Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
There was a line of severe weather moving through the Rochester area at the time of the incident. The two previous arrivals had reported extreme turbulence on final to Runway 4. The regional jet had been planning an approach to Runway 4 but changed his mind due to weather conditions to Runway 28. Runway 28 had just lost the glideslope portion of the ILS approach (PIREP from before I assumed the position). I saw the RJ join the runway 28 final; and heard the MSAW warning in the Tower prior to him changing to my frequency; while the aircraft was still outside the Outer Marker. The aircraft checked in with me over the Outer Marker asking about the weather at the airport. As I was answering his question the MSAW alarm went off again and I issued a low altitude alert to him. I told him he should be at 2;000 feet; and he said he thought the altitude at SUUSA was 1;200. I knew that was incorrect; but I grabbed the approach plate to verify. The crossing altitude for SUUSA is 2;100 feet; and by this point his descent was at 900 feet indicated. He was below the cloud deck and from my vantage point below the hospital between him and the airport. He elected to initiate a go-around at that point and I issued alternate missed approach instructions to keep him away from the weather which was mostly south and east of the airport at that time. On a localizer approach I believe a pilot can descend to the decision height once they cross the final approach fix; but [this crew] either misread the approach or the turbulence caused them to descend lower than they intended. They did report severe turbulence. I should have asked the Approach Controller about the aircraft's status when the first MSAW alarm went off.
I was working radar with heavy to extreme precipitation all around Rochester airspace including around the airport itself. A regional jet checked in and asked how the ride had been on final. I told him that the last aircraft that landed was a CRJ-200 and he reported gains and losses of 20 knots on final with severe turbulence. He then asked if there were any reports since then. I told him I had a C208 on final and I could get him a ride report as soon as he lands. The C208 said he had extreme turbulence on final but smoothed out inside the marker. I then passed this along to [the regional jet]. I noticed that the wind picked up out of the west 300@16 and the Runway 28 final had light to moderate precipitation and Runway 4 now had heavy precipitation. I told the RJ that Runway 28 was available and gave him the wind. There was a 10 mile gap between two areas of heavy precipitation that could get the aircraft to the Runway 28 final approach course. I made the suggestion to the RJ and he wanted to try it. I then turned him onto the final and cleared him for the ILS 28 approach. When I noticed him slipping slightly through the localizer I asked him if he was established and he acknowledged that he was. I then asked him if he was getting a reading on the glideslope and he said he was not. I asked his intentions and he said he wanted to continue on the localizer approach. I cleared him for that and switched him to the Tower. I then got a low altitude alert and noticed he was around 1;200 feet over SUUSA; the final approach fix. The altitude over SUUSA is 2;100 feet. On a three mile final the RJ was at 900 feet and the MDA for that approach is 1;200 feet. The Tower issued a low altitude alert and the RJ decided to go-around. Tower turned him northbound and climbed him to 3;000. The Tower told me what he was doing and switched him to my frequency. I identified him and asked his intentions; he wanted to go to Buffalo at four thousand feet so I cleared him direct Buffalo to maintain four thousand and entered a new flight plan. Better communication between the Tower; Radar Controller; and pilot could have possibly prevented this situation.
Two ROC controllers describe an attempted Regional Jet approach to Runway 28 at ROC in heavy weather. The glideslope had failed prior to the RJ's arrival but this was not relayed to Approach Control. The crew attempted a localizer only approach but was 900 feet low at the FAF and 300 feet below MDA three miles from the field. Minimum safe altitude warnings are issued and the RJ crew goes around and elects to divert.