Narrative:

According to canadian air traffic rules, an INS approach is authority/authorized whenever 'RVR for the runway is reported fluctuating above and below minima, regardless of reported ground visibility.' us far's do not provide pilots with the flexibility to commence an approach legally under similar situations. If the RVR is above the minima, fine, commence the approach; if not, do not. On the day in question (1/91), stl was experiencing fluctuating RVR above and below published minima. As a matter of fact, the RVR values differed significantly between the 2 INS runways in operation that morning, 30R and 30L. Compounding the difficult situation was an aircraft that got stuck in the show closing 30R, and rollout aircraft that were 'lost' in regards to their ability to clear the runway, which was not in view to the tower personnel. Approximately every other approach was resulting in a missed approach. About 30 mins was spent maneuvering for sequencing for the approach to 30R. My RVR requirement was 1800'. As I approached reley at 2100', approach informed me that the RVR was 1600', yet told me to continue the approach as the RVR was fluctuating. Rather than do that, elected to discontinue the approach and return to the lineup. At that time, approach also asked me to climb back up to 3000' and break off the approach because the aircraft ahead of me got 'lost' on the runway. The next approach was successful since the RVR was at 2700' RVR, until we were passing at 1300' MSL, when the RVR went to 1400'. We spotted the runway at minimums and made a successful landing. My question is: why did approach control try to talk me into commencing an illegal approach? Or, why can't we have the same flexibility afforded the canadians re: fluctuating RVR?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A NON U.S. PIC COMPLAINS ABOUT THE LACK OF FLEXIBILITY OF FEDERAL AVIATION REGS REGARDING FLUCTUATING RVR AND NOT BEING LEGAL TO START THE IAP ILS APCH WHEN THE RVR WAS REPORTED LESS THAN REQUIRED WHEN OUTSIDE THE FAF. APCH CTLR HAD ADVISED HIM TO CONTINUE.

Narrative: ACCORDING TO CANADIAN AIR TFC RULES, AN INS APCH IS AUTH WHENEVER 'RVR FOR THE RWY IS RPTED FLUCTUATING ABOVE AND BELOW MINIMA, REGARDLESS OF RPTED GND VISIBILITY.' U.S. FAR'S DO NOT PROVIDE PLTS WITH THE FLEXIBILITY TO COMMENCE AN APCH LEGALLY UNDER SIMILAR SITUATIONS. IF THE RVR IS ABOVE THE MINIMA, FINE, COMMENCE THE APCH; IF NOT, DO NOT. ON THE DAY IN QUESTION (1/91), STL WAS EXPERIENCING FLUCTUATING RVR ABOVE AND BELOW PUBLISHED MINIMA. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE RVR VALUES DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY BTWN THE 2 INS RWYS IN OPERATION THAT MORNING, 30R AND 30L. COMPOUNDING THE DIFFICULT SITUATION WAS AN ACFT THAT GOT STUCK IN THE SHOW CLOSING 30R, AND ROLLOUT ACFT THAT WERE 'LOST' IN REGARDS TO THEIR ABILITY TO CLR THE RWY, WHICH WAS NOT IN VIEW TO THE TWR PERSONNEL. APPROX EVERY OTHER APCH WAS RESULTING IN A MISSED APCH. ABOUT 30 MINS WAS SPENT MANEUVERING FOR SEQUENCING FOR THE APCH TO 30R. MY RVR REQUIREMENT WAS 1800'. AS I APCHED RELEY AT 2100', APCH INFORMED ME THAT THE RVR WAS 1600', YET TOLD ME TO CONTINUE THE APCH AS THE RVR WAS FLUCTUATING. RATHER THAN DO THAT, ELECTED TO DISCONTINUE THE APCH AND RETURN TO THE LINEUP. AT THAT TIME, APCH ALSO ASKED ME TO CLB BACK UP TO 3000' AND BREAK OFF THE APCH BECAUSE THE ACFT AHEAD OF ME GOT 'LOST' ON THE RWY. THE NEXT APCH WAS SUCCESSFUL SINCE THE RVR WAS AT 2700' RVR, UNTIL WE WERE PASSING AT 1300' MSL, WHEN THE RVR WENT TO 1400'. WE SPOTTED THE RWY AT MINIMUMS AND MADE A SUCCESSFUL LNDG. MY QUESTION IS: WHY DID APCH CTL TRY TO TALK ME INTO COMMENCING AN ILLEGAL APCH? OR, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THE SAME FLEXIBILITY AFFORDED THE CANADIANS RE: FLUCTUATING RVR?

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.