Approach and landing made with RVR below minimums.

Attributes
ACN	294221
Time
Date	199501
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mci
State Reference	MO
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : mci tower : mci
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : straight in
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 260 flight time total : 19500
ASRS Report	294221
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : atp pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

When we were cleared for the approach, visibility was still variable between 1200-1400 ft RVR. When we were established inbound on the localizer, I contacted the tower. At that time, we had not yet intercepted the GS. The tower reported RVR of 1000 ft. We continued the approach and landed without incident. Once on the ground, I realized that if we had not intercepted the GS, when given the below minima RVR (CAT ii minimums 1200 ft), we had technically not been legal to execute the approach. I realize the importance of timely RVR updates. However, I feel this is an unnecessary trap. When the legality of the approach is determined by waiting a few seconds to contact the tower, (and therefore have achieved GS intercept), an unnecessary legal hurdle is palced on the pilot. It would be just as safe, and much less confusing, if once cleared for the approach with legal minima, you were then legal to execute the approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH AND LNDG MADE WITH RVR BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: WHEN WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH, VISIBILITY WAS STILL VARIABLE BTWN 1200-1400 FT RVR. WHEN WE WERE ESTABLISHED INBOUND ON THE LOC, I CONTACTED THE TWR. AT THAT TIME, WE HAD NOT YET INTERCEPTED THE GS. THE TWR RPTED RVR OF 1000 FT. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ONCE ON THE GND, I REALIZED THAT IF WE HAD NOT INTERCEPTED THE GS, WHEN GIVEN THE BELOW MINIMA RVR (CAT II MINIMUMS 1200 FT), WE HAD TECHNICALLY NOT BEEN LEGAL TO EXECUTE THE APCH. I REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY RVR UPDATES. HOWEVER, I FEEL THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY TRAP. WHEN THE LEGALITY OF THE APCH IS DETERMINED BY WAITING A FEW SECONDS TO CONTACT THE TWR, (AND THEREFORE HAVE ACHIEVED GS INTERCEPT), AN UNNECESSARY LEGAL HURDLE IS PALCED ON THE PLT. IT WOULD BE JUST AS SAFE, AND MUCH LESS CONFUSING, IF ONCE CLRED FOR THE APCH WITH LEGAL MINIMA, YOU WERE THEN LEGAL TO EXECUTE THE APCH.

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.