RVR below mins in side the FAF

[bafanguy]

PC12,


Because there's always an exception somewhere, our ops specs do not allow the continuation of a CAT3 approach if, while you're on the final segment, the controlling RVR's are reported below applicable minimum any time prior to AH/DH.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

SWA may not have been CatII certified at the time

It is common for Flight Visiblility to differ wildly from the reported touchdown RVR. Example: MIFG. Flight visibility is controlling for Part 121.

Here's one for you:
On the descent 80NM away from our destination. Several aircraft (121) are holding at the marker already. Reported visibility is measured 1/4 mile, landing runway RVR 2400. Airport diagram shows RVR installed on the landing runway, but the approach chart only shows visibility minima of 1/2 mi.
We wondered if we could use a higher RVR equivalent to start the approach, even though RVR minimums were not published. Southwest wouldn't start the approach, so we figured that was controlling!

SWA was not always CatII certified. They may not have been legal to start the approach.

It all boils down to your company OPS SPECS and what kind of approach you are shooting. If a Cat III (a,b, or c) is being conducted to an autoland. The equipment (transmisometers) must be working and you must have the published RVR.

PC12 needs to provide more details on the situation.

Part 91 ops: inside the marker you may continue if you have the flight vis. from the cockpit, "runway environment" as per the AIM.

Part 121 Cat III is more specific.

 

[bafanguy]

It is common for Flight Visiblility to differ wildly from the reported touchdown RVR. Example: MIFG. Flight visibility is controlling for Part 121.

Here's one for you:
On the descent 80NM away from our destination. Several aircraft (121) are holding at the marker already. Reported visibility is measured 1/4 mile, landing runway RVR 2400. Airport diagram shows RVR installed on the landing runway, but the approach chart only shows visibility minima of 1/2 mi.
We wondered if we could use a higher RVR equivalent to start the approach, even though RVR minimums were not published. Southwest wouldn't start the approach, so we figured that was controlling!

EagleRJ,

That's an interesting scenario you describe..don't know I ever encountered something like that. When in doubt...don't, is the prudent way to handle it.

Did you ever figure out why RVR was available on the runway but not published as a minimum for the particular approach ? Maybe the RVR had been installed but the Jepps revision cycle just hadn't reflected that change in terms of viz mins ? Just a guess...I think the FAA has to tell Jepps about things like this before they make it to the plates.

Since 121.567 says you're bound by your ops specs "...IFR weather minimums and instrument approach procedures...", what's published in the plate mins box probably rules. Our ops specs also say, "At no time will the pilot operate to lower minima that PUBLISHED for a particular approach". I would take "published" to mean exactly that.

But, to complicate this, look at 121.655 after the word "However...". I'd stick to ops specs like you guys did and play lawyer later.

It's a fun subject because there's always a new wrinkle.

 

[PC12Cowboy]

Jeff,
I just got another instrument pilot thru the system and the DPE is a retired FAA inspector....and said if you land with the RVR below minimums..its a bust...then a friend blew a skywestinterveiw oral...because thats what was stated and the interveiwer stated flight vis was the most important requirement....ie landing lights....runway enviroment.....always equals the RVR plus 100 if the got something

 

[Lead Sled]

Along these same lines...

I flew out of SLC for many years. During the winter months, there's frequently a high pressure area camped out over the Wasatch Front. One of the "tricks" that the airline guys use to help each other get out during foggy conditions is to turn their airplanes so as to blow the hot engine exhaust at the RVR sensors. This frequently caused the RVR readings to improve enough to one or two aircraft out. It was also used as some coastal California airports.

'Sled

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

It's all about OPS SPECc and the rules that apply to you.

Jeff,
I just got another instrument pilot thru the system and the DPE is a retired FAA inspector....and said if you land with the RVR below minimums..its a bust...then a friend blew a skywestinterveiw oral...because thats what was stated and the interveiwer stated flight vis was the most important requirement....ie landing lights....runway enviroment.....always equals the RVR plus 100 if the got something

That is tough question in an interview if you haven't flow 121 and know the ops specs. I would probably give the part 91 answer about inside the marker, you may continue with runway envirnment and preface this may not be the case in the 121 OPS SPECS for your particilar carrier.

As Bafanguy stated OPS SPECS are controlling. They don't make you excempt from the FARs, but they are consider as the same as FARs for the carrier.

Note: Legality to continue and appoach and legal to land may be two entirely different animals.

 

[Vector4fun]

I've never worked with an experienced Tower controller who would care whether you completed the approach in the situation you described. Don't crash, report clear of the runway, that's what they'll care about.

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't someone, a wannabe FSDO inquisitor, a sneaky competitor, a jilted lover, (who knows?) who's listening on freq or standing on the ramp, that wouldn't drop a dime. I've seen a few new controllers (former military) that would get the vapors, because that's not the way their Unit operated. You run into one of those guys here and there.

CYA is always the best policy.

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

CAT IIIa in SLC

I flew out of SLC for many years. During the winter months, there's frequently a high pressure area camped out over the Wasatch Front. One of the "tricks" that the airline guys use to help each other get out during foggy conditions is to turn their airplanes so as to blow the hot engine exhaust at the RVR sensors. This frequently caused the RVR readings to improve enough to one or two aircraft out. It was also used as some coastal California airports.

'Sled

I was an F/O on the MD80 at TWA and had the opportunity to shoot a CAT3a to an auto land. We had to apply all the OPS Specs to make it work. It was foggy the last 3 minutes of a VFR flight in the winter. The touchdown and the mid were right at mins, but the rollout went down to zero as we touched down. It takes some faith in the equipment, a defodding of the spinkter from the seat cushion, and I was so glad I didn't have to taxi to the gate!

Jeff

 

[vclean]

This has been covered several times on this board. Review the following thread, especially the second page which lists a FAA Legal interpretation regarding the RVR/Flight Visibility question.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=39820

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

...It takes some faith in the equipment...

I'll say!! I've only had the opportunity (maybe misfortune is the proper word) to do this in the real world a couple of times and you could crack walnuts with my butt cheeks both times! I don't think this is something I'll ever get used to. It would be nice to have some sort of EVS... I'm jealous of the guys who have that onboard.