Narrative:

Lga was changing departure runways from runway 4 to runway 31 and we were in the last few aircraft departing runway 04, mixing in with runway 04 arrivals. We were holding at the ILS hold line farther from the runway than the normal line. Following a landing aircraft, tower delayed clearing us on the runway to hold. Finally, after clearance onto runway 4, tower realized the traffic on final was too close, so he told us to hold short after we had crossed the inside hold short line, but not past the runway edge line paint. We notified tower that we were unable to hold short and were inside the runway boundary. Tower cleared a dash 8 propeller-plane to land if he felt the clearance was adequate, and he landed. Next, we pleaded with tower to cross us over to clear the runway and he instructed us to hold our position. Then he cleared an air carrier Y B737 to lnd, also if he felt there was enough clearance. He landed also. Both aircraft seemed way too close to us on the landing, and our advice to him that it was a dangerous situation was ignored. The first aircraft should have gone around and then we should have cleared across, allowing the second to land with a clear runway. This does not seem right for a part 121 operation and proper for a major airport tower to act. Supplemental information from acn 524161: the response I received about this, claimed that tower thought we were only past the ILS hold line not the actual runway hold line. We were, in fact, past the 2ND runway hold line with the aircraft nose just about touching the runway edge line paint, the line that runs the entire length of the runway along the right side. That is why we so vigorously protested them landing aircraft while we were, by aim standards, on the runway. Please listen to the tower tapes on that day, to not only our protests, but for the way we were ignored trying to prevent a major aircraft accident. It appears lga tower is trying to cover their tails at the expense of safety. Feel free to contact me about this or confirm it with my copilot if you don't believe me. Tower would not let us clear the runway, even when there was time and space between aircraft to do so. We made it clear to tower that we were past the regular hold line (he knew we were well past the ILS hold line). After cleared into position, the tower controller told us too late to hold short when he changed his mind because his timing was off due to the longer taxi to the runway (starting from the ILS hold line). I know the difference between the ILS hold line, the runway hold line and the runway edge paint line. We were between the hard runway hold line and the runway edge line, and vigorously communicated that to tower in this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 CREW REPORTED LGA TWR LANDED ACFT AFTER THEY WERE PAST THE RWY HOLD SHORT POINT, ON RWY 4.

Narrative: LGA WAS CHANGING DEP RWYS FROM RWY 4 TO RWY 31 AND WE WERE IN THE LAST FEW ACFT DEPARTING RWY 04, MIXING IN WITH RWY 04 ARRIVALS. WE WERE HOLDING AT THE ILS HOLD LINE FARTHER FROM THE RWY THAN THE NORMAL LINE. FOLLOWING A LNDG ACFT, TWR DELAYED CLRING US ON THE RWY TO HOLD. FINALLY, AFTER CLRNC ONTO RWY 4, TWR REALIZED THE TFC ON FINAL WAS TOO CLOSE, SO HE TOLD US TO HOLD SHORT AFTER WE HAD CROSSED THE INSIDE HOLD SHORT LINE, BUT NOT PAST THE RWY EDGE LINE PAINT. WE NOTIFIED TWR THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO HOLD SHORT AND WERE INSIDE THE RWY BOUNDARY. TWR CLRED A DASH 8 PROP-PLANE TO LAND IF HE FELT THE CLRNC WAS ADEQUATE, AND HE LANDED. NEXT, WE PLEADED WITH TWR TO CROSS US OVER TO CLR THE RWY AND HE INSTRUCTED US TO HOLD OUR POS. THEN HE CLRED AN ACR Y B737 TO LND, ALSO IF HE FELT THERE WAS ENOUGH CLRNC. HE LANDED ALSO. BOTH ACFT SEEMED WAY TOO CLOSE TO US ON THE LNDG, AND OUR ADVICE TO HIM THAT IT WAS A DANGEROUS SIT WAS IGNORED. THE FIRST ACFT SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE CLRED ACROSS, ALLOWING THE SECOND TO LAND WITH A CLR RWY. THIS DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT FOR A PART 121 OP AND PROPER FOR A MAJOR ARPT TWR TO ACT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 524161: THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED ABOUT THIS, CLAIMED THAT TWR THOUGHT WE WERE ONLY PAST THE ILS HOLD LINE NOT THE ACTUAL RWY HOLD LINE. WE WERE, IN FACT, PAST THE 2ND RWY HOLD LINE WITH THE ACFT NOSE JUST ABOUT TOUCHING THE RWY EDGE LINE PAINT, THE LINE THAT RUNS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE RWY ALONG THE R SIDE. THAT IS WHY WE SO VIGOROUSLY PROTESTED THEM LNDG ACFT WHILE WE WERE, BY AIM STANDARDS, ON THE RWY. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE TWR TAPES ON THAT DAY, TO NOT ONLY OUR PROTESTS, BUT FOR THE WAY WE WERE IGNORED TRYING TO PREVENT A MAJOR ACFT ACCIDENT. IT APPEARS LGA TWR IS TRYING TO COVER THEIR TAILS AT THE EXPENSE OF SAFETY. FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME ABOUT THIS OR CONFIRM IT WITH MY COPLT IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. TWR WOULD NOT LET US CLR THE RWY, EVEN WHEN THERE WAS TIME AND SPACE BTWN ACFT TO DO SO. WE MADE IT CLR TO TWR THAT WE WERE PAST THE REGULAR HOLD LINE (HE KNEW WE WERE WELL PAST THE ILS HOLD LINE). AFTER CLRED INTO POS, THE TWR CTLR TOLD US TOO LATE TO HOLD SHORT WHEN HE CHANGED HIS MIND BECAUSE HIS TIMING WAS OFF DUE TO THE LONGER TAXI TO THE RWY (STARTING FROM THE ILS HOLD LINE). I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BTWN THE ILS HOLD LINE, THE RWY HOLD LINE AND THE RWY EDGE PAINT LINE. WE WERE BTWN THE HARD RWY HOLD LINE AND THE RWY EDGE LINE, AND VIGOROUSLY COMMUNICATED THAT TO TWR IN THIS SIT.

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.