Approach and landing when WX reported below minimums.

Attributes
ACN	168164
Time
Date	199101
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rst
State Reference	MN
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : rst tower : rst tower : pit
Operator	general aviation : corporate
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 160 flight time total : 10300 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	168164
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Weather
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

I was conducting an IFR flight under far part 91 from madison, wi to albert lea, mn. The WX was forecast to improve by the time we were to arrive at albert lea, mn. Upon arrival, the WX decreased below minimums at albert lea and at most other airports in south and west mn and north ia. Our alternate was msp. Since the WX was deteriorating quite fast and was not forecast to do so, I decided to try rest because they have an ILS approach. If I would have gone to my alternate, I may have ended up in a holding pattern for a long time because of normal traffic loads at mso. During radar vectoring, I was advised by rst approach control that the runway 31 RVR was 1300'. Because I was operating under far part 91, I was entitled to initiate the approach, even though the RVR for runway 31 was below minimums (2400'). My ILS approach to runway 31 at rso was normal and uneventful. When I reached the decision height, I had about 3000' of runway clearly visible in front of me, and all the approach lights were clearly visible. Upon my arrival at the decision height, had the in-flight visibility not been at least 2400' I would have executed the appropriate missed approach procedure.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH AND LNDG WHEN WX REPORTED BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: I WAS CONDUCTING AN IFR FLT UNDER FAR PART 91 FROM MADISON, WI TO ALBERT LEA, MN. THE WX WAS FORECAST TO IMPROVE BY THE TIME WE WERE TO ARRIVE AT ALBERT LEA, MN. UPON ARR, THE WX DECREASED BELOW MINIMUMS AT ALBERT LEA AND AT MOST OTHER ARPTS IN S AND W MN AND N IA. OUR ALTERNATE WAS MSP. SINCE THE WX WAS DETERIORATING QUITE FAST AND WAS NOT FORECAST TO DO SO, I DECIDED TO TRY REST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN ILS APCH. IF I WOULD HAVE GONE TO MY ALTERNATE, I MAY HAVE ENDED UP IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE OF NORMAL TFC LOADS AT MSO. DURING RADAR VECTORING, I WAS ADVISED BY RST APCH CTL THAT THE RWY 31 RVR WAS 1300'. BECAUSE I WAS OPERATING UNDER FAR PART 91, I WAS ENTITLED TO INITIATE THE APCH, EVEN THOUGH THE RVR FOR RWY 31 WAS BELOW MINIMUMS (2400'). MY ILS APCH TO RWY 31 AT RSO WAS NORMAL AND UNEVENTFUL. WHEN I REACHED THE DECISION HEIGHT, I HAD ABOUT 3000' OF RWY CLEARLY VISIBLE IN FRONT OF ME, AND ALL THE APCH LIGHTS WERE CLEARLY VISIBLE. UPON MY ARR AT THE DECISION HEIGHT, HAD THE INFLT VISIBILITY NOT BEEN AT LEAST 2400' I WOULD HAVE EXECUTED THE APPROPRIATE MISSED APCH PROC.

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.