Narrative:

While being vectored for the ILS 29 approach at Y12, we were informed by airlake unicom that airport conditions were '0-0.' our flight conditions were clear, visibility unlimited on top of a fog layer. Moments later msp approach offered us a visibility approach to airlake. We requested and received clearance for the ILS. Shortly thereafter, approach informed us that a pilot on the ground had reported the visibility as being 1/16TH mi. Having received unreliable reports from ground personnel in the past, we elected to continue the approach. Prior to reaching DH, the chief pilot (right seat) called 'lead-in lights, runway in sight.' the slant range from MM to threshold is 4260'. As this call was made approximately 3 seconds prior to DH flying a reference speed of 102 KTS with no wind, we were 500' outside the MM. Thus the total distance from our cockpit to the threshold was 4760'. The visibility required for this approach is 3/4 SM, or 3960'. After receiving the 'lead-in lights, runway in sight' call, I looked up and also acquired the runway and its environment visually. I flew the aircraft to T/D with no maneuvering other than the required flair. In flight visibility remained constant, and only on rollout at the other end of the runway did visibility decrease due to patchy fog. While none of the above constitutes an event worthy of or requiring the need for this report, a problem did arise. Upon returning to the airport later in the day, we learned that a local FAA inspector wished to speak to us. We called him and learned that a person or persons on the ground had reported us for having violated approach minimums. While I believe it is the duty of any member of the aviation community to report an unsafe act, a problem exists in the manner in which the FAA handles the report and subsequent investigation. Our conversation with the FAA inspector left me with the distinct impression that we are guilty until proved innocent. I must now wait for an unknown period of time ot receive a letter from the FAA. If the FAA inspector finds, as he surely must, that there was no wrongdoing, will he be as diligent in contacting me with that information as he was yesterday. Is he required to contact me with a favorable outcome, or only if he plans to take action against me? How long must the 'accused' live in fear for his livelihood? What toll does this unnecessary stress take on an individual and his family? When the FAA contacts an individual about a possible violation, they should be required to inform him if there is going to be a formal investigation. This information would reduce, or remove entirely, a potent stressor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF CORP JET ALLEGEDLY LANDED BELOW MINIMUMS AT UNCONTROLLED ARPT.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS 29 APCH AT Y12, WE WERE INFORMED BY AIRLAKE UNICOM THAT ARPT CONDITIONS WERE '0-0.' OUR FLT CONDITIONS WERE CLR, VISIBILITY UNLIMITED ON TOP OF A FOG LAYER. MOMENTS LATER MSP APCH OFFERED US A VIS APCH TO AIRLAKE. WE REQUESTED AND RECEIVED CLRNC FOR THE ILS. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, APCH INFORMED US THAT A PLT ON THE GND HAD RPTED THE VISIBILITY AS BEING 1/16TH MI. HAVING RECEIVED UNRELIABLE RPTS FROM GND PERSONNEL IN THE PAST, WE ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH. PRIOR TO REACHING DH, THE CHIEF PLT (RIGHT SEAT) CALLED 'LEAD-IN LIGHTS, RWY IN SIGHT.' THE SLANT RANGE FROM MM TO THRESHOLD IS 4260'. AS THIS CALL WAS MADE APPROX 3 SECS PRIOR TO DH FLYING A REF SPD OF 102 KTS WITH NO WIND, WE WERE 500' OUTSIDE THE MM. THUS THE TOTAL DISTANCE FROM OUR COCKPIT TO THE THRESHOLD WAS 4760'. THE VISIBILITY REQUIRED FOR THIS APCH IS 3/4 SM, OR 3960'. AFTER RECEIVING THE 'LEAD-IN LIGHTS, RWY IN SIGHT' CALL, I LOOKED UP AND ALSO ACQUIRED THE RWY AND ITS ENVIRONMENT VISUALLY. I FLEW THE ACFT TO T/D WITH NO MANEUVERING OTHER THAN THE REQUIRED FLAIR. IN FLT VISIBILITY REMAINED CONSTANT, AND ONLY ON ROLLOUT AT THE OTHER END OF THE RWY DID VISIBILITY DECREASE DUE TO PATCHY FOG. WHILE NONE OF THE ABOVE CONSTITUTES AN EVENT WORTHY OF OR REQUIRING THE NEED FOR THIS RPT, A PROB DID ARISE. UPON RETURNING TO THE ARPT LATER IN THE DAY, WE LEARNED THAT A LCL FAA INSPECTOR WISHED TO SPEAK TO US. WE CALLED HIM AND LEARNED THAT A PERSON OR PERSONS ON THE GND HAD RPTED US FOR HAVING VIOLATED APCH MINIMUMS. WHILE I BELIEVE IT IS THE DUTY OF ANY MEMBER OF THE AVIATION COMMUNITY TO RPT AN UNSAFE ACT, A PROB EXISTS IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FAA HANDLES THE RPT AND SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION. OUR CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA INSPECTOR LEFT ME WITH THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT WE ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT. I MUST NOW WAIT FOR AN UNKNOWN PERIOD OF TIME OT RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE FAA. IF THE FAA INSPECTOR FINDS, AS HE SURELY MUST, THAT THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING, WILL HE BE AS DILIGENT IN CONTACTING ME WITH THAT INFO AS HE WAS YESTERDAY. IS HE REQUIRED TO CONTACT ME WITH A FAVORABLE OUTCOME, OR ONLY IF HE PLANS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ME? HOW LONG MUST THE 'ACCUSED' LIVE IN FEAR FOR HIS LIVELIHOOD? WHAT TOLL DOES THIS UNNECESSARY STRESS TAKE ON AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS FAMILY? WHEN THE FAA CONTACTS AN INDIVIDUAL ABOUT A POSSIBLE VIOLATION, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO INFORM HIM IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A FORMAL INVESTIGATION. THIS INFO WOULD REDUCE, OR REMOVE ENTIRELY, A POTENT STRESSOR.

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