Narrative:

During the ILS runway 35 approach brief; the PIC briefed that we could take a 'look' and continue with the approach; knowing the weather was below minimum visibility reported to land. I explained that the A5 configuration did not have red termination bars or side row lights unlike the ALSF1 or ALSF2 (a; A1; & A2) lighting systems; and basically asked what he was going to use to determine the end of the visual light system and the beginning of the visual runway segment. At minimums; the MALSR lights for runway 35 were not in sight and a go-around was not executed; however was expected; as I gave no 'continue' call out as pilot not flying. The decision altitude (da) was 489. The PIC continued following glide path down to approximately 100 additional feet (100 above tdze) and said he had the lights in sight and said he was continuing. We were inside 2;400 feet from the threshold (beginning of the approach light system) and approximately 1;000 feet from the threshold when the PIC declared the lights in site. The PIC continued to land as he said he now had the runway in sight; approximately 70 feet AGL radio altimeter. The tower proceeded to query how and when we were able to continue the approach; in reference to the in-flight visibility and prevailing [visibility]. The approach from da/DH was completely flown improperly; and far part 91.175 [was] improperly applied. The visibility was less than prescribed to land and a go-around should have been executed at da/DH.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Copilot of a turbojet reported enduring an approach to landing in which the PIC flying went below minimums in IMC without having sufficient runway environment in sight.

Narrative: During the ILS Runway 35 approach brief; the PIC briefed that we could take a 'look' and continue with the approach; knowing the weather was below minimum visibility reported to land. I explained that the A5 configuration did not have red termination bars or side row lights unlike the ALSF1 or ALSF2 (A; A1; & A2) lighting systems; and basically asked what he was going to use to determine the end of the visual light system and the beginning of the visual runway segment. At minimums; the MALSR lights for Runway 35 were not in sight and a go-around was not executed; however was expected; as I gave no 'continue' call out as pilot not flying. The Decision Altitude (DA) was 489. The PIC continued following glide path down to approximately 100 additional feet (100 above TDZE) and said he had the lights in sight and said he was continuing. We were inside 2;400 feet from the threshold (beginning of the approach light system) and approximately 1;000 feet from the threshold when the PIC declared the lights in site. The PIC continued to land as he said he now had the runway in sight; approximately 70 feet AGL radio altimeter. The Tower proceeded to query how and when we were able to continue the approach; in reference to the in-flight visibility and prevailing [visibility]. The approach from DA/DH was completely flown improperly; and FAR part 91.175 [was] improperly applied. The visibility was less than prescribed to land and a go-around should have been executed at DA/DH.

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.