Takeoff Mins/Pinnacle Ops Specs

[TapitLight]

Tower said

RVR 27L 1000'

 

[JustaNumber]

I have to say I'm a little bit dumbfounded that some of
you folks think jepps are controlling. The only time they will be is if the takeoff mins are greater than standard, in that case I don't belive you can use reduced mins. I strongly encourage those of you who think jepps control at all times to clarify your understanding with your d.o. or a check airman.

Your logic is illogical. What you are saying is that if the FAA surveyed an airport and found, I don't know, a big obstacle right off the end of the runway that you could only see right at one mile visibility, it would be impossible for them to limit the allowable takeoff visibility to exactly standard, and no less? It appears to me that that is the purpose of having individually surveyed runway T/O mins published, in addition to your company's ops spec allowable mins.

 

[jehtplane]

Wow. It is almost disturbing the amount of interpretations going on. Guys, 121 op specs give you the authorization to use less than standard t/o mins. ie 5000/1. If tower is reporting 1000 rvr, the Jepp plate says 1600rvr, your op specs say 500rvr, YOU ARE NOT LEGAL TO DEPART. Your op spec which authorized you to depart with rvr down to 500 does not mean you can do that at any airport. The airport also has to have authorization down to 500 rvr. It is your op specs or published, what ever is greater.

 

[DoinTime]

Dointime,

You're stuck on this chart thing. If as the original post stated, the TOWER gave an RVR report, THEN IT IS AVAILABLE, and you have to abide by it. It doesn't have anything to do with who publishes your charts.

The LIDO charts do not have an RVR requirement for take off on rwy 27 in SBN. They do have a requirement for 1/4 mile tower visibility though. This makes tower visibility controlling for people operating with LIDO charts on this runway.

 

[TapitLight]

Yes, this is now making more sense!

 

[TapitLight]

Ok LIDO has a tower vis requirement,

there was never any "tower visiblity" reported that morning only an ATIS reported 1/8 sm vis and an RVR reported at 1000'.

The vis was never up to 1/4 sm for the Pinnacle departures....

 

[DoinTime]

Ok LIDO has a tower vis requirement,

there was never any "tower visiblity" reported that morning only an ATIS reported 1/8 sm vis and an RVR reported at 1000'.

Tower vis is the vis reported on the ATIS. It does not have to be recorded on the ATIS to be the official visibility. A spot check on visibility is all that is required for t/o. Here is the way it usually goes at the end of the runway:

flagship - tower....whats the current visibility?

tower - currently 1/8 mile....what do you need?

flagship - we need 1/4 mile.

tower - visibility is now 1/4 mile...cleared for takeoff.

flagship - cleared for takeoff...have a nice day.

The vis was never up to 1/4 sm for the Pinnacle departures....

Did you follow the flight on all the frequencies on the way out? Tower can provided a momentary report that would make the departure legal.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Ok LIDO has a tower vis requirement,

there was never any "tower visiblity" reported that morning only an ATIS reported 1/8 sm vis and an RVR reported at 1000'.

The vis was never up to 1/4 sm for the Pinnacle departures....

Did you listen to all ground/tower communications? If the tower says 1/4 then it's 1/4.

 

[shelton]

The original post said that the PCL flight stated it needed 1000 RVR. I assume this meant that he was listening to ground/tower. Which, in this case, I would tend to believe considering they were departing when he thought he could not. I would be tempted to listen too.

So either they have a different LIDO chart or they don't understand the rqmts for 1000 RVR takeoff. I said before, SBN only has TDZ RVR. 1000 RVR takeoffs require another RVR report.

Is it possible that they were just wrong?

 

[DoinTime]

Is it possible that they were just wrong?

There are a lot of possibilities. The only thing that is clear is that any talk about required RVR for departure on rwy 27 in SBN in a Pinnacle cockpit is dead wrong from the start.

 

[TapitLight]

Oh, come on! We are going to have this great debate on takeoff visibilities only to finish on the assumption that tower "gave" Flagship the visibility it needed to takeoff. It's South Bend, tower and ground run by the same person during the early morning, we could hear the transmissions.

During the taxi out of the second Flagship flight to depart tower was initially reporting 700 RVR. The Flagship flight stated that they would not be able to depart, they need 1000RVR. They held at the end of the runway for about 15 mins before 1000 RVR was reported by the tower and they departed.

So the original question is still unanswered....

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

Wow. It is almost disturbing the amount of interpretations going on. Guys, 121 op specs give you the authorization to use less than standard t/o mins. ie 5000/1. If tower is reporting 1000 rvr, the Jepp plate says 1600rvr, your op specs say 500rvr, YOU ARE NOT LEGAL TO DEPART. Your op spec which authorized you to depart with rvr down to 500 does not mean you can do that at any airport. The airport also has to have authorization down to 500 rvr. It is your op specs or published, what ever is greater.

I think you should reread your c56 and c78 specs and tell us where it states op specs or published, which ever is greater. You'll find that all it says is that if takeoff minimums are equal to or lower than the applicable standard takeoff minimums then you can reduce. It really is that simple. If the back of the airport chart says standard or less, you can reduce based on the rvr, lighting, and paint for the runway you're departing. And you can reduce all the way down to your authorized minimums in your ops specs irregardless of what the published minimums are on the jepp chart provided they are standard are less. Really, that's all there is to it for us 121 folks.

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

Then who exactly are those numbers on the back of the airport pages for?

Non 121 crews and equipment.

 

[jehtplane]

I think you should reread your c56 and c78 specs and tell us where it states op specs or published, which ever is greater. You'll find that all it says is that if takeoff minimums are equal to or lower than the applicable standard takeoff minimums then you can reduce. It really is that simple. If the back of the airport chart says standard or less, you can reduce based on the rvr, lighting, and paint for the runway you're departing. And you can reduce all the way down to your authorized minimums in your ops specs irregardless of what the published minimums are on the jepp chart provided they are standard are less. Really, that's all there is to it for us 121 folks.

Please tell what airline you work for so I know never to put my family on it. Dude if the chart says 1600 rvr, that is the lowest vis you can depart with at that airport. Your op specs allow you to depart lower than standard, not lower than published!!!!!!!!. Wow please tell me you are not a PIC.

 

[TapitLight]

The whole only relying on the ops specs does not make sense. It takes any individuality out of the special needs at various airports and makes reducing visibilities a generic computation.

Freaking KSBN has only one RVR, how the hell are you going to start reducing that from the charted 1600 RVR down to your ops specs specified minimum takeoff visibilities....where do you draw the line.

 

[jehtplane]

Non 121 crews and equipment.

Really. Part 91 can go 0/0. So which non 121 are you talking about.

 

[rustypigeon]

Non 121 crews and equipment.

And who exactly is a non 121 carrier?

135 carriers use similar ops specs, 91 carriers can take off 0/0... they don't have takeoff visibility requirements. Who else is left?

In the introductory pages of the jepps, it says that those numbers are for 121 and 135 carriers.

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

Part 121.651 (a) (1) and (2) as stated earlier by someone else.

 

[jehtplane]

Part 121.651 (a) (1) and (2) as stated earlier by someone else.

Ignorance is bliss. Keep surfing.

 

[rustypigeon]

The whole only relying on the ops specs does not make sense. It takes any individuality out of the special needs at various airports and makes reducing visibilities a generic computation.

Exactly.

In the ideal world, completly flat with no obstacles, we could rely entirely on the op specs to provide our visibility requirements.

With a temporary obstruction, a notam will be issued about a tempory increase in takeoff mins. (you read all your notams right?)

Here is one for KAGS... TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: RWY 35, 300-1 1/4 OR STANDARD WITH MINIMUM CLIMB OF 356 FT PER NM TO 500. TEMPORARY CRANE 5505 FT FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY, 324 FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE, 200 FT AGL/320 FT MSL. TEMPORARY CRANE 6057 FT FROM DEPARTURE END OF RWY, 1262 FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE, 200 FT AGL/355 FT MSL. ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.

Now at airports that have permanent obstructions (mountains, buildings, towers) you have permanently higher mins, and those are published in the jepps. I again go back to the Williamport PA (IPT) example. Runway 27 requires 500-1 due to a mountain to the west. The interesting thing about IPT is that it also has a ceiling requirement. This is because a VMC climb must be made to a heading of 300 after takeoff.

You guys saying that the Op Specs supercede the Jepp numbers... Are you willing to depart runway 27 at IPT with 1/4 vis with a fed sitting in your jumpseat? Your Op Specs say you can with adequate visual reference, but the jepps say you need 500-1.