBINATION OF A SETTING SUN AND A LAYER OF SMOKE BELOW US MADE VISIBILITY VERY POOR ON THE GND BELOW US. THE NEXT XMISSION FROM ATC INFORMED US THAT WE WERE 3 MI NE DID WE SEE THE ARPT. WE REPLIED NO WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING. R AFTER THE REPLY I SAW THE RWY APPROX 1 MI TO OUR R AT ABOUT A 40 DEG ANGLE TO THE RWY AND AT 2000'. ATC INSTRUCTED US TO TURN R TO 090 DEG AND CLB TO 2500. WE ACKNOWLEDGED. BEFORE WE STARTED CLBING ATC CALLED TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK AND 2000' CLB IMMEDIATELY TO 2500' AND TURN TO 090 DEG. WE COMPLIED AND THEY INFORMED US THEY WERE GOING TO VECTOR US OUT FOR A VIS TO RWY 24. WE REPLIED NEGATIVE WE CAN NOT SEE ENOUGH TO ACCEPT A VIS, AND REQUESTED A LOC B/C APCH TO RWY 24. WE WERE VECTORED FOR THE INSTRUMENT APCH AND MADE A SUCCESSFUL LNDG. I BELIEVE ATC SHOULD NOT INSIST ON VIS APCHS WHEN VISIBILITY INFLT IS RPTED AS BEING NOT FAVORABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.