I get the distinct impression that this is going to go around in circles...
So I probably wont really bother much longer. Nobody seems open to discussion as such, more interested in disputing something without putting in much input themselves.
All I know is that it works and is just one method of helping determine your visibility
Seems like some seem to think the "count" is very literal- "oh, i can see now... lets see theres 1, theres 2...wait ive run out of fingers better use my other hand!".
It really isnt that hard to recognise something like the crossbars and to be able to determine how many there are. Even easier 2 crew as one of them looks out the window mostly!
I'm liking people saying "look for the HIALS" - Ok you might see it but what exactly are you looking for?
If you see half of it can you continue the approach or do you have to miss out because its not enough visibility?
Also, RVR is not visibility along the approach path.
RVR may not be representative of the visibility you are getting out of your window on approach.
However, it is another piece of information you can use to help make the decision at the DA- just like the crossbars! Yet nobody is knocking the RVR!
Also note that an RV assessment is not a substituite for a required RVR observation and cannot be used for precision approaches under certain conditions.
So if you have been basing your decision at the DA based on the RVR from the tower, what are you going to do when they cannot give one?
Maybe its not practical in all ops. Those rubbishing my method have not exactly said anything like "yeah I see where you are coming from, but that is actually a little impractical for us doing XXXXXX. We however use this......" All I see is "your kidding" "your joking"
We aren't all Maverick coming in at 120, 140 at the DA. Sounds more like some are trying to compare dick sizes.
Last edited by MyNameIsIs; 29th Jun 2010 at 02:33.