B737 landed at hou below published landing minimums.

Attributes
ACN	569661
Time
Date	200212
Day	Sat
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : hou.airport
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound upper : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : hou.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : instrument precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 231 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 9000
ASRS Report	569661
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter other non adherence : company policies
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Flight to hou was uneventful. ATIS at hou was 500 ft broken, 5 mi visibility with patchy fog. We had good visibility on the field and asked for a tight turn on. We had briefed the catii approach as a catiii practice to update my currency (with the new rules) because the WX was not reported that bad and we could see it, so it seemed like a good time to get that practice catiii approach out of the way. On base, approach said visibility was ? Mi, so we went to the catii special approach. Inside the FAF (and also below 1000 ft) tower called the RVR at 800 ft. We both questioned if we could continue and rather than divert our attention for too long, I said yes we could do a 'look see.' we did, and we acquired visual reference prior to minimums and landed uneventfully. After landing, we both searched the books because we both thought we had read something about a go around on catii or catiii approachs. All we could find was an aiii warning and loss of a required transmission meter, but somewhere in the back of my brain, in hindsight, I think I read that we should go around if the WX drops on a catii or catiii approach even after the FAF, ie, no 'look see.' I can't find it in the book, so I didn't know if I made the correct decision or not.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 LANDED AT HOU BELOW PUBLISHED LNDG MINIMUMS.

Narrative: FLT TO HOU WAS UNEVENTFUL. ATIS AT HOU WAS 500 FT BROKEN, 5 MI VISIBILITY WITH PATCHY FOG. WE HAD GOOD VISIBILITY ON THE FIELD AND ASKED FOR A TIGHT TURN ON. WE HAD BRIEFED THE CATII APCH AS A CATIII PRACTICE TO UPDATE MY CURRENCY (WITH THE NEW RULES) BECAUSE THE WX WAS NOT RPTED THAT BAD AND WE COULD SEE IT, SO IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD TIME TO GET THAT PRACTICE CATIII APCH OUT OF THE WAY. ON BASE, APCH SAID VISIBILITY WAS ? MI, SO WE WENT TO THE CATII SPECIAL APCH. INSIDE THE FAF (AND ALSO BELOW 1000 FT) TWR CALLED THE RVR AT 800 FT. WE BOTH QUESTIONED IF WE COULD CONTINUE AND RATHER THAN DIVERT OUR ATTN FOR TOO LONG, I SAID YES WE COULD DO A 'LOOK SEE.' WE DID, AND WE ACQUIRED VISUAL REF PRIOR TO MINIMUMS AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER LNDG, WE BOTH SEARCHED THE BOOKS BECAUSE WE BOTH THOUGHT WE HAD READ SOMETHING ABOUT A GAR ON CATII OR CATIII APCHS. ALL WE COULD FIND WAS AN AIII WARNING AND LOSS OF A REQUIRED TRANSMISSION METER, BUT SOMEWHERE IN THE BACK OF MY BRAIN, IN HINDSIGHT, I THINK I READ THAT WE SHOULD GO AROUND IF THE WX DROPS ON A CATII OR CATIII APCH EVEN AFTER THE FAF, IE, NO 'LOOK SEE.' I CAN'T FIND IT IN THE BOOK, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF I MADE THE CORRECT DECISION OR NOT.

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.