Narrative:

Approaching cmh from the south, we observed much convective activity along our route. A line of cells ran e-w, south of the airport parallel to the localizer course. Numerous breaks in the line were observed on the radar. 1 cell was observed about 5 mi south of the airport itself. Approach told us that it was stationary and was building, and the plan was to bring us through one of the breaks in the line and bring us in from the north on a visual. Outside the FAF, I decided to ask the final controller for an ILS due to the ragged bottom of the clouds, intercepting the GS we had ground contact and a smooth ride. Our radar was painting showers throughout the area, but the most severe remained 3-4 mi south of the airport. Around 3 mi out the tower reported rain starting at the approach end of runway 10R. We asked the visibility and were told 2 mi. Still smooth conditions with no airspeed deviations. We proceeded, picked up the approach lights and rain simultaneously. As we began flare, flew into area of moderate to heavy rainshowers. Never visually losing the runway lights, landing was made more difficult due to degradation of depth perception from the rain. In retrospect, should have observed entire line of cells for movement, even holding for a while, if needed, to determine so. Unduly influenced by controllers report of stationary WX. Continued approach despite rain beginning report because of good visibility. However this was probably tower visibility, and no accurate report of visibility was available or at least given for the approach end. Bottom line is that operating in this convective activity on a regular basis, all summer long, breeds some degree of complacency. Not complacency toward a thunderstorm itself, but toward the power they can exhibit in winds and rain mi from the most severe returns on radar.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FOKKER 100 ACFT ON APCH ENCOUNTERED EDGE OF TSTM WITH HVY RAIN AND REDUCED VISIBILITY. RPTR CAPT STATES THAT TWR VISIBILITY IS NOT ACCURATE FOR END OF RWY OR TOUCHDOWN POINT.

Narrative: APCHING CMH FROM THE S, WE OBSERVED MUCH CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY ALONG OUR RTE. A LINE OF CELLS RAN E-W, S OF THE ARPT PARALLEL TO THE LOC COURSE. NUMEROUS BREAKS IN THE LINE WERE OBSERVED ON THE RADAR. 1 CELL WAS OBSERVED ABOUT 5 MI S OF THE ARPT ITSELF. APCH TOLD US THAT IT WAS STATIONARY AND WAS BUILDING, AND THE PLAN WAS TO BRING US THROUGH ONE OF THE BREAKS IN THE LINE AND BRING US IN FROM THE N ON A VISUAL. OUTSIDE THE FAF, I DECIDED TO ASK THE FINAL CTLR FOR AN ILS DUE TO THE RAGGED BOTTOM OF THE CLOUDS, INTERCEPTING THE GS WE HAD GND CONTACT AND A SMOOTH RIDE. OUR RADAR WAS PAINTING SHOWERS THROUGHOUT THE AREA, BUT THE MOST SEVERE REMAINED 3-4 MI S OF THE ARPT. AROUND 3 MI OUT THE TWR RPTED RAIN STARTING AT THE APCH END OF RWY 10R. WE ASKED THE VISIBILITY AND WERE TOLD 2 MI. STILL SMOOTH CONDITIONS WITH NO AIRSPD DEVS. WE PROCEEDED, PICKED UP THE APCH LIGHTS AND RAIN SIMULTANEOUSLY. AS WE BEGAN FLARE, FLEW INTO AREA OF MODERATE TO HVY RAINSHOWERS. NEVER VISUALLY LOSING THE RWY LIGHTS, LNDG WAS MADE MORE DIFFICULT DUE TO DEGRADATION OF DEPTH PERCEPTION FROM THE RAIN. IN RETROSPECT, SHOULD HAVE OBSERVED ENTIRE LINE OF CELLS FOR MOVEMENT, EVEN HOLDING FOR A WHILE, IF NEEDED, TO DETERMINE SO. UNDULY INFLUENCED BY CTLRS RPT OF STATIONARY WX. CONTINUED APCH DESPITE RAIN BEGINNING RPT BECAUSE OF GOOD VISIBILITY. HOWEVER THIS WAS PROBABLY TWR VISIBILITY, AND NO ACCURATE RPT OF VISIBILITY WAS AVAILABLE OR AT LEAST GIVEN FOR THE APCH END. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT OPERATING IN THIS CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY ON A REGULAR BASIS, ALL SUMMER LONG, BREEDS SOME DEG OF COMPLACENCY. NOT COMPLACENCY TOWARD A TSTM ITSELF, BUT TOWARD THE PWR THEY CAN EXHIBIT IN WINDS AND RAIN MI FROM THE MOST SEVERE RETURNS ON RADAR.

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.