Narrative:

On approach outside the FAF for the ILS 21 segu I; the pilot monitoring established comms with the tower. The tower controller said 'continue approach and report the runway in site.' I incorrectly read back; 'cleared to land'. The tower controller corrected me and said to the extent that we were not cleared to land and that we'd be given landing clearance when we reported the runway in site. The captain and I both thought this was an odd clearance; verbalizing same; with such poor weather conditions at night. A PIREP before alerted us to the high probability we'd see the runway right at minimums. We had discussed alternate options earlier and were forced to become distracted with the possibility of a go-around due to a delayed landing clearance seconds before touchdown. As it turned out we did see the runway right at minimums; reported the runway in site and were given clearance to land. We landed without event.I've never heard of having to report the runway in site during IMC conditions; on an approved IFR approach procedure as criteria for landing clearance. I go to guayaquil quite often but weather is generally not that bad. I don't know of this being an ecuador procedure or a guayaquil specific procedure. None the less; this added unneeded stress to an already 4 hour flight and long duty day. The possibility of going around and the proceeding to our alternate; manta; just because the tower delayed their response was high. We had discussed that flying another approach to minimums under the same criteria was undesirable. Asking a crew below 300 ft; at night; under poor visibility and rain to report the runway in site is unsafe!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier First Officer reported an unsafe clearance given by ATC during a night landing in IMC.

Narrative: On approach outside the FAF for the ILS 21 SEGU I; the pilot monitoring established comms with the tower. The Tower Controller said 'continue approach and report the runway in site.' I incorrectly read back; 'cleared to land'. The tower controller corrected me and said to the extent that we were not cleared to land and that we'd be given landing clearance when we reported the runway in site. The Captain and I both thought this was an odd clearance; verbalizing same; with such poor weather conditions at night. A PIREP before alerted us to the high probability we'd see the runway right at minimums. We had discussed alternate options earlier and were forced to become distracted with the possibility of a go-around due to a delayed landing clearance seconds before touchdown. As it turned out we did see the runway right at minimums; reported the runway in site and were given clearance to land. We landed without event.I've never heard of having to report the runway in site during IMC conditions; on an approved IFR approach procedure as criteria for landing clearance. I go to Guayaquil quite often but weather is generally not that bad. I don't know of this being an Ecuador procedure or a Guayaquil specific procedure. None the less; this added unneeded stress to an already 4 hour flight and long duty day. The possibility of going around and the proceeding to our alternate; Manta; just because the tower delayed their response was high. We had discussed that flying another approach to minimums under the same criteria was undesirable. Asking a crew below 300 ft; at night; under poor visibility and rain to report the runway in site is unsafe!

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.