Narrative:

Mia reported 7 mi visibility. Looking west into sun and haze layer, actual visibility was bout 1 mi. Mia using runway 30. Due weight plus 10 hour leg, requested ILS 27L. Mia questioned request, asked if couldn't land on 30. We said 27L preferable. Given 27L, but approach controller vectored in at 2000 ft MSL and did not clear for approach. (Wanted us to call airport in sight.) on second approach, again asked if saw airport after 5 mi, 90 degree vector to final at 2000 ft. We looked, but couldn't locate due restr visibility to west. We couldn't descend as not clear for approach. As we started to advise approach, the controller came on very agitated as if we were ignoring him. We wouldn't call the field in sight when he figured we saw the airport. Specifically runway 27L ILS and on third approach saw field at about 2/3 mi and 1000 ft. By this time sun had gone down and visibility improved. Problem is tower reported visibility of 7 mi was their visibility, not ours looking west into sun and approach assumed we could see airport at 5 mi, at 2000 ft. All we needed was requested 27L ILS on first approach and there would have been no problem. Too many towers want to operate VFR so they can turn you loose as soon as possible, rather than work you in with proper spacing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR WDB MISSED 2 VISUAL APCHS TO MIA BECAUSE FLT VISIBILITY REDUCED BY SUN POS.

Narrative: MIA RPTED 7 MI VISIBILITY. LOOKING W INTO SUN AND HAZE LAYER, ACTUAL VISIBILITY WAS BOUT 1 MI. MIA USING RWY 30. DUE WT PLUS 10 HR LEG, REQUESTED ILS 27L. MIA QUESTIONED REQUEST, ASKED IF COULDN'T LAND ON 30. WE SAID 27L PREFERABLE. GIVEN 27L, BUT APCH CTLR VECTORED IN AT 2000 FT MSL AND DID NOT CLR FOR APCH. (WANTED US TO CALL ARPT IN SIGHT.) ON SECOND APCH, AGAIN ASKED IF SAW ARPT AFTER 5 MI, 90 DEG VECTOR TO FINAL AT 2000 FT. WE LOOKED, BUT COULDN'T LOCATE DUE RESTR VISIBILITY TO W. WE COULDN'T DSND AS NOT CLR FOR APCH. AS WE STARTED TO ADVISE APCH, THE CTLR CAME ON VERY AGITATED AS IF WE WERE IGNORING HIM. WE WOULDN'T CALL THE FIELD IN SIGHT WHEN HE FIGURED WE SAW THE ARPT. SPECIFICALLY RWY 27L ILS AND ON THIRD APCH SAW FIELD AT ABOUT 2/3 MI AND 1000 FT. BY THIS TIME SUN HAD GONE DOWN AND VISIBILITY IMPROVED. PROBLEM IS TWR RPTED VISIBILITY OF 7 MI WAS THEIR VISIBILITY, NOT OURS LOOKING W INTO SUN AND APCH ASSUMED WE COULD SEE ARPT AT 5 MI, AT 2000 FT. ALL WE NEEDED WAS REQUESTED 27L ILS ON FIRST APCH AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM. TOO MANY TWRS WANT TO OPERATE VFR SO THEY CAN TURN YOU LOOSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, RATHER THAN WORK YOU IN WITH PROPER SPACING.

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.