Calculating RVRs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: new
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calculating RVRs
At the flight planning stage is it legal under JAR rules to take forecast visibility from the "TAF "and convert it to an RVR to be used in calculating an approach minima at the destination or alternate etc using the DAY/NIGHT/FULL/LIMITED LIGHTS factors(x2, x1.5,x1.0)?
Understand that you can only factor "REPORTED" met vis for a CAT1 approach not CAT2 nor CAT3. I would think that "reported" means METAR or ATC declared visibility and not forecast visibility from the TAF. Searched through JAR but cant find a definition of "reported".
Can anyone help?
Understand that you can only factor "REPORTED" met vis for a CAT1 approach not CAT2 nor CAT3. I would think that "reported" means METAR or ATC declared visibility and not forecast visibility from the TAF. Searched through JAR but cant find a definition of "reported".
Can anyone help?
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi allaboard,
Well, look at what TAF stands for (especially the ...Forecast part) and you will have your answer.
A report is something observed (measurement) - a forecast is more or less in the divination business.
Otherwise, you might embark on a flight JFK to LHR with AMS as alternate. You are Cat III capable, so required forecast for LHR (assuming nighttime arrival) is 100 m. (x 2,0 = 200 m = OK Cat III), and AMS, your only alternate needs only forecast 300 m. (x 2,0 = 600 m = OK Cat I).
- does not sound like a way to achieve a long and happy career, now does it? 
Brgds from
Empty
Well, look at what TAF stands for (especially the ...Forecast part) and you will have your answer.
A report is something observed (measurement) - a forecast is more or less in the divination business.
Otherwise, you might embark on a flight JFK to LHR with AMS as alternate. You are Cat III capable, so required forecast for LHR (assuming nighttime arrival) is 100 m. (x 2,0 = 200 m = OK Cat III), and AMS, your only alternate needs only forecast 300 m. (x 2,0 = 600 m = OK Cat I).
- does not sound like a way to achieve a long and happy career, now does it? Brgds from
Empty
A forecast is not a report therefore doesn't meet the 'report' requirements you mention.
Oh the hand, a report can also be a forecast eg a Metar with a statement of trend attached.
Oh the hand, a report can also be a forecast eg a Metar with a statement of trend attached.
Are you talking about Planning Minima?
Since RVR is never reported in the TAF or forecast in both the TAF and TREND it is ok to us this method - infact a number of operators do already - with limitations that it can't be used to determine T/O minimums, CAT2 & 3 minmia Circling or when an RVR is reported.
Empty CRZ: That's not how it works! If you are planning a CAT3 approach you must use the Vis i.e 200M for CAT3A - so in the case you give you would need 2 alternates! As you say AMS is a CAT3 airport , so depending on the RWY you are planning to use you would need CAT 1 minmima which would allow you to use the conversion or vis if you wish.
Empty CRZ: That's not how it works! If you are planning a CAT3 approach you must use the Vis i.e 200M for CAT3A - so in the case you give you would need 2 alternates! As you say AMS is a CAT3 airport , so depending on the RWY you are planning to use you would need CAT 1 minmima which would allow you to use the conversion or vis if you wish.
Last edited by LYKA; 24th Mar 2005 at 09:50.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ LYKA,
Yeah - that was rather the point - that is not the way it works!
Re. yours statement that it's OK to use this method... well, sitting with 2 different airline OM's in front of me + JAR-OPS 1, and all 3 agree on the term ...converting observed visibilty to RVR... So I fail to see how the VIZ metioned in a forecast (TREND or TAF) may be multiplied by the OPS1-factors to achieve an RVR in the planning stage.
Hope that no airlines use that procedure, as it is in direct disagreement with OPS1 (unless, of course, the local authorities have been allowed to grant an exemption)
Brgds from
Empty
Yeah - that was rather the point
- that is not the way it works!Re. yours statement that it's OK to use this method... well, sitting with 2 different airline OM's in front of me + JAR-OPS 1, and all 3 agree on the term ...converting observed visibilty to RVR... So I fail to see how the VIZ metioned in a forecast (TREND or TAF) may be multiplied by the OPS1-factors to achieve an RVR in the planning stage.
Hope that no airlines use that procedure, as it is in direct disagreement with OPS1 (unless, of course, the local authorities have been allowed to grant an exemption)
Brgds from
Empty
