Narrative:

ATIS reported 1/16 mi. Captain reported 8 mi visibility, airport and runway in sight. Tower reported 3/16 of a mi fog. Captain reported airport and runway in sight. We were cleared for the approach and landing. I advised the captain that with the reported WX we could not accept the approach. Captain stated he was refuting their visibility. We had airport and runway in sight. I advised the captain I did think that applied to this situation. We continued, never losing sight of the runway. As we rolled out, the visibility was less, about 3000 ft, light fog. I believe this is a situation where the captain, knowing his personality and history as someone who is hard nosed, is set in his ways and difficult to work with. He is the type of captain who is the reason the whole industry is working hard to implement cockpit resource management programs. I applaud the industry for this. We're moving in the right direction. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporting first officer agrees with the reporting captain that the runway was visible from 8 mi out and that the tower cleared the flight to land. There is no RVR at mlu. The tower is some distance from the runway and well above so that the tower has a different perspective than a pilot outside the OM. Nothing has yet been said by the FAA to the pilots. The first officer states that this captain can be very difficult to deal with at times and is always right. Supplemental information from acn 235118: I stated I had at least 8 mi visibility and airport and runway in sight. I said again airport and runway in sight. Was cleared for the approach and landed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR LTT DISPUTED THE WX AT NIGHT WITH THE TWR. THE ACFT WAS CLRED TO LAND AND DID SO SAFELY.

Narrative: ATIS RPTED 1/16 MI. CAPT RPTED 8 MI VISIBILITY, ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT. TWR RPTED 3/16 OF A MI FOG. CAPT RPTED ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND LNDG. I ADVISED THE CAPT THAT WITH THE RPTED WX WE COULD NOT ACCEPT THE APCH. CAPT STATED HE WAS REFUTING THEIR VISIBILITY. WE HAD ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT. I ADVISED THE CAPT I DID THINK THAT APPLIED TO THIS SIT. WE CONTINUED, NEVER LOSING SIGHT OF THE RWY. AS WE ROLLED OUT, THE VISIBILITY WAS LESS, ABOUT 3000 FT, LIGHT FOG. I BELIEVE THIS IS A SIT WHERE THE CAPT, KNOWING HIS PERSONALITY AND HISTORY AS SOMEONE WHO IS HARD NOSED, IS SET IN HIS WAYS AND DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH. HE IS THE TYPE OF CAPT WHO IS THE REASON THE WHOLE INDUSTRY IS WORKING HARD TO IMPLEMENT COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT PROGRAMS. I APPLAUD THE INDUSTRY FOR THIS. WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTING FO AGREES WITH THE RPTING CAPT THAT THE RWY WAS VISIBLE FROM 8 MI OUT AND THAT THE TWR CLRED THE FLT TO LAND. THERE IS NO RVR AT MLU. THE TWR IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE RWY AND WELL ABOVE SO THAT THE TWR HAS A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE THAN A PLT OUTSIDE THE OM. NOTHING HAS YET BEEN SAID BY THE FAA TO THE PLTS. THE FO STATES THAT THIS CAPT CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH AT TIMES AND IS ALWAYS RIGHT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 235118: I STATED I HAD AT LEAST 8 MI VISIBILITY AND ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT. I SAID AGAIN ARPT AND RWY IN SIGHT. WAS CLRED FOR THE APCH AND LANDED.

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.