Narrative:

During the ILS approach into kbna (nashville, tn), with the captain flying the approach, the tower advised the aircraft in front of us, an air carrier jet, that the touchdown RVR was better than 6000 ft, and the rollout RVR was 800 ft. At 2 mi from the approach end of the runway, I asked the tower if we were cleared to land. His response was 'continue, aircraft on the runway.' from that point until we reached the MM, the tower was concentrating on the location of the arrival jet that landed before. At decision height and the MM, tower again asked air carrier if they were clear of the runway. Air carrier advised, 'not yet.' at this point, the tower told us 'go around.' it was at this point my captain responded to the tower, 'no! We'll continue for a little but they will be clear!' excitedly, the tower again asked air carrier if they had cleared the runway, which they immediately responded, 'yes we've found the taxiway.' at this point we were approximately 1/8 of a mi from the threshold, and the tower then cleared us to land. This particular captain had, in the past, shown tremendous impatience with controllers. At times arguing over the radio. This was an alternate destination for us, as our original destination was below mins. There was no necessary rush for us to land at bna. Strictly in my opinion, the captain used poor judgement and common sense in rejecting the controller's 'go around' clearance. If the air carrier jet had not have cleared the runway, our missed approach would have began over the runway threshold, less than 6000 ft behind air carrier and our crossing altitude above the jet would have been less than 500 ft. This captain not only put himself into a possible dangerous situation, but also his crew and passenger, as well as the air carrier crew and passenger. He also disregarded the controller's separation criteria.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORPORATE PLT CONTINUES LNDG AFTER CLRNC FOR GAR ISSUED.

Narrative: DURING THE ILS APCH INTO KBNA (NASHVILLE, TN), WITH THE CAPT FLYING THE APCH, THE TWR ADVISED THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US, AN ACR JET, THAT THE TOUCHDOWN RVR WAS BETTER THAN 6000 FT, AND THE ROLLOUT RVR WAS 800 FT. AT 2 MI FROM THE APCH END OF THE RWY, I ASKED THE TWR IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. HIS RESPONSE WAS 'CONTINUE, ACFT ON THE RWY.' FROM THAT POINT UNTIL WE REACHED THE MM, THE TWR WAS CONCENTRATING ON THE LOCATION OF THE ARR JET THAT LANDED BEFORE. AT DECISION HEIGHT AND THE MM, TWR AGAIN ASKED ACR IF THEY WERE CLR OF THE RWY. ACR ADVISED, 'NOT YET.' AT THIS POINT, THE TWR TOLD US 'GAR.' IT WAS AT THIS POINT MY CAPT RESPONDED TO THE TWR, 'NO! WE'LL CONTINUE FOR A LITTLE BUT THEY WILL BE CLR!' EXCITEDLY, THE TWR AGAIN ASKED ACR IF THEY HAD CLRED THE RWY, WHICH THEY IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED, 'YES WE'VE FOUND THE TAXIWAY.' AT THIS POINT WE WERE APPROX 1/8 OF A MI FROM THE THRESHOLD, AND THE TWR THEN CLRED US TO LAND. THIS PARTICULAR CAPT HAD, IN THE PAST, SHOWN TREMENDOUS IMPATIENCE WITH CTLRS. AT TIMES ARGUING OVER THE RADIO. THIS WAS AN ALTERNATE DEST FOR US, AS OUR ORIGINAL DEST WAS BELOW MINS. THERE WAS NO NECESSARY RUSH FOR US TO LAND AT BNA. STRICTLY IN MY OPINION, THE CAPT USED POOR JUDGEMENT AND COMMON SENSE IN REJECTING THE CTLR'S 'GAR' CLRNC. IF THE ACR JET HAD NOT HAVE CLRED THE RWY, OUR MISSED APCH WOULD HAVE BEGAN OVER THE RWY THRESHOLD, LESS THAN 6000 FT BEHIND ACR AND OUR XING ALT ABOVE THE JET WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS THAN 500 FT. THIS CAPT NOT ONLY PUT HIMSELF INTO A POSSIBLE DANGEROUS SITUATION, BUT ALSO HIS CREW AND PAX, AS WELL AS THE ACR CREW AND PAX. HE ALSO DISREGARDED THE CTLR'S SEPARATION CRITERIA.

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.