Narrative:

I was flying the second leg of my normal part 135 run, returning to crg from orl. WX was VFR en route. Jax approach told me to expect the ILS 32 into crg and to verify I had the ATIS information. I do not recall the ATIS letter code, but I believe the visibility was better than the required 3/4 mi, although fog was reported, sky obscured. I was vectored onto the approach and passed off to crg tower. Tower stated to me, after I was inside the FAF, that tower visibility was 1/4 mi. I continued the approach. Upon arrival at decision ht, I went missed approach. Just as I went missed I saw the runway and airport and was disappointed that I had to go missed, so I decided to try it again. I received vectors for another ILS. Just before final vector I was advised that crg was now reporting sky obscured, visibility 1/4 mi. I queried ATC, 'if crg is now reporting only 1/4 mi visibility, can I legally shoot the approach?' the controller answered that he did not know what my operating rules were. So, there I was, trying to remember the wording of the far. (It might be important to note that this was my 7TH day as a part 135 pilot.) I could not remember if I was allowed to fly the approach or not. I did know that I needed the required visibility to land. But was it ground or flight visibility? I had been taught that a good rule of thumb is that if you can see the runway at your missed approach point, then you have the required visibility. Anyway, all this was going through my head as I got my final vector onto the approach. I wasn't really sure what I should do, and I was nervous about getting my cargo in on time. I was fearful of getting yelled at if I had to hold. So, I decided to shoot the approach. I figured if I could safely land, I would. If I could not, I would go missed again and wait for the fog to burn off. Well, I got to decision ht, saw the runway environment and landed. Tower told me to report missed approach or on the ground. I reported that I was on the ground. They said to taxi to the ramp and report on the ramp. I did. On the ground I talked over what had happened with some of the company pilots. The conclusion was that I had landed illegally since reported visibility was less than required. In fact, I was not legally allowed to attempt the approach unless the WX report changed once I was inside the FAF. The most confusing thing to me, initially, was the fact that ATC vectored me onto the approach. I was a little unsure of what to do and figured they knew what they were doing. If I was getting vectors, I must be legal, I thought. Once I knew that they were leaving things up to me I felt even more unsure and a little uneasy. The fact that I had learned as a part 91 pilot that I could try any approach, regardless of visibility was a factor. Flight visibility versus ground visibility is still a little confusing to me. Whether or not 'tower' visibility means anything other than an advisory, I'm still not sure about. However, the bottom line is that I should have known the regulations better, or even had a copy with me. I know now that to avoid this in the future I'll simply comply with the reported ground visibility, if it's less than required, I'll be holding.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: START SECOND APCH WX BELOW MINIMUMS.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING THE SECOND LEG OF MY NORMAL PART 135 RUN, RETURNING TO CRG FROM ORL. WX WAS VFR ENRTE. JAX APCH TOLD ME TO EXPECT THE ILS 32 INTO CRG AND TO VERIFY I HAD THE ATIS INFO. I DO NOT RECALL THE ATIS LETTER CODE, BUT I BELIEVE THE VISIBILITY WAS BETTER THAN THE REQUIRED 3/4 MI, ALTHOUGH FOG WAS RPTED, SKY OBSCURED. I WAS VECTORED ONTO THE APCH AND PASSED OFF TO CRG TWR. TWR STATED TO ME, AFTER I WAS INSIDE THE FAF, THAT TWR VISIBILITY WAS 1/4 MI. I CONTINUED THE APCH. UPON ARR AT DECISION HT, I WENT MISSED APCH. JUST AS I WENT MISSED I SAW THE RWY AND ARPT AND WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT I HAD TO GO MISSED, SO I DECIDED TO TRY IT AGAIN. I RECEIVED VECTORS FOR ANOTHER ILS. JUST BEFORE FINAL VECTOR I WAS ADVISED THAT CRG WAS NOW RPTING SKY OBSCURED, VISIBILITY 1/4 MI. I QUERIED ATC, 'IF CRG IS NOW RPTING ONLY 1/4 MI VISIBILITY, CAN I LEGALLY SHOOT THE APCH?' THE CTLR ANSWERED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT MY OPERATING RULES WERE. SO, THERE I WAS, TRYING TO REMEMBER THE WORDING OF THE FAR. (IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS WAS MY 7TH DAY AS A PART 135 PLT.) I COULD NOT REMEMBER IF I WAS ALLOWED TO FLY THE APCH OR NOT. I DID KNOW THAT I NEEDED THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY TO LAND. BUT WAS IT GND OR FLT VISIBILITY? I HAD BEEN TAUGHT THAT A GOOD RULE OF THUMB IS THAT IF YOU CAN SEE THE RWY AT YOUR MISSED APCH POINT, THEN YOU HAVE THE REQUIRED VISIBILITY. ANYWAY, ALL THIS WAS GOING THROUGH MY HEAD AS I GOT MY FINAL VECTOR ONTO THE APCH. I WASN'T REALLY SURE WHAT I SHOULD DO, AND I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT GETTING MY CARGO IN ON TIME. I WAS FEARFUL OF GETTING YELLED AT IF I HAD TO HOLD. SO, I DECIDED TO SHOOT THE APCH. I FIGURED IF I COULD SAFELY LAND, I WOULD. IF I COULD NOT, I WOULD GO MISSED AGAIN AND WAIT FOR THE FOG TO BURN OFF. WELL, I GOT TO DECISION HT, SAW THE RWY ENVIRONMENT AND LANDED. TWR TOLD ME TO RPT MISSED APCH OR ON THE GND. I RPTED THAT I WAS ON THE GND. THEY SAID TO TAXI TO THE RAMP AND RPT ON THE RAMP. I DID. ON THE GND I TALKED OVER WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH SOME OF THE COMPANY PLTS. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT I HAD LANDED ILLEGALLY SINCE RPTED VISIBILITY WAS LESS THAN REQUIRED. IN FACT, I WAS NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT THE APCH UNLESS THE WX RPT CHANGED ONCE I WAS INSIDE THE FAF. THE MOST CONFUSING THING TO ME, INITIALLY, WAS THE FACT THAT ATC VECTORED ME ONTO THE APCH. I WAS A LITTLE UNSURE OF WHAT TO DO AND FIGURED THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. IF I WAS GETTING VECTORS, I MUST BE LEGAL, I THOUGHT. ONCE I KNEW THAT THEY WERE LEAVING THINGS UP TO ME I FELT EVEN MORE UNSURE AND A LITTLE UNEASY. THE FACT THAT I HAD LEARNED AS A PART 91 PLT THAT I COULD TRY ANY APCH, REGARDLESS OF VISIBILITY WAS A FACTOR. FLT VISIBILITY VERSUS GND VISIBILITY IS STILL A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME. WHETHER OR NOT 'TWR' VISIBILITY MEANS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ADVISORY, I'M STILL NOT SURE ABOUT. HOWEVER, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE REGS BETTER, OR EVEN HAD A COPY WITH ME. I KNOW NOW THAT TO AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE I'LL SIMPLY COMPLY WITH THE RPTED GND VISIBILITY, IF IT'S LESS THAN REQUIRED, I'LL BE HOLDING.

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.