Narrative:

On the final approach course in my first 2 approachs (in which I executed missed approachs), I descended to approximately 1600 ft (1580 ft is the minimum at grous intersection) at grous, using the cincinnati altimeter. At that altitude and location, the runway was visible and I descended further, believing that a normal, safe landing was expected. However, cloud/fog drifted across the approach course from the west in both of these 2 approachs and I executed missed approachs. I recall that in discussing the situation with approach, the controller indicated that my altitude was below minimums. While I was below MDA, I had done so since I expected a normal visual landing and I didn't have the time to explain this to the controller as I was reconfiguring the aircraft for the missed approach, I was later concerned that he may not have known my circumstances were visual at that time and thought that I violated a minimum. On the third approach, when I descended after grous, no clouds/fog moved in and I made a normal approach and landing. In this case, unicom didn't answer because he was away from the radio. Had I spoken with unicom, I would have the local altimeter and been more aware of the changing WX. Suggestion: put his radio on a PA system so he would know he was called. Many small airports do this. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter fully understands that 'grous' is required to descend to the lower minimums. He was identing 'grous' both by his #2 VOR and his RNAV. He felt uneasy about the cvg approach controller's response to his making 2 missed approachs, then finally landing. The reporter has not heard from the FAA on this incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMA MADE 2 MISSED APCHS, THEN LANDED.

Narrative: ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE IN MY FIRST 2 APCHS (IN WHICH I EXECUTED MISSED APCHS), I DSNDED TO APPROX 1600 FT (1580 FT IS THE MINIMUM AT GROUS INTXN) AT GROUS, USING THE CINCINNATI ALTIMETER. AT THAT ALT AND LOCATION, THE RWY WAS VISIBLE AND I DSNDED FURTHER, BELIEVING THAT A NORMAL, SAFE LNDG WAS EXPECTED. HOWEVER, CLOUD/FOG DRIFTED ACROSS THE APCH COURSE FROM THE W IN BOTH OF THESE 2 APCHS AND I EXECUTED MISSED APCHS. I RECALL THAT IN DISCUSSING THE SIT WITH APCH, THE CTLR INDICATED THAT MY ALT WAS BELOW MINIMUMS. WHILE I WAS BELOW MDA, I HAD DONE SO SINCE I EXPECTED A NORMAL VISUAL LNDG AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN THIS TO THE CTLR AS I WAS RECONFIGURING THE ACFT FOR THE MISSED APCH, I WAS LATER CONCERNED THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN MY CIRCUMSTANCES WERE VISUAL AT THAT TIME AND THOUGHT THAT I VIOLATED A MINIMUM. ON THE THIRD APCH, WHEN I DSNDED AFTER GROUS, NO CLOUDS/FOG MOVED IN AND I MADE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. IN THIS CASE, UNICOM DIDN'T ANSWER BECAUSE HE WAS AWAY FROM THE RADIO. HAD I SPOKEN WITH UNICOM, I WOULD HAVE THE LCL ALTIMETER AND BEEN MORE AWARE OF THE CHANGING WX. SUGGESTION: PUT HIS RADIO ON A PA SYS SO HE WOULD KNOW HE WAS CALLED. MANY SMALL ARPTS DO THIS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR FULLY UNDERSTANDS THAT 'GROUS' IS REQUIRED TO DSND TO THE LOWER MINIMUMS. HE WAS IDENTING 'GROUS' BOTH BY HIS #2 VOR AND HIS RNAV. HE FELT UNEASY ABOUT THE CVG APCH CTLR'S RESPONSE TO HIS MAKING 2 MISSED APCHS, THEN FINALLY LNDG. THE RPTR HAS NOT HEARD FROM THE FAA ON THIS INCIDENT.

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.