Truckflyer
Yea you're right, I was also confused reading my post but your reply addressed the issue I was trying to nail.
The thing is, you say "if you are not given a RVR, use CMV for planning purposes.", but no where in JAR OPS does it say this can be done for planning.
If I'm wrong please point me in the right direction.
JAR OPS 1.430 sub paragraph L and table 11 is as close as I can get.
Notice CMV is based on REPORTED met visibility and not forecasted.
It seems to me met Vis would have to be directly translated to RVR to make a flight legal. 600vis = 600rvr.
Ep
(l) Conversion of reported meteorological visibility to RVR/CMV.
1. An operator must ensure that a meteorological visibility to RVR/CMV conversion is not used for takeoff, for cal-culating any other required RVR minimum less than 800 m, or when reported RVR is available.
Note: If the RVR is reported as being above the maximum value assessed by the aerodrome operator, e.g. “RVR more than 1 500 metres”, it is not considered to be a reported value for the purpose of this paragraph.
2. When converting meteorological visibility to RVR in all other circumstances than those in subparagraph (l)1. above, an operator must ensure that the following Table is used:
Table 11
Conversion of met visibility to RVR/CMV
Lighting elements in operation RVR/CMV = Reported met. Visibility ×
Day Night
HI approach and runway lighting 1,5 2,0
Any type of lighting installation other than above 1,0 1,5
No lighting 1,0 Not applicable