Narrative:

The flight took place on feb/xx/94 from burlington, ia, to chicago, il. Aircraft in question, a saab 340B. The flight departed burlington for chicago in mid afternoon. About 50 NM out of chicago, captain received ord ATIS. ATIS reported 1/2 mi visibility, 200 ft overcast, RVR variable between 3500- 4500 ft. Upon receiving ATIS, our discussion in the cockpit was captain below 100 hours in saab, with high minimum restriction. For this particular ILS approach ILS 9 chicago O'hare, the requirements were 1 mi visibility or RVR 5000 ft. I advised captain of these requirements and questioned his intentions. His reply was 'we'll discontinue the approach prior to the final approach fix.' the approach was missed, and we were vectored around for another ILS approach to the same runway. Tension in the cockpit increased due to the fact the air frame was collecting a great deal of ice. Flight intercepted the localizer to ILS 9, 20 NM out. Captain said it was better to land then to ice up and crash. Captain asked the controller the RVR -- it was 4500 ft at the time. Captain asked for tower visibility -- it was reported 1 1/2 mi. Flight continued the approach to a successful landing. Captain reasoning was if he could get the controller to report tower visibility and not RVR, if that report was greater than the minimum, then he was ok to continue the approach. (I disagree.) RVR is controling. My game plan -- hold above the cloud deck until RVR comes up or fly to alternate fuel was no problem.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER FLT LANDS BELOW MINIMUMS AS CAPT HAS HIGH MINIMUM HRS.

Narrative: THE FLT TOOK PLACE ON FEB/XX/94 FROM BURLINGTON, IA, TO CHICAGO, IL. ACFT IN QUESTION, A SAAB 340B. THE FLT DEPARTED BURLINGTON FOR CHICAGO IN MID AFTERNOON. ABOUT 50 NM OUT OF CHICAGO, CAPT RECEIVED ORD ATIS. ATIS RPTED 1/2 MI VISIBILITY, 200 FT OVCST, RVR VARIABLE BTWN 3500- 4500 FT. UPON RECEIVING ATIS, OUR DISCUSSION IN THE COCKPIT WAS CAPT BELOW 100 HRS IN SAAB, WITH HIGH MINIMUM RESTRICTION. FOR THIS PARTICULAR ILS APCH ILS 9 CHICAGO O'HARE, THE REQUIREMENTS WERE 1 MI VISIBILITY OR RVR 5000 FT. I ADVISED CAPT OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND QUESTIONED HIS INTENTIONS. HIS REPLY WAS 'WE'LL DISCONTINUE THE APCH PRIOR TO THE FINAL APCH FIX.' THE APCH WAS MISSED, AND WE WERE VECTORED AROUND FOR ANOTHER ILS APCH TO THE SAME RWY. TENSION IN THE COCKPIT INCREASED DUE TO THE FACT THE AIR FRAME WAS COLLECTING A GREAT DEAL OF ICE. FLT INTERCEPTED THE LOC TO ILS 9, 20 NM OUT. CAPT SAID IT WAS BETTER TO LAND THEN TO ICE UP AND CRASH. CAPT ASKED THE CTLR THE RVR -- IT WAS 4500 FT AT THE TIME. CAPT ASKED FOR TWR VISIBILITY -- IT WAS RPTED 1 1/2 MI. FLT CONTINUED THE APCH TO A SUCCESSFUL LNDG. CAPT REASONING WAS IF HE COULD GET THE CTLR TO RPT TWR VISIBILITY AND NOT RVR, IF THAT RPT WAS GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM, THEN HE WAS OK TO CONTINUE THE APCH. (I DISAGREE.) RVR IS CTLING. MY GAME PLAN -- HOLD ABOVE THE CLOUD DECK UNTIL RVR COMES UP OR FLY TO ALTERNATE FUEL WAS NO PROB.

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.