Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TKC.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E TKC
ATC / advisory: CTAF TKC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to TKC; the weather was being reported as clear at the destination; therefore; I was expecting a visual approach. I had no thought in my mind that we wouldn't make it in to Tracy. As we approached; I listened again; and the clouds had moved in (400 ft BKN). The LNAV MDA for RNAV 29 is 444 ft AGL with a VDP at 1.3nm. Our aircraft is LPV capable; but there are no LPV mins for this approach. I elected to attempt the approach in hopes that we would break out of the broken layer. Our aircraft does provide us with vertical guidance for LNAV approaches; and the Garmin Perspective+ is equipped with synthetic vision. I followed the vertical navigation down to the MDA and leveled off. I continued at the MDA and flew past the VDP. I saw the runway about .1 or .2 out. I was not in a position to land and would have landed long on a 3;000 ft runway; so I elected to go missed.Throughout the missed; and proceeding to the IAF for another attempt; I noticed a large hole in the clouds that would have legally allowed me to descend into Class G airspace where I could have legally proceeded to my destination. However; I was not comfortable with what towers or terrain might be out there; offset from the runway center line. I have; however; flown many straight in approaches to Runway 29 at Tracy; and there are no obstacles on the approach path. Therefore; I elected another approach. As on the first attempt; I followed the vertical navigation down final approach. When I reached the MDA; I did not see the runway. At that time; I elected to continue down a little further. At approx. 150 ft below my MDA or 290 ft AGL; I saw the runway at 12 o'clock; on glide path; exactly like any other precision approach. I landed safely from that approach.Historically; I have NEVER considered flying below minimums. However; some get-there-itis; combined with powerful avionics that provide vertical guidance and synthetic vision that display the runway directly in front of you; made it very tempting to turn a non-precision approach into a precision approach. Right; wrong; or otherwise; I think this is an excellent lesson for anyone flying TAA aircraft these days. They certainly have the ability to give the feeling of invulnerability in several areas (including instrument approaches; fuel planning; and thunderstorm avoidance with XM weather); which is a classic human factors pitfall; and a powerful one at that.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported descending below minimums on an instrument approach.