Narrative:

During our initial approach phase the ATIS indicated the approach light system to runway 4R was OTS. This was confirmed by new york approach control. This ILS will now require an RVR of 4000 ft or greater. The current RVR was 3600 ft. New york approach control advised us that 2 aircraft just flew the ILS approach and reported the approach lights were working. The captain, who was the PF, advised approach control we will then go ahead and fly the approach. I told the captain that I do not believe this is legal because it was not an official report, that the approach lights were working, since it was not determined by the FAA. The captain asked approach several times the status of the light but ATC gave the PIREP by the previous aircraft and added the lights are reported out by the tower at ewr. This created a lot of confusion. I once again advised the captain this is not legal. Keep in mind during this question and answer period, we were being vectored for the ILS. A lot of distrs during the critical phase of flight. I could not persuade the captain to go to an alternate airport since we were close to our minimum fuel to reach our alternate. Once the captain heard the lights were on and working, even though from an unofficial source, he elected to land. These distrs led to an unstable approach. I told the captain twice we should go around due to our excessive airspeed -- to no avail. Now I am here, filling out this report. The landing was uneventful. I thought I was exercising good communication techniques but this did not work. It appears once this captain has made up his mind, he will complete the mission and not re-evaluate the situation. Note: I would have taken control of the aircraft if I ever thought we were in danger. I was aware of these chain of events and increased my level of awareness and did express my concerns to the captain.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 PIC COMPLETES AN ILS APCH TO EWR WITH THE RVR READING BELOW LEGAL APCH LNDG LIMITS WITH THE APCH LIGHT SYS INOP.

Narrative: DURING OUR INITIAL APCH PHASE THE ATIS INDICATED THE APCH LIGHT SYS TO RWY 4R WAS OTS. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY NEW YORK APCH CTL. THIS ILS WILL NOW REQUIRE AN RVR OF 4000 FT OR GREATER. THE CURRENT RVR WAS 3600 FT. NEW YORK APCH CTL ADVISED US THAT 2 ACFT JUST FLEW THE ILS APCH AND RPTED THE APCH LIGHTS WERE WORKING. THE CAPT, WHO WAS THE PF, ADVISED APCH CTL WE WILL THEN GO AHEAD AND FLY THE APCH. I TOLD THE CAPT THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS LEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL RPT, THAT THE APCH LIGHTS WERE WORKING, SINCE IT WAS NOT DETERMINED BY THE FAA. THE CAPT ASKED APCH SEVERAL TIMES THE STATUS OF THE LIGHT BUT ATC GAVE THE PIREP BY THE PREVIOUS ACFT AND ADDED THE LIGHTS ARE RPTED OUT BY THE TWR AT EWR. THIS CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION. I ONCE AGAIN ADVISED THE CAPT THIS IS NOT LEGAL. KEEP IN MIND DURING THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD, WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE ILS. A LOT OF DISTRS DURING THE CRITICAL PHASE OF FLT. I COULD NOT PERSUADE THE CAPT TO GO TO AN ALTERNATE ARPT SINCE WE WERE CLOSE TO OUR MINIMUM FUEL TO REACH OUR ALTERNATE. ONCE THE CAPT HEARD THE LIGHTS WERE ON AND WORKING, EVEN THOUGH FROM AN UNOFFICIAL SOURCE, HE ELECTED TO LAND. THESE DISTRS LED TO AN UNSTABLE APCH. I TOLD THE CAPT TWICE WE SHOULD GO AROUND DUE TO OUR EXCESSIVE AIRSPD -- TO NO AVAIL. NOW I AM HERE, FILLING OUT THIS RPT. THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. I THOUGHT I WAS EXERCISING GOOD COM TECHNIQUES BUT THIS DID NOT WORK. IT APPEARS ONCE THIS CAPT HAS MADE UP HIS MIND, HE WILL COMPLETE THE MISSION AND NOT RE-EVALUATE THE SIT. NOTE: I WOULD HAVE TAKEN CTL OF THE ACFT IF I EVER THOUGHT WE WERE IN DANGER. I WAS AWARE OF THESE CHAIN OF EVENTS AND INCREASED MY LEVEL OF AWARENESS AND DID EXPRESS MY CONCERNS TO THE CAPT.

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.