cactusbusdrvr "People here have questioned why they didn't use the PAPi. With a half mile of visibility even on the proper descent angle to the runway it would have been difficult. At a 3 degree glide path 300' above field elevation puts you a mile out. PAPis are usually about 500' down from the end of the runway. So that's just over a mile from the missed approach point to the PAPi. Hard to pick up with blowing precipitation."
I'm one that asked the question. I'm not intending to blame the pilot here, but surely if the pilot had the visual references required, and sufficient flight visibility to proceed (not just talking about rules now, talking about practical necessity for safe landing) the PAPI would have been visible soon enough and high enough to be useful in the visual segment. Unless of course it was snow-covered or otherwise affected by the conditions.
The decision to proceed below minimums is not merely a one-time deal. Conditions must continue to be sufficient - not marginal, sufficient - or the pilot should go-around.
So, my question becomes - if it appeared to the pilot at the time that visual conditions were sufficient for a safe landing and that the airplane was in an appropriate position to land then why would the airplane touchdown 1000 ft or so short of the runway?