Narrative:

Flight description: preflight telephone coordination and briefing with dispatch was standard with departure; enroute and arrival considerations discussed. Dispatch shared that rsw had experienced changing visibility conditions for the midnight arrivals on previous nights but based on forecast and current conditions the lower visibilities and ceilings were forecasted for later in the period. Flight was released with no alternate and arrival fuel of 8.2 which upon review appeared more than adequate. Enroute conditions required cruise at FL310 vs. Flight planned FL330 because of moderate chop and slight deviation for weather north of tampa but arrived in the terminal area with approximately 9.0 fuel. Inbound we obtained arrival ATIS and contacted rsw airport operations in accordance with rsw page 20-7W tower closed special procedures. Rsw was reporting clear and 7 miles visibility and winds favored a runway 24 operation. Winds were out of the west at 5 KTS. This is where things start to get interesting. Entering the rsw terminal area miami center was handling numerous aircraft consisting of airline and general aviation aircraft inbound to rsw. We were on vectors to runway 24 and set up for the night visual approach using RNAV (GPS) runway 24 approach for course and vertical guidance. The controller was very busy and at times testy with various requests from us and other aircraft. We originally requested the ILS runway 6 approach but because of the volume of traffic funneled in from central florida and winds; the flow worked for runway 24 and the controller was already in a runway 24 operation. Because miami center loses radar coverage below 3;000 ft the controller must wait for that aircraft to report on the ground before clearing another aircraft to commence their approach. What ensued is the controller setting up an arrival holding stack of 3-4 aircraft. Aircraft on the approaches both RNAV and VOR were landing. In the holding pattern we could see the lights of the airport through the thin cloud layer that was starting to form. Numerous radio contacts with rsw airport operations ensured the ceiling and visibility conditions on the airport were good; visibility was reported better than 5 miles. I was concerned with the lowering weather conditions and advised the controller that clouds were forming east of the airport and he offered us vectors to the ILS runway 6. Since previous aircraft were getting in and weather reports on the field remained good and further vectoring would take more time and fuel we elected to fly the RNAV (GPS) runway 24. Prior to the approach I advised the controller in the event of a missed approach we would be minimum fuel and would plan to fly the ILS 6 approach. Approach was started with approximate 6.2 on the fuel. Approach was flawless and at MDA we had no visual references with the runway and executed the missed approach. I immediately declared emergency fuel and requested vectors to runway 6. Vectors to runway 6 were excellent as the controller did his best to keep us in close. On the final I noticed fuel was 4.2. ILS approach was routine and broke out at about 500 ft with visibility 5 plus miles. Touchdown fuel was 3.9; fuel at the gate was 3.7. Lessons learned; weather can change fast and forecast can be blown. Going from VFR conditions to IFR conditions can set you up in a box with no alternate plans. We are not the only airplane in the sky. ATC can be overloaded; rude and have diminished radar capabilities. Tower out operations and limited radar does not allow for a smooth flow of in-trail sequencing into the airport. Holding delays will always be longer than you expect. Pick the lowest ceiling and approach you can. RNAV 24 MDA was 600 ft; VOR 24 MDA was 400 ft; could have made a big difference. Runway lighting in reduced visibility makes a huge difference. Runway 24 had HIRL; cl lights; REIL and PAPI; no approach lights. When given the opportunity for an ILS with approach lights and lower minimums; take it. Always consider an alternate for night single runway operation. Always have a plan and a back up to that plan and continue to fly conservatively.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier inbound to RSW declared fuel emergency during a vector for a second approach after an initial approach attempt that resulted in a missed approach.

Narrative: Flight description: Preflight telephone coordination and briefing with Dispatch was standard with departure; enroute and arrival considerations discussed. Dispatch shared that RSW had experienced changing visibility conditions for the midnight arrivals on previous nights but based on forecast and current conditions the lower visibilities and ceilings were forecasted for later in the period. Flight was released with no alternate and arrival fuel of 8.2 which upon review appeared more than adequate. Enroute conditions required cruise at FL310 vs. flight planned FL330 because of moderate chop and slight deviation for weather north of Tampa but arrived in the terminal area with approximately 9.0 fuel. Inbound we obtained arrival ATIS and contacted RSW airport operations IAW RSW page 20-7W Tower Closed Special Procedures. RSW was reporting clear and 7 miles visibility and winds favored a Runway 24 operation. Winds were out of the west at 5 KTS. This is where things start to get interesting. Entering the RSW terminal area Miami Center was handling numerous aircraft consisting of airline and general aviation aircraft inbound to RSW. We were on vectors to Runway 24 and set up for the night visual approach using RNAV (GPS) Runway 24 approach for course and vertical guidance. The Controller was very busy and at times testy with various requests from us and other aircraft. We originally requested the ILS Runway 6 approach but because of the volume of traffic funneled in from central Florida and winds; the flow worked for Runway 24 and the Controller was already in a Runway 24 operation. Because Miami Center loses RADAR coverage below 3;000 FT the Controller must wait for that aircraft to report on the ground before clearing another aircraft to commence their approach. What ensued is the Controller setting up an arrival holding stack of 3-4 aircraft. Aircraft on the approaches both RNAV and VOR were landing. In the holding pattern we could see the lights of the airport through the thin cloud layer that was starting to form. Numerous radio contacts with RSW airport operations ensured the ceiling and visibility conditions on the airport were good; visibility was reported better than 5 miles. I was concerned with the lowering weather conditions and advised the controller that clouds were forming east of the airport and he offered us vectors to the ILS Runway 6. Since previous aircraft were getting in and weather reports on the field remained good and further vectoring would take more time and fuel we elected to fly the RNAV (GPS) Runway 24. Prior to the approach I advised the Controller in the event of a missed approach we would be minimum fuel and would plan to fly the ILS 6 approach. Approach was started with approximate 6.2 on the fuel. Approach was flawless and at MDA we had no visual references with the runway and executed the missed approach. I immediately declared emergency fuel and requested vectors to Runway 6. Vectors to Runway 6 were excellent as the Controller did his best to keep us in close. On the final I noticed fuel was 4.2. ILS approach was routine and broke out at about 500 FT with visibility 5 plus miles. Touchdown fuel was 3.9; fuel at the gate was 3.7. Lessons learned; weather can change fast and forecast can be blown. Going from VFR conditions to IFR conditions can set you up in a box with no alternate plans. We are not the only airplane in the sky. ATC can be overloaded; rude and have diminished RADAR capabilities. Tower out operations and limited RADAR does not allow for a smooth flow of in-trail sequencing into the airport. Holding delays will always be longer than you expect. Pick the lowest ceiling and approach you can. RNAV 24 MDA was 600 FT; VOR 24 MDA was 400 FT; could have made a big difference. Runway lighting in reduced visibility makes a huge difference. Runway 24 had HIRL; CL lights; REIL and PAPI; no approach lights. When given the opportunity for an ILS with approach lights and lower minimums; take it. Always consider an alternate for night single runway operation. Always have a plan and a back up to that plan and continue to fly conservatively.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.