Narrative:

The flight originated at the chesterfield county airport in a king air B100, proceeded over the richmond airport to pick up passenger and on to lancaster. Leaving the richmond airport, the WX in lancaster was 100 ft overcast and 1/4 mi visibility and fog. The forecast in the lancaster area was expected to improve above minimums by the time I reached there an hour later. Also, both baltimore and harrisonburg were above minimums and could be used as an alternate. When I was within 50 mi of lns, I tried to pick up the ATIS report, but due to some feedback on the frequency, I was only able to understand 8 mi visibility and the winds, which were now 6 KTS. At about the same time I was handed over to harrisonburg approach. On the first contact, I asked if everyone was making it into lancaster that morning. The controller told me that a lear 31 was 3 mi out on the ILS and a king air 90 was lining up behind him, and they were the first to try. I started to receive vectors for the ILS 8 into lns, and began setting up the aircraft for the approach. After a few mins the lear 31 had landed and said that he broke out at minimums. The king air behind him also broke out at minimums. By this time I was on the localizer about 1 mi from the FAF. I was then handed over to the tower and cleared to land. At 200 ft AGL I picked up the rabbit lights, and continued with the approach. Then at 150 ft AGL I picked up the runway lights and landed. Once I was clear of the runway I gave the same PIREP as the other aircraft stating that the WX was 1/2 mi visibility and 200 ft overcast. The ground controller then told me that the ATIS was saying 1/8 mi visibility and obscured. Apparently the '8' I heard on the radio was actually 1/8, and that according to part 135 regulations I should have never started the approach because of the WX. I feel the landing was legal but that the approach should not have been stated. I feel that the contributing factors to this were the garbled ATIS frequency, and the fact that I did not follow up with the controllers to get the full WX briefing. Also, hearing the other planes land ahead of me, somehow gave me the confidence to continue the approach. Upon returning to richmond, I called our local FAA representative and explained the incident. We discussed the approach and landing coming to the same conclusion as above. In the future I will always make sure I have a complete WX picture before attempting an approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE10 LANDS BELOW MINIMUMS AT LNS.

Narrative: THE FLT ORIGINATED AT THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ARPT IN A KING AIR B100, PROCEEDED OVER THE RICHMOND ARPT TO PICK UP PAX AND ON TO LANCASTER. LEAVING THE RICHMOND ARPT, THE WX IN LANCASTER WAS 100 FT OVCST AND 1/4 MI VISIBILITY AND FOG. THE FORECAST IN THE LANCASTER AREA WAS EXPECTED TO IMPROVE ABOVE MINIMUMS BY THE TIME I REACHED THERE AN HR LATER. ALSO, BOTH BALTIMORE AND HARRISONBURG WERE ABOVE MINIMUMS AND COULD BE USED AS AN ALTERNATE. WHEN I WAS WITHIN 50 MI OF LNS, I TRIED TO PICK UP THE ATIS RPT, BUT DUE TO SOME FEEDBACK ON THE FREQ, I WAS ONLY ABLE TO UNDERSTAND 8 MI VISIBILITY AND THE WINDS, WHICH WERE NOW 6 KTS. AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME I WAS HANDED OVER TO HARRISONBURG APCH. ON THE FIRST CONTACT, I ASKED IF EVERYONE WAS MAKING IT INTO LANCASTER THAT MORNING. THE CTLR TOLD ME THAT A LEAR 31 WAS 3 MI OUT ON THE ILS AND A KING AIR 90 WAS LINING UP BEHIND HIM, AND THEY WERE THE FIRST TO TRY. I STARTED TO RECEIVE VECTORS FOR THE ILS 8 INTO LNS, AND BEGAN SETTING UP THE ACFT FOR THE APCH. AFTER A FEW MINS THE LEAR 31 HAD LANDED AND SAID THAT HE BROKE OUT AT MINIMUMS. THE KING AIR BEHIND HIM ALSO BROKE OUT AT MINIMUMS. BY THIS TIME I WAS ON THE LOC ABOUT 1 MI FROM THE FAF. I WAS THEN HANDED OVER TO THE TWR AND CLRED TO LAND. AT 200 FT AGL I PICKED UP THE RABBIT LIGHTS, AND CONTINUED WITH THE APCH. THEN AT 150 FT AGL I PICKED UP THE RWY LIGHTS AND LANDED. ONCE I WAS CLR OF THE RWY I GAVE THE SAME PIREP AS THE OTHER ACFT STATING THAT THE WX WAS 1/2 MI VISIBILITY AND 200 FT OVCST. THE GND CTLR THEN TOLD ME THAT THE ATIS WAS SAYING 1/8 MI VISIBILITY AND OBSCURED. APPARENTLY THE '8' I HEARD ON THE RADIO WAS ACTUALLY 1/8, AND THAT ACCORDING TO PART 135 REGS I SHOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED THE APCH BECAUSE OF THE WX. I FEEL THE LNDG WAS LEGAL BUT THAT THE APCH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STATED. I FEEL THAT THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS WERE THE GARBLED ATIS FREQ, AND THE FACT THAT I DID NOT FOLLOW UP WITH THE CTLRS TO GET THE FULL WX BRIEFING. ALSO, HEARING THE OTHER PLANES LAND AHEAD OF ME, SOMEHOW GAVE ME THE CONFIDENCE TO CONTINUE THE APCH. UPON RETURNING TO RICHMOND, I CALLED OUR LCL FAA REPRESENTATIVE AND EXPLAINED THE INCIDENT. WE DISCUSSED THE APCH AND LNDG COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS ABOVE. IN THE FUTURE I WILL ALWAYS MAKE SURE I HAVE A COMPLETE WX PICTURE BEFORE ATTEMPTING AN 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.