ATC SUPVR CONTENDS THAT FLT CREW USED BAD JUDGEMENT TO CONTINUE APCH AFTER VISIBILITY DROPPED BELOW MINS

Narrative

MLG X INBND TO ALB VISIBILITY DROPPED TO 1/2 MI WHILE ACFT WAS WELL OUTSIDE FAF. APCH CTLR MADE A BROADCAST TO ALL ACFT THAT VISIBILITY WAS 1/2 (MIN FOR APCH IS 3/4); BJT DID NOT GET ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM ANY ACFT. TWR CTLR ISSUED VISIBILITY OF 1/2 MI ON INITIAL CTL. ACFT AT THAT POINT; WAS EITHER AT THE FAF OR ABOUT 1 MI OUTSIDE OF IT. I WAS IN THE TWR AT THE TIME AND I THOUGHT THE ACFT WAS ABOUT 1 MI FROM THE FAF WHEN THE LCL CTLR ISSUED THE VISIBILITY. PLT STATED TO ME ON THE TELEPHONE THAT WHEN HE RECEIVED THE WX (1/2 MI VISIBILITY) HE WAS 1/10 OF A MI INSIDE THE FAF--SO HE CONTINUED THE APCH AND ADDITIONALLY HE WAS HAVING A PROBLEM. HIS ILS RECEIVER AND THAT MAY HAVE DISTRACTED HIM. #1 ATC ERROR--NO EXCUSE FOR NOT GETTING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM ACFT. IF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS NOT RECEIVED; YOU NEVER GAVE THE MSG. #2 PLT ERROR--PLT WAS PROBABLY INVOLVED WITH NAV-AID RECEIVER PROBLEM WHEN APCH CTL GAVE WX. WHEN TWR (LC) ISSUED WX HE WAS STILL CONCERNED WITH HIS PROBLEM--AS HE STATED TO ME. ADDITIONALLY; HE CONFIRMED WITH THE F/O THAT MINS WERE 3/4. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHY--WHEN THE VISIBILITY GOES BELOW MINS; THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE ILS RECEIVER AND THE ACFT IS AT SUCH A CRITICAL POINT (FAF) WITH ALL THESE PROBLEMS WHY CONTINUE THE APCH? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATED THAT AFTER HIS TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE PLT; HE DECIDED THAT A VIOLATION MAY NOT HAVE OCCURRED; SO HE DID NOT FORWARD A PLT DEVIATION FORM TO FSDO. DISCUSSED THE FAR COVERING THIS INCIDENT AND AGREED THAT IF THE PLT WAS ON THE FINAL SEGMENT OF HIS APCH WHEN HE LEARNED OF THE NEW VIS; HE WAS LEGAL TO CONTINUE THE APCH. RPTR'S CONCERN INVOLVED THE FACT THAT THE PLT CONTINUED AN APCH IN WORSENING WX CONDITIONS; WITH AN ILS RECEIVER THAT WAS ACTING UP. HE FEELS THAT THIS SHOWED BAD JUDGEMENT.