Narrative:

I was dispatched for flight and preflight planning showed that the flight could be conducted under VFR; and was confirmed and released after a preflight conversation with [dispatch]. Accordingly I departed with VFR fuel requirements; without a planned alternate. The flight was unremarkable until I was 40 NM out of my destination; when I checked the afis broadcast. The afis reported 1/4 mile visibilities with RVR of 1200v2000. I did not have sufficient fuel to divert to another airport and decided to contact center. Center issued me a pop up clearance and asked if I was able to join the hold at 9000 ft. I informed center that I was minimum fuel and would like to initiate the approach to rwy 28 immediately. My request was approved by center and I initiated the approach which resulted in a missed approach. Center asked my intentions; and I stated that the visibility on the west end of the runway appeared to be better than the east end; and I requested the approach to rwy 10. This approach resulted in a successful landing on rwy 10. With the available fuel on board; about 40 minutes at the time of landing; I feel my decision to make the approach was my best; and safest option.the lesson I have taken away from this event is that I will no longer trust the taf to make my fuel planning decisions and will subsequently carry more fuel in order to allow myself an 'escape plan' to a more suitable landing alternate in the future due to the possibility of deteriorating weather conditions at my intended landing airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C208B pilot was dispatched with minimum fuel to a remote airport forecasted to remain VFR. Upon arrival; the airport was IMC and he missed the first approach; but landed on the second approach on the runway opposite direction. TAF forecasts to remote airports should be questioned.

Narrative: I was dispatched for flight and preflight planning showed that the flight could be conducted under VFR; and was confirmed and released after a preflight conversation with [Dispatch]. Accordingly I departed with VFR fuel requirements; without a planned alternate. The flight was unremarkable until I was 40 NM out of my destination; when I checked the AFIS broadcast. The AFIS reported 1/4 mile visibilities with RVR of 1200V2000. I did not have sufficient fuel to divert to another airport and decided to contact Center. Center issued me a pop up clearance and asked if I was able to join the hold at 9000 ft. I informed center that I was minimum fuel and would like to initiate the approach to rwy 28 immediately. My request was approved by Center and I initiated the approach which resulted in a missed approach. Center asked my intentions; and I stated that the visibility on the west end of the runway appeared to be better than the east end; and I requested the approach to rwy 10. This approach resulted in a successful landing on rwy 10. With the available fuel on board; about 40 minutes at the time of landing; I feel my decision to make the approach was my best; and safest option.The lesson I have taken away from this event is that I will no longer trust the TAF to make my fuel planning decisions and will subsequently carry more fuel in order to allow myself an 'escape plan' to a more suitable landing alternate in the future due to the possibility of deteriorating weather conditions at my intended landing airport.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.