I'm not so sure that the pilot was in the wrong at all? It's not rare for pilots to have more up to date info (relayed to them from people on the ground, like in this case as he said he got straight from the airport's tower) than the central controllers sitting who knows where. Or they're just very experienced and can have a correct assessment. Looks like that was the case in this instance, as they were delayed and then we heard that someone landed before them while they were delayed. It seems to be a case of the controller not even knowing exactly why.

The other pilot was given what the first pilot was denied, it seems like they're the same type of pilot but one of the controllers wasn't playing ball.

Pilot was not in the wrong here. There is nothing wrong with shooting approach to minimums, and going around if approach lights are not in sight. It's possible to catch approach lights even if the wx is reporting below minimums.

100% controller issue. If there is a safety in question, it rests with the controller causing delays. Reported and actual weather are two different things. This Pilot clearly knows this and wants to make that attempt as he should. A common misconception on this Chanel is the controller-pilot relationship. Controllers directions are neither law or absolute. Final decisions always rest with the Captain and that includes acceptance or denial of controller directions/guidance.

@@waynetokarz174 Pilots are required either to follow ATC instructions, request alternate instructions, or declare an emergency if the safety of the flight is in question. In this case, while Part 91 allows the pilot to attempt an approach even when weather is reported below minimums, it does not follow that ATC is required to give any approach clearance the pilot may request regardless of the overall situation (traffic/weather/workload/etc.), which we are unable to determine from the information we have in this video.

It was probably from a ppl who doesn't understand IFR regs.

@@karmathebrit7856 not in a Falcon

@@kenclark9888 the guy who said it wasn’t ID’d in a falcon. Lol was a random pilot on freq I think?

How can something so overused and stupid absolutely destroy you ?

@@dingodango1 😐

Just waiting for someone on these to go, "Hey, VASAviation!"

stupid childish things

​@@Manaril The pilot wasn't stupid or childish. He was just a little impatient, which is completely understandable.

The "Since you are IFR, sir" was great too lol 1:50

@@cattey5428 What? Where the F did that come from? How was he going to cause a crash? It's perfectly safe and legal for a Part 91 aircraft to fly an approach when the weather is being called at below minimums. He can always go around. What's your complaint. Are you an IFR pilot? You talk like you don't understand the IFR system at all.

...or "I'd like to shoot the approach anyway"

"I don't care about your stupid laws of physics, I make my owns laws" 😆

man, my flight got canceled due to high winds. I was a pissed for like a second, then I remembered all of the air crash videosI watch and then I was like good call guys!

I never want a pilot so overly confident that he would risk the safety of my life to "prove" his ability.

@@Rainersherwood You put enough aircraft on a bobbing carrier little scares you off. I agree with you.

Even if the weather is reporting below minimums, it is possible to catch the approach lightings and go below minimums especially at nighttime

Exactly.

5EX, roger cleared to transition into the Blancoliro airspace.

No it’s not, that’s what a missed approach is. Maybe continuing below minimums will do that but there’s nothing dangerous in having a look.

🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾

I think it would be best to calmly respond to the ATC and ask for local alternatives.

Since when does atc have the authority to put you on hold because the weather is below minimums. If it was a part 91 flight, flight visibility is what matters. End of story.

@@menka91 because you are NOT the only plane in the sky, he doesn’t know what is going on at the CDW MMU airspace, ATC doesn’t have the time when weather is moving in to explain everything in detail to everyone that asks, quoting a rule book is great for academic discussions but this “end of story , period” attitude is never going to play well. Try it yourself next time with ATC, I am sure they will e happy to humor you.

He was remarkably cool and polite in the face of all that bullying.

@@AMD7027 okay then ATC could say “there is a traffic delay” and that’s it. Weather below minima is not a reason to delay a part 91 aircraft.

Probably airforceproud95

It has 4chan written all over it

Epic

Definitely watches this channel.

@@alangaming2003 yep

Most likely. Entitled pilots are inherently unsafe. Please, oh please other entitled pilots, TRY to argue this with me and out yourselves.

Look at that tail number. 5EX...looks like sex, right? Think about who chooses that. It gives you an idea of who you are dealing with.

no problem, right at that moment theres´´s an issue with the fuel truck or the pump and he has to wait 2h ... he´ll get his carma one day

@@bobl78 lets just hope its not in the air

@@TugIronChief it means he likes screwing everybody

🤣 True

Or, November 315EX enter holding at XXXXX, EFC…Thursday. 😂

I'm a local to Morristown....and I endorse your sentiment!

Ex New Yorkers that moved to MMU from Teterboro. Flew and taught at both..

He is how I would characterize the majority of NJ/NY. I wouldn’t call him rude but certainly bold.

There’s no problem with shooting an approach when the weather is below minimums as a part 91 aircraft. Busting them to land is a different story. I’ve shot many an approach when the weather is below minimums before… sometimes you might get lucky and see the airport, other times you don’t and just go missed.

“No one clears you to Morristown but me!” 🤣

@@kyleweisel sure. But is it ok to enter airspace you have been explicitly told you can't enter? That's what we are talking about here. Whether the ATC should have taken more time to explain to an impatient pilot is a whole other conversation.

@@jahbern of course not… where did I ever suggest that it was?

@@kyleweisel in the case we are talking about right now, he wasn't being allowed to shoot the approach, so clearly there WAS a problem with the pilot making the attempt. There's more to consider than whether it's technically possible for a pilot to attempt an approach. It's both/and - what's technically allowed and what's allowed by ATC. But perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. That's definitely possible. No one is arguing that the regulations allow it. So I'm not sure who you were responding to.

I absolutely CACKLED.

ROFL

::| get that guy #511 1:50 if you're on #ifr wytf can't U hold 2:26 guffaw !

i would of asked for a "expect further/leave hold clearance" in 5-15 minutes....planning to shoot approach if weather improves..then i would stop transmitting and squawk "no radio 7500"....and land all by my self...lol......BTW not sure whats the deal, the part 91 Falcon does not require mins to shoot approach, just descend below mins..,...Airlines part -121 are not allowed to even try the approach. Dude tells him the airport is closed but a arrow just landed? what am i missing here?

TEB is what EWR was 35 years ago. So...you know what I mean.

Someday a controller is going to put someone in a hold and he'll run out of fuel.

@@rumplestiltskin7304, that actually happens sometimes. The pilots need to communicate to controllers their fuel situation. If they can't hold anymore, the correct course of action is to divert to their alternate.

@@traianhernandez6695 ATC even asked him about his alternate.

@@patheddles4004, typically ATC would not ask about the alternate unless the original destination airport is either closed, or unavailable for a lengthy period. It's on the pilot to inform ATC if they're unable to hold any longer, and request a clearance to their alternate.

Good for him! That lady the FAA jacked around in that Cirrus at Holly Hobby should have declared an emergency and landed wherever the hell she wanted since the controller wasn’t able to help her. And because of his incompetence she died. ATC sometimes forgets it’s a service for pilots not the other way around.

​@@VLove-CFII the hobby pilot wasn't competent to be flying a paper airplane, let alone a cirrus. Her trying to land an airplane (over and over again) was an emergency all by itself.

@@bhc1892 what’s your pilot certificate #? I’ll wait…

More to the point, unless she was on fumes (which she never mentioned at any point) she didn't need to jump the line, she needed to be resequenced. Exit the pattern, reorient and try again. Or consider an alternate. And until she put herself in a stall I don't see how she was in an emergency. I do agree that ATC was a major cause of that accident, but I disagree that "declaring a mayday so she can land wherever" is legal, appropriate or helpful in her position.

The accident was caused by her executing the go-around incorrectly when she retracted the flaps way too early. However, the contributing cause was from the ATC gave her the run around, and her lack of assertive nature to decline the ATC request to go around.

I like your channel, as well as this one, Swiss001, DorDek Kiddy, Mini Air Crash Investigation, Three Greens - Aviation Safety and several others. :) *Allec Joshua Ibay Delta\KennyDang Swiss002

This is the comment I wanted!

yep 2 hours later still in hold

I was in transportation for 32 years and early on I learned that the 2 people you never wanted to get on their bad side was the payroll manager and the dispatcher. This pilot better know that the next time he has to deal with that ATC he may end up in a holding pattern just for the heck of it. That is if the FAA doesn't put him on the carpet first.

😂

If ATC cannot conduct themselves without being petty and/or emotional, they have no business being there. Might as well go be a cop at that point. 🤪

@@TheGospelQuartetParadise can the atc do that without facts supporting that action? thanks

it should be reported because a pilot no caring about weather below minimums should not be in a cockpit

You can still fly an approach even if the weather is below minimums. He might have been able to see the approach lights which allows him to go below minimums

@@FeNite8 - Might...???...you do understand "might" actually adds a potential go-around situation/element to a complex area that includes MMU, CDW, and N07 which at the time HAD IFR in play... so it's basically one in, one out. CDW traffic is very pertinent to the MMU operation. TEB also goes through it, as well as EWR RWY 11 traffic. Now that you took time to accept/understand the "bigger picture" do you still think ATC made the wrong call given the area and conditions...(?)...

Awesome information, thanks and fly safe!

Thanks for that info!

Yup. That was my old stomping ground. Crazy busy airspace. I suspect half the planes in the N07 pattern bust the CDW airspace without even realizing it. There was also an approach into TEB that basically took you right through the CDW traffic pattern. VOR-A, I think, but I see that approach doesn't exist any more.

Don’t forget TEB and EWR in close proximity. It was tough doing IFR into those airports back in my 135 days.

If atc is holding me because of congestion then fine, but if they tell me because the field is below mins, I will question them.

don't disgrace sky king like that

😂

Who the hell is Sky king?

@@squares4u look up horizon air q400 incident

Part 91 can legally shoot an approach below mins. They just can’t descend below mins without the runway environment in sight.

Welcome to FSX steam edition.

Too bad most people in the comments here have no idea what they're talking about. Nobody ever said anything about landing below minimums. He only stated he wanted to attempt the approach...which is perfectly legal, safe and there is nothing wrong with that. Under FAR part 91 the Pilot in Command gets to minimums and decides if he has the visibility to land out of the approach. If he doesn't he goes missed. If he does, he lands. End of story. Professional pilots are trained for this over and over and over again. Under FAR part 121 or 135 that's a different story. While trained for it, you cannot start the approach if it's below the minimum visibility...not ceiling but visibility. If inside the final approach fix (usually around 4-5 miles from the runway) the weather goes below minimums a 135 or 121 operator can continue the approach to minimums and land if he determines the visibility is there, or he can go around. Assuming he was operating under part 91, there was nothing wrong with this guy asking why he couldn't attempt the approach, regardless of the weather minimums.

@@enthalpy wrong! You u must have the vis. Under 91 the vis is determined from the cockpit unlike part 135. In United States visibility is your mins not your cloud ceiling. Cloud ceiling means nothing.

@@mrkenpilotman you only need visibility to descend below the MDA. Please show me where it says you can’t start an approach part 91 without vis. (Hint: it doesn’t)

Should have been ASS.

@@willer3399 Why not both?

@@pistonburner6448 4SSHL

@@noahwilliams8918 I'm pretty sure controllers don't have tail numbers. Well, maybe he's jealous and has something tattooed on his tail...

AS5EX

Thanks for the clarification. The pilot would've probably liked to have the controller be able to articulate that to be the situation, instead of the strange dance he put the pilot through. Sounds like the pilot was someone very on top of all aspects, and was confused when what the controller was telling him didn't add up to his overall picture of the situation.

@@pistonburner6448 That isn't my take. The controller was doing his best. I've had captains like that. I usually don't appreciate them. I'm not one. Heh-heh ... give a guy a Falcon and see how solid his character is. S

@@tilmaneiche758 Part 91 is the official "General Operating and Flight Rules" for most small aircraft flights in the United States. Charter operators, airlines, and other operations use different rules. Under a Part 91 flight like this seems to be, there is no prohibition against starting an instrument approach with reported weather below minimums.

@@zidoocfi Part 91 regulations apply to all aircraft operators in the US. Not just general aviation.

@@tilmaneiche758 Great observation about an inherently complex situation. As I'm sure you can understand, we controllers get absolutely inundated with information about weather, airplanes, flight plans, holding patterns, and everything else in situations like this, and it's constantly changing. That's why if it's just one sector holding for one airport we can sometimes approve a pilot request like this one, but when it's multiple sectors, multiple airports, and multiple aircraft in the hold, it can be almost impossible to accommodate an otherwise very reasonable request. And, we have almost no time to explain it to pilots in real time. I can't presume to speak for this controller, but that's what appears to me to have happened.

He can request it, but like my wife says.. just because you ask nicely I’m not always giving it lol 😂

negative

Approach decides when you do the approaches based on workload, traffic management and other things, but they don’t decide you can’t do the approach simply because the weather is below minimums. The pilot in this case is right that under Part 91 even if the weather was reported 0 ceiling 0 vis he can still legally decide to execute the approach to minimums if he’d like. I think this is more of a case of miscommunication. Sounds like the Tracon was busy based on the first reason and then the controller tried to come up with a second execute while the airspace was still busy.

You’re wrong dude.

@@usaswimmer1020 And if the weather is below minimums, they are most likely diverting aircraft from every airport nearby to a different airport. This controller was only the messenger and the airport being below minimums (and most likely many airports nearby) was probably creating task saturation. So, in this case under part 91, the pilot was wrong. I’ve held because the airport is below minimums. Because if one airport is below minimums most likely many airports nearby are as well. So the airspace is busy with reroutes and diverts. He was never told he couldn’t shoot the approach later. He was only saying, “well another guy just shot the approach, why can’t I.” As if he’s the only airplane in the area. By the way, I’ve been a Captain at a major airline in the US since 1994.

@@josephdale69 They may no longer be issuing IFR clearances to aircraft attempting to pick them up on the ground, but it’s not up to them to make the decision to divert aircraft for pilots already in the air. That decision rests solely with the PIC. Now that doesn’t mean you won’t receive hold instructions for busy airspace until it becomes a need to divert for fuel, but again the decision to divert and where to divert lands again with the PIC and solely on the PIC. Even on 9/11 the entire NAS was closed the FAA users the terms “Airborne aircraft are encouraged to land shortly,” not Land and the nearest suitable now. As I said before in the situation it sounds like he was holding because the sector was obviously busy, but decided to question the controller when he said he was holding because the “airport is below minimums” which is fair because it’s perfectly legal and the pilots choice to shoot an approach to minimums under Part 91. Source: Current CFII.

@@usaswimmer1020 I think we both agree that the airspace was busy and that is why he was holding. The air traffic controller speaking on this recording isn’t the one making the decision. He is only telling the pilot what he is being told. I agree with you on almost everything. I do believe that the controller said the airport was below minimums (thus a busy sector with diverts, etc). Not that he was unable to shoot the approach. It just wasn’t his turn yet in sequence. But yes, the controller should have been more specific in his instructions and the pilot should have had a more respectful approach to the controller. Sometimes that attitude alone will put you in a holding pattern.

You are right to be disturbed

It's not (necessarily) as bad as it sounds. The instruments would have taken him safely close to the runway, what he wanted to do was try the approach and see if he could get the runway in sight before minimums -- if not, he would have ostensibly done a go-around. Visibility can change real fast so it's not unheard of to just give it a go and see if you can make it work... the problem here was, it all means increased workload for the controllers, and here the next sector just chose not to allow any more planes in before they could sort out what they were already handling.

Trying the approach is not necessarily a bad idea, even if he's likely to end up going around. Definitely a gamble, but it can and does work out sometimes.

@@wloffblizz Totally understandable that the pilot would've wanted to see for himself, especially since sometimes the pilots are really experienced with the airport and local weather, and can even have far better info relayed to them from the ground/company (and the controller usually is sitting somewhere totally different). And going down there to see is understandably often a preferred choice too, rather try than unnecessarily hold.

Part 91 (private pilots) are legally allowed to attempt an approach even below mins. Part 121/135 are not (commercial) are not.

I married my dispatcher. I concur with your assessment.

Fuel

@@jbreezy101 Fuel doesn’t affect ATC decision making unless you declare an emergency

@@caspianmerlin6434 I know

ATC cannot deny an approach due to them thinking the weather is below mins.

Yes we can. Mmu/Teb had GS which included arrivals, aerostar was a pathfinder even though he landed, but if tower decided to hold further based on his report, you’’re not getting your approach, until tower deems its safe.

It's probably a regular occurrence, if you have enough experience at a "home base" airport it's easier to fly close to minimum and a little below

You don't understand. It does not care about the REPORTED weather. Which is fine because he can legally and safely shoot the approach, descend to the minimums and perform a missed approach if the lights are not in sight.

@navion1946 - Well said... especially the last part!!

Gimli?

Exactly, and ESPECIALLY when they say, "and it looks like it's going down" or "getting worse". That's a huge red flag. That's the CYA comment when the next guy inevitably gets to MDA and sees nothing all the way to the MAP.

airforceproud has joined the chat

No, it's missing a few things: Someone in an Airbus A380 going space shuttle status, a hot air balloon buzzing the tower at 350 kts, and at least four Air Force One planes in the air.

VATSIM in a nutshell lolssssssssssssss

Hahaha omg I didn’t even catch that until you said something. I would love an update. I bet this guy lost his job. The flight data has since been made private. I’m sure the faa joined the chat after the calls flooded in.

Hi U R A. I thought the same thing. And loved how it was a whisper. It's like "We watch everything you do, we listen to everything you say, and we're just letting you know".

@@roderickcampbell2105 lol

Grüße aus der Wetterau;)

In fairness, you may have never visited New Jersey...

@@VisibilityFoggy Hahaha well I did not thought about that

"State fuel remaining, and do not lie."

@@VisibilityFoggy Actually I have as a pilot....and I was an exchange student in Chatham, NJ, as well.

#GrandpaSimpson #TheSimpsons

And ultimately if you are under IFR it’s the controllers airspace and they can choose to clear you or not clear you. Can raise any complaints with the controllers sup or at the FSDO

@@RainbowManification if the sole reason for denial is because the airport is below minimums the controller was wrong. If the delay is traffic congestion that's a whole different story. There's nothing in the .65 that says you will deny clearance for an approach based on published minimums. (I'm ATC) controller probably should have articulated better....and the pilot was a cocky asshole.

@@clintford5315 The issue is when weather is below minimums capacity often goes down. Talking a random pilot through the full airspace factors on air while trying to manage a busy IFR day would be the height of insanity. If pilot is concerned ATC is not managing airspace properly wait till on the ground and for a quiet day and you can complain to all sorts of folks. Frankly, the pilot sounded like an idiot. What's the excuse etc etc. If every pilot engaged in this much back and forth with ATC in congested airspace there would be problems.

@@randominternet5586he’s holding on the arrival. So release him he shoots the approach goes missed and hold on the Missed.

yeah sure

I wouldn't sit next to him on another flight, that's for sure.

they landed safely at Morristown.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that you are probably one of those people who start every conversation with your first 9 words.

@@PilotLife175 lmao...Yep, we all know at least one.

@@PilotLife175 And I bet you're one of those people that will ask someone what they do, then turn right around and say, "How do you tell if someone is an (xyz)? Just wait, they'll tell you", when you were the one that asked them.

@@PilotLife175 how else will we know to ask what this person's doctorate was.... Maybe it is relevant to the discussion or the vid

Accidents are for things that can't be prevented. This idiot is a crash waiting to happen.

It really isn't, though. It's Part 91 flying. There is nothing wrong with shooting an approach to "take a peek." Reported weather and flight visibility are often quite different things. It is entirely the responsibility of the pilot to execute a missed approach if he reaches the minimums and doesn't have the approach lights/runway environment in sight, but that is something we're all trained on, and not remotely dangerous. His insistance on trying the approach is fully his prerogative, and the given ATC explanations were inadequate, nor were they ATC's call to make. If there was conflicting traffic going into another nearby airport (which I believe was the case, and a perfectly valid reason, btw), that needs to be communicated.

Sounds like a petulant child.

Stupid,can't control his temper

The love the smell of America's armpit?

That’s where the car is

Exactly, different rules!

Right but comparing a jetliner to a 172 is like comparing an ar15 to a BB gun as far as safety margins are concerned.

That's actually still 100% legal in some situations

He was pretty courteous. ATC doesn’t have time for pilots being divas.

@SkepticAll Jealous people always add in their own interpretations of "air of superiority" be it BMWs on the ground or Falcons in the air...

Still laughing about that comment

@SkepticAll I'd like to know what you are claiming was incorrect from the pilot's side? All the "air of superiority" is actually just your air of superiority producing lies against a fellow human being.

@@pistonburner6448 Defending an air Karen. Interesting take.

@SkepticAll You're just spewing hateful comments and now ad hominem on me based on nothing! I wrote that your negative comments about the pilot are based on nothing. If you disagree then you are free to tell us why you are slagging off a fellow human being. The pilot had no "air of superiority". It's strange that you feel the need to find something to murder his character with. Especially since I have yet to hear what exactly was so wrong about what he said? What words or sentences exactly were wrong?

negative ghost rider, the pattern is full

The 1%er would be his passenger. This guy is a working stiff. You are the type who doesn't know where electricity comes from. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.

an instrument-instructor here as well as jet pilot- i do agree with you that pilots can decide what approaches they’d like to shoot; however, that is not and will not always be the case depending on whatever else is happening in the airspace. if the tower is reporting specific approaches via ATIS, that’s the approach one should expect. a request to fly a different approach can be made, but won’t always be accommodated. i’m unfamiliar with KMMU but a reason as to why air traffic control continued to hold the seemingly impatient aircraft may have been a conflict with another approach/missed approach segment with another aircraft at a nearby airport. i often find that when i notice something that may seem so simple to us as pilots is usually a result of something that we just can’t see but controllers do.

@@brownbrownson Correct, though that is not what's happening here. The pilot got denied both the ILS and RNAV. He said he believed the arrivals were finished and atc did not refute that. If departing traffic was the issue then all atc needed to say was "hold for departing traffic," give an EFC time and this would've been a done deal. Not multiple sketchy excuses.

Yes, and the pilot simply asked what the hold-up is now. Strange how devoid of any kind of empathy people are in the comments, not having any kind of ability to understand the feelings of the pilot who is being delayed and him not knowing why, told incorrect info as the reason... -A pilot sighing from the feeling of weather delays is now absolutely horrible?? Why would that automatically be a sign of aggression towards anyone like the controller? This is just outrage and offence-hungry people just hunting for things to get offended about. With zero empathy or understanding, and being pretty vicious in pushing for their own made-up narratives. -A pilot asking clarification after getting contradicting data is now somehow inappropriate, makes him all kinds of evil? Once again more like unsympathetic and cold people looking for reasons to unload on the Falcon-flying young guy...

@@pistonburner6448 Ironic you are lecturing someone about being "understanding" while defending a pilot trying to force his way into an approach which ATC clearly cannot accommodate.

@@BIOHAZARDXXXX What do you mean "which ATC clearly cannot accommodate"?? Clearly it was unclear, as the controller kept giving conflicting info and in the end we finally only got: "well the next sector won't let me pass you through" which is not what the controller was saying at first. And which clearly seems to not be in line with the actual conditions.

@@BIOHAZARDXXXX I think he's the pilot in question. He's defending the pilot in every thread.

@@FuburLuck That’s because @Pistonburner is correct. ATC can say the airspace is saturated and they cannot accept the aircraft in the next sector, but that is not what was said. They cannot say they won’t allow an approach due to the WX being below mins, which is what the pilot was saying he had been told.

Old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots comes to mind. Good idea to never take off if you feel like you HAVE to get there no matter what.

Kobe Bryant. Helo pilot took a shortcut to stay on time, into fog.

@@sneakybow1 good comment, beat me to it.

there was the Smolensk crash with Polish president on board. Bad weather, pilot pressured.

@@asc_missions3080 Incorrect. He didn't take a shortcut. He took the route he did because the weather on the normal route was even worse. He flew into clouds as the terrain rose likely because he felt pressure to complete the flight. He should have turned around and landed at one of the numerous airports he crossed and let them rent a car for the remaining trip.

This is my facility, so in the radar environment, you have to "hand off" aircraft prior to them entering another facility's airspace. In this case, N90 did not accept any traffic into their space over STW, hence the hold west of STW. Has nothing to do with what he wants or doesn't want approach wise, that's not how this works. You get to go to the next Controller if they accept your IFR flight.

@@UnableVFR I've only listened through the once before reading comments but I have to say, the controller didn't make that clear. He kept talking about wx, when he should have just said what you said essentially- I.e., I can't hand you off and clear you into the sector That said, very unprofessional attitude by the pilot and not somebody I'd want to fly with

@@UnableVFR Thanks for the info - communicating the fact that the next sector didn't accept the handoff might have relieved some of the consternation. That fact did get finally passed on but not in a clear manner. They kept saying NO - it's below minimums. That was the cause of the pilot's misunderstanding. It's pretty clear the pilot thought that the cause was that the weather we below minimums and not because the next controller didn't accept the handoff.

When looking at exactly what he said, IMHO the pilot said nothing inappropriate or incorrect at all.

Can shoot the approach if ceilings are below minimums but not if the visibility is below mins