Narrative:

Approaching slc in receipt of ATIS information, the reported airport visibility was 4 mi. From 8-10 mi north, the airport was in sight, as were numerous other inbound aircraft. The approach was briefed for CAT I/visual possibilities. On downwind vector approach, controller requested we report the airport in sight. Since the first officer was the PF, I informed him I had the airport in sight. By agreement we did not call the airport in sight to ATC until on left base, outside flagg when we both could see runways, other traffic and terrain in distance. Approach control then cleared us for visual approach to runway 34L which we had insight. As the PF (first officer), called 'gear down, flaps 15 degrees, set speed.' tower cleared us to land on runway 34L, then added 'runway 34L RVR greater than 6000 ft, mid field 400 ft.' since we were always clear of clouds, in-flight visibility greater than 3 mi with our most recent ATIS reporting 4 mi airport visibility, I accepted landing clearance. The final approach and landing were conducted in visual conditions. Only taxiing to clear the runway did we encounter a brief area of ground based obscuration that reduced visibility briefly. In retrospect, I question approach control giving us a visual clearance if ground fog was a known factor. It was not apparent to us at any point until taxi speed. Should this occur again, I would call for a go around to clarify WX. If the ATIS had in fact changed and airport visibility was below 3 mi that should have been broadcast by either approach or tower -- not just RVR greater than 6000 ft. Clearing the runway it was easy to miss the turn on taxiway a and continue to taxiway B, the unlit parallel taxiway, since ground control's only instructions were 'taxi east to gate.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 CREW WAS CLRED AND ACCEPTED A VISUAL APCH. TWR THEN INFORMED CREW OF REDUCED RVR READINGS.

Narrative: APCHING SLC IN RECEIPT OF ATIS INFO, THE RPTED ARPT VISIBILITY WAS 4 MI. FROM 8-10 MI N, THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT, AS WERE NUMEROUS OTHER INBOUND ACFT. THE APCH WAS BRIEFED FOR CAT I/VISUAL POSSIBILITIES. ON DOWNWIND VECTOR APCH, CTLR REQUESTED WE RPT THE ARPT IN SIGHT. SINCE THE FO WAS THE PF, I INFORMED HIM I HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. BY AGREEMENT WE DID NOT CALL THE ARPT IN SIGHT TO ATC UNTIL ON L BASE, OUTSIDE FLAGG WHEN WE BOTH COULD SEE RWYS, OTHER TFC AND TERRAIN IN DISTANCE. APCH CTL THEN CLRED US FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 34L WHICH WE HAD INSIGHT. AS THE PF (FO), CALLED 'GEAR DOWN, FLAPS 15 DEGS, SET SPD.' TWR CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 34L, THEN ADDED 'RWY 34L RVR GREATER THAN 6000 FT, MID FIELD 400 FT.' SINCE WE WERE ALWAYS CLR OF CLOUDS, INFLT VISIBILITY GREATER THAN 3 MI WITH OUR MOST RECENT ATIS RPTING 4 MI ARPT VISIBILITY, I ACCEPTED LNDG CLRNC. THE FINAL APCH AND LNDG WERE CONDUCTED IN VISUAL CONDITIONS. ONLY TAXIING TO CLR THE RWY DID WE ENCOUNTER A BRIEF AREA OF GND BASED OBSCURATION THAT REDUCED VISIBILITY BRIEFLY. IN RETROSPECT, I QUESTION APCH CTL GIVING US A VISUAL CLRNC IF GND FOG WAS A KNOWN FACTOR. IT WAS NOT APPARENT TO US AT ANY POINT UNTIL TAXI SPD. SHOULD THIS OCCUR AGAIN, I WOULD CALL FOR A GAR TO CLARIFY WX. IF THE ATIS HAD IN FACT CHANGED AND ARPT VISIBILITY WAS BELOW 3 MI THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROADCAST BY EITHER APCH OR TWR -- NOT JUST RVR GREATER THAN 6000 FT. CLRING THE RWY IT WAS EASY TO MISS THE TURN ON TXWY A AND CONTINUE TO TXWY B, THE UNLIT PARALLEL TXWY, SINCE GND CTL'S ONLY INSTRUCTIONS WERE 'TAXI E TO GATE.'

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.