Narrative:

This was a typical december day in medford involving freezing fog; low RVR's; and multiple attempts at the mfr ILS Z runway 14 approach; with missed approachs (ILS Z is for authority/authorized operations only). I; a 135 flight; arrived for approach just before XA00. There was thick ground fog with tops at about 500 ft AGL and touchdown zone RVR was reported as 2400 ft. 1800 ft RVR is the approach minimum and is the required minimum for initiating the approach. Due to the thin but dense fog layers that are typical of medford mornings this time of yr; and due to the position of the sun being at the pilot's 11 O'clock position while on approach; missed approachs at mfr are very common because the bright sunlight penetrates the fog and impedes one's ability to see the approach lights. I was vectored by cascade approach control (physically located in eugene) for the first approach; which was executed to minimums with no acquisition of the approach lights or the runway. A missed approach was initiated. I then requested vectors to attempt the approach again; based on the approach controller's previous statement (prior to the first approach) that previous aircraft had been making it in. At the start of the second approach; RVR was reported as 2200 ft; and; again; there were no lights or runway at minimums; resulting in a second missed approach. Following this; I requested a hold over the oed VORTAC; to wait for conditions to improve and to evaluate options. While holding; another inbound aircraft (falcon) was heard asking ATC about conditions at mfr; and it is the situation exemplified by the controller's response that is the main reason for this report. He/she responded to the falcon pilot with the current RVR and then said; 'a piper navajo is holding over the VOR; but everyone has made it in except him.' whether intentional or not; there was the distinct possibility that someone hearing this statement; and the tone that accompanied it; would infer that I; too; 'should' have made it in. In fact; there had been no other attempts by any other aircraft since my last missed approach. I had been holding for about 15 mins when the falcon began his approach. At that moment; ATC reported RVR had come up to 3000 ft; and it improved to 6000 ft within 2 mins after that. With the falcon on final; ATC (new controller) vectored me around for a third try; where I easily picked up the approach lights at 250 ft AGL. I ignored the controller's earlier statement; and the apparent 'attitude' that accompanied it; because the missed approachs on my first 2 attempts were clearly justified; given the reported conditions and past experience with similar conditions at mfr. What concerns me; however; is the effect that such a statement may have had on less experienced pilots (of which there are many at our company) who are under schedule pressure. It would be easy for a pilot to take the controller's characterization as an indication that he (or she) 'should' be able to get in; and this could potentially lead a pressured pilot to push below minimums. I believe that the phraseology used by this controller; whether intentional or not; could foster an inappropriate response on the part of some pilots -- unintentionally but predictably adding to a 'get-there-itis' type of pressure. I suggest that ATC have specific policies for phraseology to be used in sits where controllers are asked about aircraft making it in to airports that are flirting with IFR minimums. Responses to such questions should be strictly factual and detailed. Such a response might be: 'a G3 landed 30 mins ago; and a king air made it in about 10 mins later. A navajo has missed the approach twice in the last 15 mins.' this is a purely factual statement that conveys a trend to the pilot; and is a far more appropriate than the invective; 'everyone has made it in except for so-and-so;' especially when 'so-and-so' is still on the frequency. Whether the controller in question was feeling frustrated or otherwise stressed; I wouldn't know; but everyone; whether on the ground or in the air; needs to maintain their professionalism so that frustrating sits do not evolve into hazardous ones.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ACFT; HOLDING AFTER TWO MISSED APCHES AT MFR; EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING CTLR'S ATTITUDE/COMMENTS REFERENCE THE PREVIOUS WX GAR'S.

Narrative: THIS WAS A TYPICAL DECEMBER DAY IN MEDFORD INVOLVING FREEZING FOG; LOW RVR'S; AND MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS AT THE MFR ILS Z RWY 14 APCH; WITH MISSED APCHS (ILS Z IS FOR AUTH OPS ONLY). I; A 135 FLT; ARRIVED FOR APCH JUST BEFORE XA00. THERE WAS THICK GND FOG WITH TOPS AT ABOUT 500 FT AGL AND TOUCHDOWN ZONE RVR WAS RPTED AS 2400 FT. 1800 FT RVR IS THE APCH MINIMUM AND IS THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FOR INITIATING THE APCH. DUE TO THE THIN BUT DENSE FOG LAYERS THAT ARE TYPICAL OF MEDFORD MORNINGS THIS TIME OF YR; AND DUE TO THE POS OF THE SUN BEING AT THE PLT'S 11 O'CLOCK POS WHILE ON APCH; MISSED APCHS AT MFR ARE VERY COMMON BECAUSE THE BRIGHT SUNLIGHT PENETRATES THE FOG AND IMPEDES ONE'S ABILITY TO SEE THE APCH LIGHTS. I WAS VECTORED BY CASCADE APCH CTL (PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN EUGENE) FOR THE FIRST APCH; WHICH WAS EXECUTED TO MINIMUMS WITH NO ACQUISITION OF THE APCH LIGHTS OR THE RWY. A MISSED APCH WAS INITIATED. I THEN REQUESTED VECTORS TO ATTEMPT THE APCH AGAIN; BASED ON THE APCH CTLR'S PREVIOUS STATEMENT (PRIOR TO THE FIRST APCH) THAT PREVIOUS ACFT HAD BEEN MAKING IT IN. AT THE START OF THE SECOND APCH; RVR WAS RPTED AS 2200 FT; AND; AGAIN; THERE WERE NO LIGHTS OR RWY AT MINIMUMS; RESULTING IN A SECOND MISSED APCH. FOLLOWING THIS; I REQUESTED A HOLD OVER THE OED VORTAC; TO WAIT FOR CONDITIONS TO IMPROVE AND TO EVALUATE OPTIONS. WHILE HOLDING; ANOTHER INBOUND ACFT (FALCON) WAS HEARD ASKING ATC ABOUT CONDITIONS AT MFR; AND IT IS THE SITUATION EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CTLR'S RESPONSE THAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS RPT. HE/SHE RESPONDED TO THE FALCON PLT WITH THE CURRENT RVR AND THEN SAID; 'A PIPER NAVAJO IS HOLDING OVER THE VOR; BUT EVERYONE HAS MADE IT IN EXCEPT HIM.' WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT; THERE WAS THE DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE HEARING THIS STATEMENT; AND THE TONE THAT ACCOMPANIED IT; WOULD INFER THAT I; TOO; 'SHOULD' HAVE MADE IT IN. IN FACT; THERE HAD BEEN NO OTHER ATTEMPTS BY ANY OTHER ACFT SINCE MY LAST MISSED APCH. I HAD BEEN HOLDING FOR ABOUT 15 MINS WHEN THE FALCON BEGAN HIS APCH. AT THAT MOMENT; ATC RPTED RVR HAD COME UP TO 3000 FT; AND IT IMPROVED TO 6000 FT WITHIN 2 MINS AFTER THAT. WITH THE FALCON ON FINAL; ATC (NEW CTLR) VECTORED ME AROUND FOR A THIRD TRY; WHERE I EASILY PICKED UP THE APCH LIGHTS AT 250 FT AGL. I IGNORED THE CTLR'S EARLIER STATEMENT; AND THE APPARENT 'ATTITUDE' THAT ACCOMPANIED IT; BECAUSE THE MISSED APCHS ON MY FIRST 2 ATTEMPTS WERE CLRLY JUSTIFIED; GIVEN THE RPTED CONDITIONS AND PAST EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR CONDITIONS AT MFR. WHAT CONCERNS ME; HOWEVER; IS THE EFFECT THAT SUCH A STATEMENT MAY HAVE HAD ON LESS EXPERIENCED PLTS (OF WHICH THERE ARE MANY AT OUR COMPANY) WHO ARE UNDER SCHEDULE PRESSURE. IT WOULD BE EASY FOR A PLT TO TAKE THE CTLR'S CHARACTERIZATION AS AN INDICATION THAT HE (OR SHE) 'SHOULD' BE ABLE TO GET IN; AND THIS COULD POTENTIALLY LEAD A PRESSURED PLT TO PUSH BELOW MINIMUMS. I BELIEVE THAT THE PHRASEOLOGY USED BY THIS CTLR; WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT; COULD FOSTER AN INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE ON THE PART OF SOME PLTS -- UNINTENTIONALLY BUT PREDICTABLY ADDING TO A 'GET-THERE-ITIS' TYPE OF PRESSURE. I SUGGEST THAT ATC HAVE SPECIFIC POLICIES FOR PHRASEOLOGY TO BE USED IN SITS WHERE CTLRS ARE ASKED ABOUT ACFT MAKING IT IN TO ARPTS THAT ARE FLIRTING WITH IFR MINIMUMS. RESPONSES TO SUCH QUESTIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY FACTUAL AND DETAILED. SUCH A RESPONSE MIGHT BE: 'A G3 LANDED 30 MINS AGO; AND A KING AIR MADE IT IN ABOUT 10 MINS LATER. A NAVAJO HAS MISSED THE APCH TWICE IN THE LAST 15 MINS.' THIS IS A PURELY FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT CONVEYS A TREND TO THE PLT; AND IS A FAR MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE INVECTIVE; 'EVERYONE HAS MADE IT IN EXCEPT FOR SO-AND-SO;' ESPECIALLY WHEN 'SO-AND-SO' IS STILL ON THE FREQ. WHETHER THE CTLR IN QUESTION WAS FEELING FRUSTRATED OR OTHERWISE STRESSED; I WOULDN'T KNOW; BUT EVERYONE; WHETHER ON THE GND OR IN THE AIR; NEEDS TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFESSIONALISM SO THAT FRUSTRATING SITS DO NOT EVOLVE INTO HAZARDOUS ONES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.