Narrative:

During arrival to dtw the ATIS was broadcasting ceiling 300' overcast visibility 1/2 -right. When we were handed off to approach, we were advised that the RVR was 1400 variable to 6000 for runway 3L. We advised them that we would need 1800 to begin the approach. The controller advised us that it was only going down to 1400 every 4 mins or so momentarily and generally holding steady at 6000. He also advised that 3R was steady at 6000. On one occasion I thought the controller stated that we were being vectored for 3R, when the captain asked to verify there was a pause and then the response was 3L. (At this point we should have asked for 3R.) this was also a time of hubbing with many flts inbound. Approximately 5 mi from LOM and FAF we were handed to tower. After initial check-in, tower informed us that the RVR was 1400. The captain told her (tower) that we needed 1800 by FAF and she stated that she would give it when she had it. We were also informed at some point that rollout and mid RVR were 6000. During the base leg and final before handoff to tower, we had been given several speed reductions (down to 150 KTS from 210). We also had approximately 30 KTS of tailwind on final that would eventually drop to zero on ground. I was working to get down to the glide slope when we passed the FAF. All of these changes in routing were causing some distractions and our standard callouts were not being made. I should have initiated a missed approach at this time due to all of the above. The captain acknowledged the FAF and suggested we take it to 1000' AGL to see if the RVR improved. I was concentrating on stabilizing the approach on the glide slope, so I am not sure when the tower reported 6000 RVR, but it was not long after passing the LOM and well above 1000'. We were not legal to continue the approach. The contributing factors that affected our decisions and judgement were the perceived attitude of approach that it would work out for 3L and the flow of traffic would not have to be interrupted. I don't think mid and rollout rvrs should be given if touchdown is below minimums. The significant tailwind did not help either. Again, these are factors, not excuses. This was a real eye-opener for me to see how a lot of insignificant events and circumstances pile up and affect one's performance. This was the end of a 4-DAY trip with a very professional captain who I got along with very well, so I was slow to question his suggestion. I knew we were safe. I just didn't think of the legality of our actions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT APPARENTLY MADE AN ILS APCH BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: DURING ARR TO DTW THE ATIS WAS BROADCASTING CEILING 300' OVERCAST VISIBILITY 1/2 -R. WHEN WE WERE HANDED OFF TO APCH, WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE RVR WAS 1400 VARIABLE TO 6000 FOR RWY 3L. WE ADVISED THEM THAT WE WOULD NEED 1800 TO BEGIN THE APCH. THE CTLR ADVISED US THAT IT WAS ONLY GOING DOWN TO 1400 EVERY 4 MINS OR SO MOMENTARILY AND GENERALLY HOLDING STEADY AT 6000. HE ALSO ADVISED THAT 3R WAS STEADY AT 6000. ON ONE OCCASION I THOUGHT THE CTLR STATED THAT WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR 3R, WHEN THE CAPT ASKED TO VERIFY THERE WAS A PAUSE AND THEN THE RESPONSE WAS 3L. (AT THIS POINT WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR 3R.) THIS WAS ALSO A TIME OF HUBBING WITH MANY FLTS INBND. APPROX 5 MI FROM LOM AND FAF WE WERE HANDED TO TWR. AFTER INITIAL CHECK-IN, TWR INFORMED US THAT THE RVR WAS 1400. THE CAPT TOLD HER (TWR) THAT WE NEEDED 1800 BY FAF AND SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD GIVE IT WHEN SHE HAD IT. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED AT SOME POINT THAT ROLLOUT AND MID RVR WERE 6000. DURING THE BASE LEG AND FINAL BEFORE HANDOFF TO TWR, WE HAD BEEN GIVEN SEVERAL SPEED REDUCTIONS (DOWN TO 150 KTS FROM 210). WE ALSO HAD APPROX 30 KTS OF TAILWIND ON FINAL THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY DROP TO ZERO ON GND. I WAS WORKING TO GET DOWN TO THE GLIDE SLOPE WHEN WE PASSED THE FAF. ALL OF THESE CHANGES IN ROUTING WERE CAUSING SOME DISTRACTIONS AND OUR STANDARD CALLOUTS WERE NOT BEING MADE. I SHOULD HAVE INITIATED A MISSED APCH AT THIS TIME DUE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE. THE CAPT ACKNOWLEDGED THE FAF AND SUGGESTED WE TAKE IT TO 1000' AGL TO SEE IF THE RVR IMPROVED. I WAS CONCENTRATING ON STABILIZING THE APCH ON THE GLIDE SLOPE, SO I AM NOT SURE WHEN THE TWR REPORTED 6000 RVR, BUT IT WAS NOT LONG AFTER PASSING THE LOM AND WELL ABOVE 1000'. WE WERE NOT LEGAL TO CONTINUE THE APCH. THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT AFFECTED OUR DECISIONS AND JUDGEMENT WERE THE PERCEIVED ATTITUDE OF APCH THAT IT WOULD WORK OUT FOR 3L AND THE FLOW OF TFC WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE INTERRUPTED. I DON'T THINK MID AND ROLLOUT RVRS SHOULD BE GIVEN IF TOUCHDOWN IS BELOW MINIMUMS. THE SIGNIFICANT TAILWIND DID NOT HELP EITHER. AGAIN, THESE ARE FACTORS, NOT EXCUSES. THIS WAS A REAL EYE-OPENER FOR ME TO SEE HOW A LOT OF INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PILE UP AND AFFECT ONE'S PERFORMANCE. THIS WAS THE END OF A 4-DAY TRIP WITH A VERY PROFESSIONAL CAPT WHO I GOT ALONG WITH VERY WELL, SO I WAS SLOW TO QUESTION HIS SUGGESTION. I KNEW WE WERE SAFE. I JUST DIDN'T THINK OF THE LEGALITY OF OUR ACTIONS.

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.