Air carrier captain chose to land his aircraft at san even though runway lights were inoperative.

Attributes
ACN	120785
Time
Date	198908
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : san
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Phase	landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 225 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 4200
ASRS Report	120785
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Airport
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified
Airport	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

On approach to san diego int'l lindbergh field, myself and two other air carriers were informed that the runway lights were out on runway 27. We all elected to continue the approach and land. The VASI was operational and I could distinguish the runway 5 mi out. The problem is this. Was it dusk or night. If it was night, then landing was illegal according to the FAA, twilight legal. Since I could plainly see the runway I continued my approach and landed. Now what could occur is the controller who cleared us to land could write the FAA and we could be violated if we landed at night. I, myself, have no problem landing on a runway without runway lights if after shooting an approach I can see a safe landing can be completed. But the FAA has one rule and the airport controling agencies another. If an airport's runways are not legal for an air carrier to land, they need to be closed from the ground, not passed to pilots one minute from landing his aircraft. We make our decision based on conditions and experience. In today's environment, one would need a lawyer riding on the aircraft's jump seat to try and stay totally FAA legal.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR CAPT CHOSE TO LAND HIS ACFT AT SAN EVEN THOUGH RWY LIGHTS WERE INOPERATIVE.

Narrative: ON APCH TO SAN DIEGO INT'L LINDBERGH FIELD, MYSELF AND TWO OTHER AIR CARRIERS WERE INFORMED THAT THE RWY LIGHTS WERE OUT ON RWY 27. WE ALL ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH AND LAND. THE VASI WAS OPERATIONAL AND I COULD DISTINGUISH THE RWY 5 MI OUT. THE PROBLEM IS THIS. WAS IT DUSK OR NIGHT. IF IT WAS NIGHT, THEN LNDG WAS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE FAA, TWILIGHT LEGAL. SINCE I COULD PLAINLY SEE THE RWY I CONTINUED MY APCH AND LANDED. NOW WHAT COULD OCCUR IS THE CTLR WHO CLRED US TO LAND COULD WRITE THE FAA AND WE COULD BE VIOLATED IF WE LANDED AT NIGHT. I, MYSELF, HAVE NO PROBLEM LNDG ON A RWY WITHOUT RWY LIGHTS IF AFTER SHOOTING AN APCH I CAN SEE A SAFE LNDG CAN BE COMPLETED. BUT THE FAA HAS ONE RULE AND THE ARPT CTLING AGENCIES ANOTHER. IF AN ARPT'S RWYS ARE NOT LEGAL FOR AN AIR CARRIER TO LAND, THEY NEED TO BE CLOSED FROM THE GND, NOT PASSED TO PLTS ONE MINUTE FROM LNDG HIS ACFT. WE MAKE OUR DECISION BASED ON CONDITIONS AND EXPERIENCE. IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT, ONE WOULD NEED A LAWYER RIDING ON THE ACFT'S JUMP SEAT TO TRY AND STAY TOTALLY FAA LEGAL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.