An air carrier pilot approaching HTS for the ILS Runway 12 discovered a discrepancy between the paper approach chart and EFB. Dispatch stated the paper chart minimums of 1;800 RVR/1/2 mile were correct when infact at midnight the EFB chart became current and the minimums were 5;000 RVR/1 mile.
Synopsis
An air carrier pilot approaching HTS for the ILS Runway 12 discovered a discrepancy between the paper approach chart and EFB. Dispatch stated the paper chart minimums of 1;800 RVR/1/2 mile were correct when infact at midnight the EFB chart became current and the minimums were 5;000 RVR/1 mile.
Narrative
The approach plate into HTS (ILS 12) changed from 1;800 RVR/three quarter mile visibility; required for our approach; to 5;000 RVR/one mile. Our commercial charts on board showed the 1;800 RVR. Our Electronic Flight Bag showed 5;000 RVR/one mile; but no effective date for this change on the chart. We called Dispatcher through Sat Phone and requested clarification of approach chart date of currency. Received the 1;800 RVR/three quarter mile required as the valid chart. Non-event to ILS 12 landing and termination of flight. After crew rest; reviewed all information and discovered that on the day of the flight the valid chart was the 5;000 RVR/one mile required for approach into HTS. At the time of approach; reported conditions were one mile; light SN FG; approach lighting system OTS Runway 12. This required an addition of one quarter mile visibility to our minimums. We needed one and one quarter mile visibility for a legal approach. We only had one mile. Four chart resources were used in this evolution from preflight to termination of flight. Only one current chart was the EFB with no effective date displayed. No safety of flight concerns with this event by flight crew; but legality of approach used compromised by revision on date of event and an inoperative approach lighting system.
Second reporter narrative
The Captain later figured out that the reason there had been two commercial charts for the ILS 12 into HTS that morning was that the second chart was not a duplicate but actually contained a revision with the higher visibility minimums which the EFB properly identified. The effective date of that revision happened to be the date of our flight and was just six hours old at the time we shot the approach into HTS. We should have been more attentive to 'duplicate' charts in the computer during flight preparation. It would have been helpful to have had a revision date to crosscheck on the EFB. Also; the commercial kits that were still on the airplane were current until nine days after our flight; but they did not have the second chart in them which would/could have alerted us to the revised higher minimums effective on the day of our flight.
NASA callback
The reporter stated that the EFB charted minimums of 5;000/1 were correct and his paper chart was out dated. The EFB changed at midnight of that day reflecting the new minimums. Dispatch should have known. The reporter stated that the paper chart has been updated but the point is the EFB was the current but did not display an effective date.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.