Narrative:

With rapidly deteriorating WX at ewr, we started an approach to ILS 22L ewr. During descent I received ATIS information for 1 1/2 mi visibility. Then next ATIS gave the visibility at 1 mi. On vectors to final approach and descending to 3000', the controller asked us if we had ATIS information. I informed him that I didn't have time to get current ATIS at that point, and asked if he would give us the latest WX observation. He informed us that the ceiling was 300' with visibility at 3/4 mi and 28 RVR for runway 22. At that point I informed the controller that we may be below minimums and to stand by. We dug out and checked the NOTAMS for ewr (no 13/2) which gave an amendment to ILS 22L (DH 265 hat 254 visibility 40 RVR all cats). At this time we asked if all the ILS 22L components were operational, and the controller informed us that all components were indeed operational for ILS 22L. The approach plate for the full ILS was a minimum of 1/2 mi or RVR 18, so we determined that since the ILS was fully operational and the winds favored runway 22 (winds 220 degrees at 8 KTS), we would continue the approach to 22L and use the published minimums on the approach plate. We broke out at 300', saw the approach lights and landed. As we were turning off the runway, we heard tower call 18 RVR to another air carrier who touched down right behind us. We were confused about the notamed 40 RVR and felt others were also, as they too questioned about the approach. In retrospect and looking closer at the NOTAM in daylight the next morning, we wondered whether the 40 RVR may have been controling. The problem lies in the confusing way it was written and our belief the ILS was fully operational with the information we had. This was further compounded by the rapidly deteriorating WX. Controllers should further explain if the ILS is not fully operational which may be the case in this situation, because we found out later there was construction in the area, hence the NOTAM), or know the notamed WX minimums. The NOTAM should clearly state why the change in minimums is in effect, or the approach plate should be changed for the duration of the construction (yellow page, etc).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT CREW QUESTIONS THE LNDG LIMITS AS PUBLISHED ON NOTAMS RELATIVE TO THEIR USE OF APCH PLATE MINIMUMS AND TO THE STATUS OF THE ILS ON THEIR ARR.

Narrative: WITH RAPIDLY DETERIORATING WX AT EWR, WE STARTED AN APCH TO ILS 22L EWR. DURING DSNT I RECEIVED ATIS INFO FOR 1 1/2 MI VISIBILITY. THEN NEXT ATIS GAVE THE VISIBILITY AT 1 MI. ON VECTORS TO FINAL APCH AND DSNDING TO 3000', THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE HAD ATIS INFO. I INFORMED HIM THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET CURRENT ATIS AT THAT POINT, AND ASKED IF HE WOULD GIVE US THE LATEST WX OBSERVATION. HE INFORMED US THAT THE CEILING WAS 300' WITH VISIBILITY AT 3/4 MI AND 28 RVR FOR RWY 22. AT THAT POINT I INFORMED THE CTLR THAT WE MAY BE BELOW MINIMUMS AND TO STAND BY. WE DUG OUT AND CHKED THE NOTAMS FOR EWR (NO 13/2) WHICH GAVE AN AMENDMENT TO ILS 22L (DH 265 HAT 254 VIS 40 RVR ALL CATS). AT THIS TIME WE ASKED IF ALL THE ILS 22L COMPONENTS WERE OPERATIONAL, AND THE CTLR INFORMED US THAT ALL COMPONENTS WERE INDEED OPERATIONAL FOR ILS 22L. THE APCH PLATE FOR THE FULL ILS WAS A MINIMUM OF 1/2 MI OR RVR 18, SO WE DETERMINED THAT SINCE THE ILS WAS FULLY OPERATIONAL AND THE WINDS FAVORED RWY 22 (WINDS 220 DEGS AT 8 KTS), WE WOULD CONTINUE THE APCH TO 22L AND USE THE PUBLISHED MINIMUMS ON THE APCH PLATE. WE BROKE OUT AT 300', SAW THE APCH LIGHTS AND LANDED. AS WE WERE TURNING OFF THE RWY, WE HEARD TWR CALL 18 RVR TO ANOTHER ACR WHO TOUCHED DOWN RIGHT BEHIND US. WE WERE CONFUSED ABOUT THE NOTAMED 40 RVR AND FELT OTHERS WERE ALSO, AS THEY TOO QUESTIONED ABOUT THE APCH. IN RETROSPECT AND LOOKING CLOSER AT THE NOTAM IN DAYLIGHT THE NEXT MORNING, WE WONDERED WHETHER THE 40 RVR MAY HAVE BEEN CTLING. THE PROB LIES IN THE CONFUSING WAY IT WAS WRITTEN AND OUR BELIEF THE ILS WAS FULLY OPERATIONAL WITH THE INFO WE HAD. THIS WAS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY THE RAPIDLY DETERIORATING WX. CTLRS SHOULD FURTHER EXPLAIN IF THE ILS IS NOT FULLY OPERATIONAL WHICH MAY BE THE CASE IN THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT LATER THERE WAS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA, HENCE THE NOTAM), OR KNOW THE NOTAMED WX MINIMUMS. THE NOTAM SHOULD CLEARLY STATE WHY THE CHANGE IN MINIMUMS IS IN EFFECT, OR THE APCH PLATE SHOULD BE CHANGED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION (YELLOW PAGE, ETC).

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.