Narrative:

Arriving at hya, the WX was deteriorating sooner than forecast. On initial contact with approach control they advised the WX as 2500 ft overcast and 1 mi visibility, and to expect the ILS runway 15. After trying to tune in the ILS runway 15, we were unable to get an identify, so we requested the ILS runway 24 approach which we could identify. While being vectored for the ILS runway 24, approach advised the WX was now 700 ft overcast and 1 mi visibility, still above minimums, it was also overheard over the radio that our alternate, bos, was closed to sand the runways. After crossing the FAF, there was some conversation between the PNF and hya tower, I didn't hear what was said partly due to the high workload of the approach with turbulence and windshear. At approximately 400-500 ft above decision ht and 1.4 mi out the PNF called the runway in sight which I also verified. Our original plan was to circle to runway 15 because of the wind, but we decided that circling could not be accomplished safely, so we were cleared to land on runway 24, which we accomplished easily. After landing we had a telephone conversation with the tower, they indicated that it was below minimums because tower visibility was 3/4 mi. All conversation with the tower was inside the FAF, the tower did not have our perspective and could not know what the visibility was from our position. Approaching in IMC, turbulent, and windshear conditions is not the best time for the tower to have communications, or also on landing rollout. The tower increased an already very high workload on both the PF and the PNF needlessly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC ADVISED FLC OF AN LTT JET THAT THEY HAD LANDED BELOW AUTH WX MINIMUMS.

Narrative: ARRIVING AT HYA, THE WX WAS DETERIORATING SOONER THAN FORECAST. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH CTL THEY ADVISED THE WX AS 2500 FT OVCST AND 1 MI VISIBILITY, AND TO EXPECT THE ILS RWY 15. AFTER TRYING TO TUNE IN THE ILS RWY 15, WE WERE UNABLE TO GET AN IDENT, SO WE REQUESTED THE ILS RWY 24 APCH WHICH WE COULD IDENT. WHILE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 24, APCH ADVISED THE WX WAS NOW 700 FT OVCST AND 1 MI VISIBILITY, STILL ABOVE MINIMUMS, IT WAS ALSO OVERHEARD OVER THE RADIO THAT OUR ALTERNATE, BOS, WAS CLOSED TO SAND THE RWYS. AFTER XING THE FAF, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION BTWN THE PNF AND HYA TWR, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT WAS SAID PARTLY DUE TO THE HIGH WORKLOAD OF THE APCH WITH TURB AND WINDSHEAR. AT APPROX 400-500 FT ABOVE DECISION HT AND 1.4 MI OUT THE PNF CALLED THE RWY IN SIGHT WHICH I ALSO VERIFIED. OUR ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO CIRCLE TO RWY 15 BECAUSE OF THE WIND, BUT WE DECIDED THAT CIRCLING COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED SAFELY, SO WE WERE CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 24, WHICH WE ACCOMPLISHED EASILY. AFTER LNDG WE HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR, THEY INDICATED THAT IT WAS BELOW MINIMUMS BECAUSE TWR VISIBILITY WAS 3/4 MI. ALL CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR WAS INSIDE THE FAF, THE TWR DID NOT HAVE OUR PERSPECTIVE AND COULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE VISIBILITY WAS FROM OUR POS. APCHING IN IMC, TURBULENT, AND WINDSHEAR CONDITIONS IS NOT THE BEST TIME FOR THE TWR TO HAVE COMS, OR ALSO ON LNDG ROLLOUT. THE TWR INCREASED AN ALREADY VERY HIGH WORKLOAD ON BOTH THE PF AND THE PNF NEEDLESSLY.

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.