A CL65 flight crew initiate an ILS with less than required RVR.

Attributes
ACN	618282
Time
Date	200405
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lga.airport
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl single value : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : lga.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Regional Jet CL65, Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer & glide slope : 04
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 230 flight time total : 5800 flight time type : 2800
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 250 flight time total : 3500 flight time type : 3200
ASRS Report	618203
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : executed missed approach other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Navigational Facility Weather Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

I received the ATIS advertising 1/2 mi visibility with 300 ft overcast and an RVR for runway 22 at 6000 ft. As we descended into the area we were vectored for the ILS runway 4. The ILS for runway 4 required the WX to be 4000 ft RVR, 3/4 mi. Neither myself nor the first officer caught the fact that we were landing runway 4, but the RVR being advertised was for runway 22. We were vectored onto the final at 2000 ft and cleared for approach. Coming up on the peths LOM we were given an RVR of less than we needed to land. At this point, we caught the mistake and told approach that we were unable to comply. We were given a climb, and told to expect an ILS runway 22. We flew the ILS runway 22 without incident. The primary cause of this problem is that the RVR for runway 22 was being advertised, but the approach was to runway 4 and I didn't catch the discrepancy until we had started the approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CL65 FLT CREW INITIATE AN ILS WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED RVR.

Narrative: I RECEIVED THE ATIS ADVERTISING 1/2 MI VISIBILITY WITH 300 FT OVCST AND AN RVR FOR RWY 22 AT 6000 FT. AS WE DSNDED INTO THE AREA WE WERE VECTORED FOR THE ILS RWY 4. THE ILS FOR RWY 4 REQUIRED THE WX TO BE 4000 FT RVR, 3/4 MI. NEITHER MYSELF NOR THE FO CAUGHT THE FACT THAT WE WERE LNDG RWY 4, BUT THE RVR BEING ADVERTISED WAS FOR RWY 22. WE WERE VECTORED ONTO THE FINAL AT 2000 FT AND CLRED FOR APCH. COMING UP ON THE PETHS LOM WE WERE GIVEN AN RVR OF LESS THAN WE NEEDED TO LAND. AT THIS POINT, WE CAUGHT THE MISTAKE AND TOLD APCH THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO COMPLY. WE WERE GIVEN A CLB, AND TOLD TO EXPECT AN ILS RWY 22. WE FLEW THE ILS RWY 22 WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THIS PROB IS THAT THE RVR FOR RWY 22 WAS BEING ADVERTISED, BUT THE APCH WAS TO RWY 4 AND I DIDN'T CATCH THE DISCREPANCY UNTIL WE HAD STARTED THE APCH.

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.