Narrative:

Before departing bdl I asked the ground controller for current WX in pvd. She advised me it was RVR 1200' with prevailing visibility of 1/2 mi. We took off with the assumption that this would be sufficient even though the approach plate specifies 1800 RVR or 1/2 mi visibility. The ATIS reported partially obscured 20000' overcast and visibility 3/8 mi with fog. Quonset approach advised us that everyone was getting in and that the tower visibility was 1/2 mi. We had absolutely no problem seeing the airport and runway environment from 5 mi out. The approach controller cleared us for the ILS 5R (#2 behind air carrier). Tower advised us RVR was 1000' because of ground fog. I objected to shooting the approach because I thought the RVR was the controling factor. The captain contended that it was RVR or prevailing visibility. Based on that contention and the fact that others were landing with the same conditions, I felt I might be confused on the issue (maybe my contention was based on my former company's rules or it was a part 135 regulation) and agreed to land. I wish now I had been more adamant. Supplemental information from acn 97342: the runway was in sight from the commencement of the approach through the landing and we could have done the approach visually. We discovered that RVR is limiting upon discussion with an instrument pilot.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MDT LANDED AT PVD WITH REPORTED WX BELOW ARPT WX MINIMUMS FOR LNDG.

Narrative: BEFORE DEPARTING BDL I ASKED THE GND CTLR FOR CURRENT WX IN PVD. SHE ADVISED ME IT WAS RVR 1200' WITH PREVAILING VIS OF 1/2 MI. WE TOOK OFF WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT EVEN THOUGH THE APCH PLATE SPECIFIES 1800 RVR OR 1/2 MI VIS. THE ATIS RPTED PARTIALLY OBSCURED 20000' OVCST AND VIS 3/8 MI WITH FOG. QUONSET APCH ADVISED US THAT EVERYONE WAS GETTING IN AND THAT THE TWR VIS WAS 1/2 MI. WE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO PROB SEEING THE ARPT AND RWY ENVIRONMENT FROM 5 MI OUT. THE APCH CTLR CLRED US FOR THE ILS 5R (#2 BEHIND ACR). TWR ADVISED US RVR WAS 1000' BECAUSE OF GND FOG. I OBJECTED TO SHOOTING THE APCH BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE RVR WAS THE CTLING FACTOR. THE CAPT CONTENDED THAT IT WAS RVR OR PREVAILING VIS. BASED ON THAT CONTENTION AND THE FACT THAT OTHERS WERE LNDG WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS, I FELT I MIGHT BE CONFUSED ON THE ISSUE (MAYBE MY CONTENTION WAS BASED ON MY FORMER COMPANY'S RULES OR IT WAS A PART 135 REG) AND AGREED TO LAND. I WISH NOW I HAD BEEN MORE ADAMANT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 97342: THE RWY WAS IN SIGHT FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE APCH THROUGH THE LNDG AND WE COULD HAVE DONE THE APCH VISUALLY. WE DISCOVERED THAT RVR IS LIMITING UPON DISCUSSION WITH AN INSTR PLT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.