Narrative:

While on the fat back course localizer approach, I was able to pick up the airport just outside the missed approach which, in this case, was .5 DME on the localizer. I was 10 KTS out of the white arc and by the time I slowed to flaps maximum speed, I was over the threshold. I descended and landed uneventfully, although I touched down further down the runway than I normally plan. Tower control queried me (on a discrete frequency) about the meteorological conditions and as to where I picked up the runway. I told him 'about .1 mi' (what I meant was .1 from the missed approach and not from the runway). Tower then asked me if thought the back course should be used for subsequent aircraft. I replied that the WX we encountered was worse than what ATIS was reporting and that, wind permitting (it was less than 8 KTS) the ILS might be a better choice. He replied that he liked 'pilot input' prior to making changes in the approach to be used. Concerns: I was bothered that the WX was much lower than ATIS reported. I was the first aircraft to encounter this deteriorated ceiling. I was troubled about having a conversation with tower control on a discrete frequency, and I wondered if he was interested in my input or was he trying to pry information, to my detriment, from me. I was caught between executing the missed approach or effecting the landing. Never in doubt about the safe outcome of descent and landing, I even had to add power to reach the taxi end of the runway.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BEFORE CHANGING THE RWY APCH DIRECTION, THE TWR CTLR QUESTIONS THE PLT OF A BEECH 90 KING AIR AS TO HOW SOON THE RWY WAS SIGHTED BEFORE LNDG FROM A BACK COURSE INST APCH.

Narrative: WHILE ON THE FAT BACK COURSE LOC APCH, I WAS ABLE TO PICK UP THE ARPT JUST OUTSIDE THE MISSED APCH WHICH, IN THIS CASE, WAS .5 DME ON THE LOC. I WAS 10 KTS OUT OF THE WHITE ARC AND BY THE TIME I SLOWED TO FLAPS MAX SPD, I WAS OVER THE THRESHOLD. I DSNDED AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY, ALTHOUGH I TOUCHED DOWN FURTHER DOWN THE RWY THAN I NORMALLY PLAN. TWR CTL QUERIED ME (ON A DISCRETE FREQ) ABOUT THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND AS TO WHERE I PICKED UP THE RWY. I TOLD HIM 'ABOUT .1 MI' (WHAT I MEANT WAS .1 FROM THE MISSED APCH AND NOT FROM THE RWY). TWR THEN ASKED ME IF THOUGHT THE BACK COURSE SHOULD BE USED FOR SUBSEQUENT ACFT. I REPLIED THAT THE WX WE ENCOUNTERED WAS WORSE THAN WHAT ATIS WAS RPTING AND THAT, WIND PERMITTING (IT WAS LESS THAN 8 KTS) THE ILS MIGHT BE A BETTER CHOICE. HE REPLIED THAT HE LIKED 'PLT INPUT' PRIOR TO MAKING CHANGES IN THE APCH TO BE USED. CONCERNS: I WAS BOTHERED THAT THE WX WAS MUCH LOWER THAN ATIS RPTED. I WAS THE FIRST ACFT TO ENCOUNTER THIS DETERIORATED CEILING. I WAS TROUBLED ABOUT HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH TWR CTL ON A DISCRETE FREQ, AND I WONDERED IF HE WAS INTERESTED IN MY INPUT OR WAS HE TRYING TO PRY INFO, TO MY DETRIMENT, FROM ME. I WAS CAUGHT BTWN EXECUTING THE MISSED APCH OR EFFECTING THE LNDG. NEVER IN DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFE OUTCOME OF DSCNT AND LNDG, I EVEN HAD TO ADD PWR TO REACH THE TAXI END OF THE RWY.

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.