Narrative:

I was making an ILS approach into riv in 3/90, with reported visibility of 3/4 mi. While established inbound I was cleared to land circle south runway 27. Although the visibility was reported at 3/4 mi, I could clearly see the full length of the 5400' runway from the approach end. My understanding of the regulations was that if the actual flight visibility was greater than the reported visibility, the pilot could continue the approach. I, therefore, continued and landed. Another pilot who was waiting for a clearance told me later that he called the tower and complained that this was unsafe. I feel that because of my experience level, I was reluctant to question ATC. In the future, I will not continue an approach based on the reported visibility and will more readily question ATC.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA EXECUTING AN IFR APCH INTO RIV IS ACCUSED OF LNDG BELOW APCH MINIMUMS.

Narrative: I WAS MAKING AN ILS APCH INTO RIV IN 3/90, WITH RPTED VISIBILITY OF 3/4 MI. WHILE ESTABLISHED INBND I WAS CLRED TO LAND CIRCLE S RWY 27. ALTHOUGH THE VISIBILITY WAS RPTED AT 3/4 MI, I COULD CLEARLY SEE THE FULL LENGTH OF THE 5400' RWY FROM THE APCH END. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REGS WAS THAT IF THE ACTUAL FLT VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN THE RPTED VISIBILITY, THE PLT COULD CONTINUE THE APCH. I, THEREFORE, CONTINUED AND LANDED. ANOTHER PLT WHO WAS WAITING FOR A CLRNC TOLD ME LATER THAT HE CALLED THE TWR AND COMPLAINED THAT THIS WAS UNSAFE. I FEEL THAT BECAUSE OF MY EXPERIENCE LEVEL, I WAS RELUCTANT TO QUESTION ATC. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL NOT CONTINUE AN APCH BASED ON THE RPTED VISIBILITY AND WILL MORE READILY QUESTION ATC.

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.