Guest woxof Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Reading through TC enforcements in the COPA mag, I came across this one: "An ATP operating a Beech 1900 on an IFR flight plan, took off from a runway with an RVR of 1,100 and visibility one eighth of a mile. According to the company's ops manual, a takeoff with a visibility less than 1,200 RVR is acceptable if a second transmissometer is available for the same runway and does not indicate less than 600. The pilot could have used a transmissometer that was installed on the opposite runway to determine if a takeoff in these conditions was acceptable. However the pilot did not check the second RVR information and took off, knowing that an RVR of 1,100 did not meet the visibility minimums required at that airport." I know that ops specs vary among companies but does this seem odd about the second RVR with the 600 foot allowance for takeoff? What about using an RVR for the opposite runway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Could there be some confusion between departure RVR requirements and arrival RVR requirements? Can you be more specific with the Ops exemption? GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planett Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Excluding specific Ops Specs, I know that in a general sense the RVR can only be used for the runway it serves. (correct direction) Perhaps certain Ops specs can get around this. On a related note, I'm confused as to why YWG arrival frequently quotes RVR for 36 when we're using 13. (13 being active) Can anyone help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 .... better speak softly in this one, god know's, the TC (may they prosper unto the seventh generation) may be watching! I'm all for TC keeping an eye out for microscopic infractions of this sort. That is, as long as they keep the overall safety of the traveling public in mind. In the past TC has focused their scrutiny on those places where they knew the work load would be easiest. The consequence was that obvious short comings were disregarded in less obvious targets. I'll be happy to name names, should any challenge that statement. As long as Transport Canada applies equally stringent rules across the board, they're to be congratulated. No passenger's safety is less than any other passenger's safety, regardless of the flight they're taking. Or am I missing something? neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.