Narrative:

Upon first contact with fsd approach we were advised reported WX as 7 overcast 1 SM sn fzdz. Runway 3 localizer OTS. Wind 010 degrees at 12 KTS. We informed approach we needed one and one quarter mi visibility for the approach and requested holding. We had only approximately 10 mins hold fuel. Once in the hold, a new controller came on frequency to inform us the WX is still showing 1 mi visibility. However, tower visibility in the remarks section of the sequence says one and one quarter mi. We 'can't get the WX bureau to change their observation, so the official visibility is 1 mi.' before I could comment the captain told approach we could accept the approach. While being vectored to the VOR-DME runway 33 at fsd, I challenged the decision and told the captain we're not legal for this approach, officially the visibility is 1 mi. The captain using very poor 'clear' continued the approach. I did all my duties to ensure a safe conclusion. After arriving at the gate at fsd, I referenced the section in the operations manual under prevailing visibility and showed him my position. His interpretation of the paragraph led him to believe he was legal. I still do not believe we were legal to shoot the approach. I am still investigating. The captain used poor 'clear.' upon realizing half the crew didn't agree with his course of action, he should have reconsidered his action and erred on the conservative side.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-200 LANDS WHEN THE RPTED WX IS BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: UPON FIRST CONTACT WITH FSD APCH WE WERE ADVISED RPTED WX AS 7 OVCST 1 SM SN FZDZ. RWY 3 LOC OTS. WIND 010 DEGS AT 12 KTS. WE INFORMED APCH WE NEEDED ONE AND ONE QUARTER MI VISIBILITY FOR THE APCH AND REQUESTED HOLDING. WE HAD ONLY APPROX 10 MINS HOLD FUEL. ONCE IN THE HOLD, A NEW CTLR CAME ON FREQ TO INFORM US THE WX IS STILL SHOWING 1 MI VISIBILITY. HOWEVER, TWR VISIBILITY IN THE REMARKS SECTION OF THE SEQUENCE SAYS ONE AND ONE QUARTER MI. WE 'CAN'T GET THE WX BUREAU TO CHANGE THEIR OBSERVATION, SO THE OFFICIAL VISIBILITY IS 1 MI.' BEFORE I COULD COMMENT THE CAPT TOLD APCH WE COULD ACCEPT THE APCH. WHILE BEING VECTORED TO THE VOR-DME RWY 33 AT FSD, I CHALLENGED THE DECISION AND TOLD THE CAPT WE'RE NOT LEGAL FOR THIS APCH, OFFICIALLY THE VISIBILITY IS 1 MI. THE CAPT USING VERY POOR 'CLR' CONTINUED THE APCH. I DID ALL MY DUTIES TO ENSURE A SAFE CONCLUSION. AFTER ARRIVING AT THE GATE AT FSD, I REFED THE SECTION IN THE OPS MANUAL UNDER PREVAILING VISIBILITY AND SHOWED HIM MY POS. HIS INTERP OF THE PARAGRAPH LED HIM TO BELIEVE HE WAS LEGAL. I STILL DO NOT BELIEVE WE WERE LEGAL TO SHOOT THE APCH. I AM STILL INVESTIGATING. THE CAPT USED POOR 'CLR.' UPON REALIZING HALF THE CREW DIDN'T AGREE WITH HIS COURSE OF ACTION, HE SHOULD HAVE RECONSIDERED HIS ACTION AND ERRED ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE.

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.