Flight crew of medium large transport landed lga with ceiling 500', 1 mile visibility, RVR 4500'.

Attributes
ACN	168552
Time
Date	199101
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lga
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : n90
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 3400 flight time type : 220
ASRS Report	168552
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : insufficient time none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

The WX at lga was reported to be 6 overcast and visibility approximately 1 mi. We were cleared for the ILS 4 approach at lga by ny approach when we were approximately 10 mi from the end of the runway and approximately 4 mi from the FAF. The captain was flying and I was monitoring the INS. About 30 seconds. After being cleared for the approach the final approach controller told us the RVR had dropped to 4500' and asked us if we could still land. The captain instructed me to advise the controller that we could still land. I then noticed that the ILS 4 to lga required a RVR 5000' or 1 mi to land. I pointed this out to the captain, but he said we could still land since we had been cleared for the approach. At this time I told him it was my understanding that we could only continue the approach if we had passed the FAF inbound and since we had not done so yet, we should make a missed approach. We discussed this for a few moments, and since by this time we were well into the approach we continued and made an uneventful landing at lga. I feel the controller should have asked us, 'what are your intentions?', rather then asking us if we could still land.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MLG LANDED LGA WITH CEILING 500', 1 MILE VISIBILITY, RVR 4500'.

Narrative: THE WX AT LGA WAS RPTED TO BE 6 OVCST AND VISIBILITY APPROX 1 MI. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS 4 APCH AT LGA BY NY APCH WHEN WE WERE APPROX 10 MI FROM THE END OF THE RWY AND APPROX 4 MI FROM THE FAF. THE CAPT WAS FLYING AND I WAS MONITORING THE INS. ABOUT 30 SECS. AFTER BEING CLRED FOR THE APCH THE FINAL APCH CTLR TOLD US THE RVR HAD DROPPED TO 4500' AND ASKED US IF WE COULD STILL LAND. THE CAPT INSTRUCTED ME TO ADVISE THE CTLR THAT WE COULD STILL LAND. I THEN NOTICED THAT THE ILS 4 TO LGA REQUIRED A RVR 5000' OR 1 MI TO LAND. I POINTED THIS OUT TO THE CAPT, BUT HE SAID WE COULD STILL LAND SINCE WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE APCH. AT THIS TIME I TOLD HIM IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD ONLY CONTINUE THE APCH IF WE HAD PASSED THE FAF INBND AND SINCE WE HAD NOT DONE SO YET, WE SHOULD MAKE A MISSED APCH. WE DISCUSSED THIS FOR A FEW MOMENTS, AND SINCE BY THIS TIME WE WERE WELL INTO THE APCH WE CONTINUED AND MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG AT LGA. I FEEL THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE ASKED US, 'WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS?', RATHER THEN ASKING US IF WE COULD STILL LAND.

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.