Alb ATCT local controller alleges reporters landed in WX reported below airport minimums for landing...

Attributes
ACN	177627
Time
Date	199105
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : alb
State Reference	NY
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 300
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Dawn
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : alb tower : alb tracon : msp
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Medium Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government other
Function	flight crew : first officer oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 50 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	177627
Person 2
Affiliation	government other
Function	flight crew : captain
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 5000 flight time type : 30
ASRS Report	177389
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : investigated
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Weather
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

While making an ILS approach to runway 19 at alb, which requires 250' and 40 RVR or 1 mi visibility, I elected as PIC to continue the approach as I have the right to do under part 91, even after the approach reported that RVR had gone from 3000 to 1800'. I informed approach that we would continue and take a look. If we didn't have minimums, we would go to our alternate, which was utica. We were turned over to the tower and he asked if we were informed of the RVR, and I said yes. He cleared us to land if we had minimums. Prior to DH I had the lead in lights followed by runway end lights and continued. Prior to landing I had the entire length (7000') of runway in sight. We landed with no problem and informed tower in taxi-in that we had the full length of the runway. We received word that the tower had written us up for landing below minimums, because RVR takes precedence over what we see from the cockpit. I believe tower is wrong as I had 1 mi visibility and landed as is prescribed in the approach procedure. He may have believed we were 135 or 121 and did not have the right to initiate the approach. In that case, we would not have been able to see that we had the required 1 mi visibility.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ALB ATCT LCL CTLR ALLEGES REPORTERS LANDED IN WX REPORTED BELOW ARPT MINIMUMS FOR LNDG.

Narrative: WHILE MAKING AN ILS APCH TO RWY 19 AT ALB, WHICH REQUIRES 250' AND 40 RVR OR 1 MI VISIBILITY, I ELECTED AS PIC TO CONTINUE THE APCH AS I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO UNDER PART 91, EVEN AFTER THE APCH RPTED THAT RVR HAD GONE FROM 3000 TO 1800'. I INFORMED APCH THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE AND TAKE A LOOK. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE MINIMUMS, WE WOULD GO TO OUR ALTERNATE, WHICH WAS UTICA. WE WERE TURNED OVER TO THE TWR AND HE ASKED IF WE WERE INFORMED OF THE RVR, AND I SAID YES. HE CLRED US TO LAND IF WE HAD MINIMUMS. PRIOR TO DH I HAD THE LEAD IN LIGHTS FOLLOWED BY RWY END LIGHTS AND CONTINUED. PRIOR TO LNDG I HAD THE ENTIRE LENGTH (7000') OF RWY IN SIGHT. WE LANDED WITH NO PROB AND INFORMED TWR IN TAXI-IN THAT WE HAD THE FULL LENGTH OF THE RWY. WE RECEIVED WORD THAT THE TWR HAD WRITTEN US UP FOR LNDG BELOW MINIMUMS, BECAUSE RVR TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER WHAT WE SEE FROM THE COCKPIT. I BELIEVE TWR IS WRONG AS I HAD 1 MI VISIBILITY AND LANDED AS IS PRESCRIBED IN THE APCH PROC. HE MAY HAVE BELIEVED WE WERE 135 OR 121 AND DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE APCH. IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THAT WE HAD THE REQUIRED 1 MI VISIBILITY.

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.