RVR replaced by pilot assessment

[JammedStab]

Our little book says that pilot assessment can replace RVR/visibility value for the first part of the takeoff roll.

Is this standard for most countries such as the USA and EU area? It seems fairly clear but I just want to confirm that we can ignore the below limit TDZ RVR if it appears to the PIC that the visibility meets the minimum required.

Has anybody ever encountered this situation?

[Skyjob]

There are several places in the world which do not have RVR equipment.
In such places pilot assessment (counting the Centre or Edge Lights) is then the only other measure available.

[Flap Sup]

Methinks that pilot assessment can only replace visibility, not rvr, althought i cannot find info in EASA doc.

IMHO it is an absolute necessity when rvr is not available due to the fact that observations from the tower is much more limited than looking down a lit runway.

As far as i remember, 60 meters are standard between runway edge lights.

[aterpster]

JammedStab:

Our little book says that pilot assessment can replace RVR/visibility value for the first part of the takeoff roll.

Most definitely not in the U.S. for commercial operations.

[latetonite]

In Europe 550 m vis is standard for a cat 1 approach. In US it is 1/4 mile!

[woodja51]

Not an expert but think it depends on the authority issuing the ops spec for the airline. I vaguely remember that pilot assessment could be used to replace the TD zone RVR for take off but only down to around 150m ( that was EK ). But in CSA now, the ops spec for low vis takeoffs is a minimum RVR of 175m, with no mention of pilot assessment.

Other factors might be that on say, a stop limited runway where maybe you need a Stop end RVR, how would you replace that with a pilots observation (without back tracking the runway for example).

As I said , not an expert but it does seem to vary around the place.

[aterpster]

latetonight:

In Europe 550 m vis is standard for a cat 1 approach. In US it is 1/4 mile!

In the U.S. full CAT I (ALS and HIRLs) is 1/2 mile.

If the runway is equipped with RVR the standard is 2400, but RVR 1800 if the runway has TDZ and CL lights.

Then, there are special authorizations based on HUD, etc. And, such special authorizations can bring the DA down from 200 to 150.

[clunckdriver]

Since retiring from the "heavy metal" I dont often fly into places with such things as RVR, ILS and a few other goodies, so we make the observations ourselves, I find if one counts the lights on BOTH sides of the aircraft it helps a lot with obtaining the numbers needed to T/O!

[ShyTorque]

You got lights on both sides? Luxury!

[Piltdown Man]

What' s the big deal? Typically, you need nine lights (allowing for the cut-off) to depart. If ATC are unable to provide the RVR, you do it yourself - subject to local and/or operator's regs. Also, if ATC give you a value greater than what you require but you see less, you don't go. Common sense should rule.

[JammedStab]

My question is actually, can pilot vis replace a touchdown RVR that is below limits(localized phenomenon)?

[Piltdown Man]

My books used to say I could but recently they have changed. Now I just have to satisfy myself that I have the required RVRs. The method is not defined. Therefore we decide as a crew.

[172_driver]

My question is actually, can pilot vis replace a touchdown RVR that is below limits(localized phenomenon)?

From the horse's mouth, in Europe - EU-OPS Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430

Note 3: The reported RVR/visibility value representative of the initial part of the take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment.
Note 4: The required RVR value must be achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points with the exception given in Note 3 above

So Yes, the initial (you call it touchdown?) RVR can be replaced. This is true if you are using a take-off minima of 150 m.

However, if you are operating with a take-off minima of 125 m there are further considerations which of one is:

(E) the required RVR value has been achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points

That's what the regs say, but reading my OM-A they've muddied the waters a bit by using a different wording. I can't say exactly what I am allowed to do. The question then is if OM-A takes legal precedence over EU-OPS.

[alfa floor]

Only applicable for take off and when required RVR is 150m (CAT A,B,C aircraft ) / 200m (CAT D aircraft). RL, CL & multiple RVR required (you'll find this on the jeppesen chart) . The RVR for the initial part of the take off run can be replaced by pilot assessment (see reference below)

For a take off when the required RVR is 125m/150m RL, CL & multiple RVR are required. pilot assessment is not allowed :=


EU-OPS 1 -> SUBPART D -> AERODROME OPERATING MINIMA

3. Required RVR/visibility , TABLE 1

Facilities: Runway edge and centreline lighting and multiple RVR information
Required RVR/Visibility: 150m/200 m (Notes 1 and 4)

Note 1: The higher values apply to Category D aeroplanes.

Note 3: The reported RVR/Visibility value representative of the initial part of the take-off run can be replaced by pilot assessment.
Note 4: The required RVR value must be achieved for all of the relevant RVR reporting points with the exception given in Note 3 above


Hope this is clear:)

[JammedStab]

Thank you. Any regulatory quotes from ther parts of the world where this is allowed?

[horus23]

I'm gonna have to shove this thread up again in order to avoid creating a new one with same subject.

I'm finding the questions about RVR very confusing. I understood that the first part of the take-off run could be done by the commander's assessment, but found a question in AE that says:

During low visibility take-off operations, the reported RVR for the initial part of the take-off run is below limit. The take-off:

A) is not possible under any circumstance;
B) is possible provided the captain can visually assess the actual RVR and it is at or above the limit;
C) is possible if high intensity runway centre line lights spaced 15 m or less are operational and both pilots are licensed to perform LVO CAT-III operations;
D) is possible provided the aircraft is equipped with an approved lateral guidance system or HUD (Head-up display);

Correct answer given is A, and I can't understand why if in the table contained in Part-SPA AMC1 SPA.LVO100 Low visibility operations, LVTO Operations - Aeroplanes
explains the situation where the commander can replace the RVR by his assessment.

Please, could anyone enlighten me on this one?