Narrative:

ATIS information called for an ILS runway 26L approach. Properly briefed and during descent we were given a turn to the north to avoid traffic inbound to norton AFB and line up for approach ILS runway 26R. New approach was briefed and the same ILS frequency was duly noted in use for ILS runway 26R. Traffic was in sight and we were cleared for an ILS runway 26R approach to avoid the military traffic and a heading of southwest to intercept the localizer. A frequency change occurred and the new controller cleared us down to 3200' with traffic in sight. We had a good identify on the ILS runway 26R frequency, and no associated off flags. We passed the traffic and the controller cleared us for a visibility to runway 26R. Since visibility was not or appeared not to be as good as ATIS was calling I elected to tell the PF to continue on the ILS which showed the localizer to our right and slightly above G/south. I told the PF to turn right to intercept the localizer and he was descending slightly high on G/south with good ground contact and forward visibility. The controller kept asking if we had visibility with the airport and I told him no but we were flying the localizer and G/south. He was very upset that we had descended west/O visibility for the airport and turned us left for a visibility and then notified us that the ILS was notamed out with unreliable azimuth and G/south. It was not on our flight plan nor was it on the ATIS. We picked up the field visly and landed. How can a local controller clear you for an ILS approach that is notamed out? There was not sufficient communication between controllers nor what was on the ATIS about field conditions. The visibility was certainly not 5 mi which they were reporting.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALT DEVIATION ON ACR'S APCH TO ARPT.

Narrative: ATIS INFO CALLED FOR AN ILS RWY 26L APCH. PROPERLY BRIEFED AND DURING DSNT WE WERE GIVEN A TURN TO THE N TO AVOID TFC INBND TO NORTON AFB AND LINE UP FOR APCH ILS RWY 26R. NEW APCH WAS BRIEFED AND THE SAME ILS FREQ WAS DULY NOTED IN USE FOR ILS RWY 26R. TFC WAS IN SIGHT AND WE WERE CLRED FOR AN ILS RWY 26R APCH TO AVOID THE MIL TFC AND A HDG OF SW TO INTERCEPT THE LOC. A FREQ CHANGE OCCURRED AND THE NEW CTLR CLRED US DOWN TO 3200' WITH TFC IN SIGHT. WE HAD A GOOD IDENT ON THE ILS RWY 26R FREQ, AND NO ASSOCIATED OFF FLAGS. WE PASSED THE TFC AND THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VIS TO RWY 26R. SINCE VISIBILITY WAS NOT OR APPEARED NOT TO BE AS GOOD AS ATIS WAS CALLING I ELECTED TO TELL THE PF TO CONTINUE ON THE ILS WHICH SHOWED THE LOC TO OUR R AND SLIGHTLY ABOVE G/S. I TOLD THE PF TO TURN R TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND HE WAS DSNDING SLIGHTLY HIGH ON G/S WITH GOOD GND CONTACT AND FORWARD VISIBILITY. THE CTLR KEPT ASKING IF WE HAD VIS WITH THE ARPT AND I TOLD HIM NO BUT WE WERE FLYING THE LOC AND G/S. HE WAS VERY UPSET THAT WE HAD DSNDED W/O VIS FOR THE ARPT AND TURNED US L FOR A VIS AND THEN NOTIFIED US THAT THE ILS WAS NOTAMED OUT WITH UNRELIABLE AZIMUTH AND G/S. IT WAS NOT ON OUR FLT PLAN NOR WAS IT ON THE ATIS. WE PICKED UP THE FIELD VISLY AND LANDED. HOW CAN A LCL CTLR CLR YOU FOR AN ILS APCH THAT IS NOTAMED OUT? THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT COM BTWN CTLRS NOR WHAT WAS ON THE ATIS ABOUT FIELD CONDITIONS. THE VISIBILITY WAS CERTAINLY NOT 5 MI WHICH THEY WERE RPTING.

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.