Narrative:

It was an uneventful flight from kansai, japan (rjbb), until about 20 mi from our planned landing at singapore seletar airport (wssl). (This is singapore's GA airport, with no published IFR approachs.) at about 20 mi from landing, singapore control informed us that wssl was IMC (IFR). This surprised me, because I could see the geographical layout (bays and islands) right where the airport was located. Our flight visibility was unlimited with no ceiling. I told singapore control we were VFR and would continue. At no time did singapore control indicate we could not continue toward our destination. Singapore control switched us to singapore tower about 8 mi from landing, where they said they were IMC, I told them we were VFR and looking at the field (airport). When we informed the tower of this, they told us to turn right for a left downwind entry to runway 3. As we entered a left downwind, I could see a low scattered layer of scud on the south side of the airport. As I turned base, looking toward the sun, the scud had obscured the final approach path to runway 3. I told the tower this wouldn't work. I made a go around and the tower gave me vectors and I made a normal landing on runway 21, maintaining VFR always. I called the tower on the phone to clear up any questions or problems, and they did not seem to indicate there were any. However, if at any time singapore radio or tower did not want us to continue the flight into wssl, they should have said unable landing, say intentions, or give us holding instructions. The ICAO needs to work towards more standardized international aviation vocabulary.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WHEN APCHING THE ARPT, FLC SAW IT VISUALLY, BUT ATC ADVISED THE ARPT WAS IMC. FLC TOLD TWR THEY COULD LAND VFR, WHICH WAS APPROVED. LOW CLOUDS ON APCH REQUIRED A GAR. FLC THEN LANDED VISUALLY ON RECIPROCAL RWY.

Narrative: IT WAS AN UNEVENTFUL FLT FROM KANSAI, JAPAN (RJBB), UNTIL ABOUT 20 MI FROM OUR PLANNED LNDG AT SINGAPORE SELETAR ARPT (WSSL). (THIS IS SINGAPORE'S GA ARPT, WITH NO PUBLISHED IFR APCHS.) AT ABOUT 20 MI FROM LNDG, SINGAPORE CTL INFORMED US THAT WSSL WAS IMC (IFR). THIS SURPRISED ME, BECAUSE I COULD SEE THE GEOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT (BAYS AND ISLANDS) RIGHT WHERE THE ARPT WAS LOCATED. OUR FLT VISIBILITY WAS UNLIMITED WITH NO CEILING. I TOLD SINGAPORE CTL WE WERE VFR AND WOULD CONTINUE. AT NO TIME DID SINGAPORE CTL INDICATE WE COULD NOT CONTINUE TOWARD OUR DEST. SINGAPORE CTL SWITCHED US TO SINGAPORE TWR ABOUT 8 MI FROM LNDG, WHERE THEY SAID THEY WERE IMC, I TOLD THEM WE WERE VFR AND LOOKING AT THE FIELD (ARPT). WHEN WE INFORMED THE TWR OF THIS, THEY TOLD US TO TURN R FOR A L DOWNWIND ENTRY TO RWY 3. AS WE ENTERED A L DOWNWIND, I COULD SEE A LOW SCATTERED LAYER OF SCUD ON THE S SIDE OF THE ARPT. AS I TURNED BASE, LOOKING TOWARD THE SUN, THE SCUD HAD OBSCURED THE FINAL APCH PATH TO RWY 3. I TOLD THE TWR THIS WOULDN'T WORK. I MADE A GAR AND THE TWR GAVE ME VECTORS AND I MADE A NORMAL LNDG ON RWY 21, MAINTAINING VFR ALWAYS. I CALLED THE TWR ON THE PHONE TO CLR UP ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBS, AND THEY DID NOT SEEM TO INDICATE THERE WERE ANY. HOWEVER, IF AT ANY TIME SINGAPORE RADIO OR TWR DID NOT WANT US TO CONTINUE THE FLT INTO WSSL, THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID UNABLE LNDG, SAY INTENTIONS, OR GIVE US HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS. THE ICAO NEEDS TO WORK TOWARDS MORE STANDARDIZED INTL AVIATION VOCABULARY.

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.