Air carrier large transport continued approach in WX reported below airport minimums for landing.

Attributes
ACN	173328
Time
Date	199103
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ywg
State Reference	MB
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : ywg artcc : zoa
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing : go around landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 4000
ASRS Report	173328
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

On approach to landing, ATIS calling visibility 1 mi and runway 31 the active. We were cleared for ILS 31 approach (minimums were 400' RVR or 3/4 mi). At about 7 mi from the airport, approach asked us if we wanted a straight-in approach to runway 36 (CAT ii available, but not active at this time). We accepted 36. While tracking the localizer, visibility was changing rapidly from 2000' RVR-1000' RVR, and the captain expecting CAT I WX had not set up or briefed a CAT ii approach. Before crossing the marker, last reported WX was 1000' RVR. The captain chose to continue the approach to CAT I DH, even after I advised him it was illegal to pass the marker. We missed the approach. We then requested CAT ii for runway 36. We set up and briefed. Outside the marker the last reported visibility was 1000A, 800B, which was below minimums. The captain told me to continue the approach, saying that the WX was variable and he wanted to look. We made a safe and successful landing. Question: how assertive should I be? I made it clear both times this was illegal (although not unsafe). We all could be violated.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT CONTINUED APCH IN WX REPORTED BELOW ARPT MINIMUMS FOR LNDG.

Narrative: ON APCH TO LNDG, ATIS CALLING VISIBILITY 1 MI AND RWY 31 THE ACTIVE. WE WERE CLRED FOR ILS 31 APCH (MINIMUMS WERE 400' RVR OR 3/4 MI). AT ABOUT 7 MI FROM THE ARPT, APCH ASKED US IF WE WANTED A STRAIGHT-IN APCH TO RWY 36 (CAT II AVAILABLE, BUT NOT ACTIVE AT THIS TIME). WE ACCEPTED 36. WHILE TRACKING THE LOC, VISIBILITY WAS CHANGING RAPIDLY FROM 2000' RVR-1000' RVR, AND THE CAPT EXPECTING CAT I WX HAD NOT SET UP OR BRIEFED A CAT II APCH. BEFORE XING THE MARKER, LAST RPTED WX WAS 1000' RVR. THE CAPT CHOSE TO CONTINUE THE APCH TO CAT I DH, EVEN AFTER I ADVISED HIM IT WAS ILLEGAL TO PASS THE MARKER. WE MISSED THE APCH. WE THEN REQUESTED CAT II FOR RWY 36. WE SET UP AND BRIEFED. OUTSIDE THE MARKER THE LAST RPTED VISIBILITY WAS 1000A, 800B, WHICH WAS BELOW MINIMUMS. THE CAPT TOLD ME TO CONTINUE THE APCH, SAYING THAT THE WX WAS VARIABLE AND HE WANTED TO LOOK. WE MADE A SAFE AND SUCCESSFUL LNDG. QUESTION: HOW ASSERTIVE SHOULD I BE? I MADE IT CLEAR BOTH TIMES THIS WAS ILLEGAL (ALTHOUGH NOT UNSAFE). WE ALL COULD BE VIOLATED.

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.