Ever wonder what 1800 RVR looks like?

When the video started I could have sworn I saw a taxi line in front of you, so at first I thought you, I mean your friend, were on the ground taxiing. Nicely done
 
was flyin through 1800-2500 RVR the last two days in Dulles....ops were still pretty smooth, no real delays
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
Nice Video, BUT your buddy did almost float out of the touchdown zone, what's up with that man? He is going to take Travis' spot as a floater.
Click to expand...

As you probably know (I'm sure you're just giving him crap:)), the floating tendency in low vis so apparent that most operators add 15% to landing distances below 4,000 RVR (per a SAFO). The best one I ever witnessed was as an instructor: the new-hire went back up into the clouds when making the transition (in a sim).
 
Preface: I'm not questioning the decision making of the pilot here (for all I know, they may be approved for cat III), I'm just trying to figure out what is supposed to happen on these minimum days like this, as someone who has probably only done about one approach to visibility minimums in their career. I also understand that what comes through in video is usually worse than what is actually happening.

The definition of flight visibility is: "the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day." In the video, the threshold bars come in to view when the aircraft is over, or maybe a couple hundred feet outside of, the 1000 foot bar of the ALS. The runway itself comes into view just afterwards. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the lighted objects, that would indicate to me a flight visibility of about 1000-1200 RVR. Over the 500 foot markers, you can't even see the VASIs, which in this case are located about 300 feet past the 1000 footers, indicating an in flight RVR of less than 800.

So, with 91.175(c)(2) requiring that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" to operate below DA (even if you have the items listed in (c)(3) in sight, which they clearly did) and visibility being controlling in the 121 world, assuming the minimums are 1800 RVR, why would the pilot elect to continue the approach?
 
XcalibeR said:
Preface: I'm not questioning the decision making of the pilot here (for all I know, they may be approved for cat III), I'm just trying to figure out what is supposed to happen on these minimum days like this, as someone who has probably only done about one approach to visibility minimums in their career. I also understand that what comes through in video is usually worse than what is actually happening.

The definition of flight visibility is: "the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day." In the video, the threshold bars come in to view when the aircraft is over, or maybe a couple hundred feet outside of, the 1000 foot bar of the ALS. The runway itself comes into view just afterwards. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the lighted objects, that would indicate to me a flight visibility of about 1000-1200 RVR. Over the 500 foot markers, you can't even see the VASIs, which in this case are located about 300 feet past the 1000 footers, indicating an in flight RVR of less than 800.

So, with 91.175(c)(2) requiring that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" to operate below DA (even if you have the items listed in (c)(3) in sight, which they clearly did), assuming the minimums are 1800 RVR, why would the pilot elect to continue the approach?
Click to expand...

It's fine.
 
XcalibeR said:
Preface: I'm not questioning the decision making of the pilot here (for all I know, they may be approved for cat III), I'm just trying to figure out what is supposed to happen on these minimum days like this, as someone who has probably only done about one approach to visibility minimums in their career. I also understand that what comes through in video is usually worse than what is actually happening.

The definition of flight visibility is: "the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day." In the video, the threshold bars come in to view when the aircraft is over, or maybe a couple hundred feet outside of, the 1000 foot bar of the ALS. The runway itself comes into view just afterwards. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the lighted objects, that would indicate to me a flight visibility of about 1000-1200 RVR. Over the 500 foot markers, you can't even see the VASIs, which in this case are located about 300 feet past the 1000 footers, indicating an in flight RVR of less than 800.

So, with 91.175(c)(2) requiring that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" to operate below DA (even if you have the items listed in (c)(3) in sight, which they clearly did) and visibility being controlling in the 121 world, assuming the minimums are 1800 RVR, why would the pilot elect to continue the approach?
Click to expand...



This is where the regs start conflicting, as RVR is based on lighted objects (I believe the controllers pump up the ALS to the max level). How are you supposed to conduct an approach at night according to the definition of flight visibility?

Also, 91.175 starts making much more sense below your excerpt. Approach lights in sight? Continue to 100' above TDZE. Red side row lights in sight (in this case)? Continue. By then, the runway environment/lights should be in sight.

Lastly, most commercial OpSpecs state that touchdown zone RVR is the only controlling report on a Cat I approach. So - technically - you can land and rollout right into 0/0. Other OpSpecs concerning descent below MDA/DH also leave out flight visibility all together.
 
C150J said:
Your friend use a GoPro? Does he like it?
Click to expand...

Yes. Still learning it's features, but so far it's pretty good. Night mode... not so good. (Here's another one my friend shot at night... granted it was snowing too, but you get the idea. ) Other than that, it's good. The time lapse feature is great.

Tram said:
Better yet, how does it mount it in the RJ.. I have a friend, who loves his GoPro, but is looking for ways to mount it in the CRJ..
Click to expand...

He's using the flat plastic disk that the camera was mounted on in the package it shipped in. It fits very nicely in the CRJ on the glareshield up against the glass. It also locks into place on the sunvisor rail in a few positions.

Pilotforhire587 said:
Nice Video, BUT your buddy did almost float out of the touchdown zone, what's up with that man? He is going to take Travis' spot as a floater.
Click to expand...

As was stated, low vis approaches tend to lead to pilots pulling back up into the clouds when landing. This was actually the FO's first (I think) low vis approach in the jet.
 
For those of you who do CAT II (or III) approaches - is your SOP to do a monitored approach (captain takes controls from FO once runway is in sight)?
 
adk said:
For those of you who do CAT II (or III) approaches - is your SOP to do a monitored approach (captain takes controls from FO once runway is in sight)?
Click to expand...

Anything below 4,000 RVR is supposed to be a monitored approach for us.
 
adk said:
For those of you who do CAT II (or III) approaches - is your SOP to do a monitored approach (captain takes controls from FO once runway is in sight)?
Click to expand...

No monitored here; the CA flies the approach (rather, the CA is the one ready to take the jet in case the autopilots do something screwy).
 
I've got a video I took of an approach into OAK that was 200/1800 and it took us finding the lights and going below till about 125 agl before we actually saw the runway. The only problem is the video is upside down and I need a video editor that'll turn it rightside up. From the time the runway came into view till the time wheels were on was only 11problem seconds. It was the most rewarding approach I have ever done.

I was very thankful for 91.175 that day.
 
XcalibeR said:
Preface: I'm not questioning the decision making of the pilot here (for all I know, they may be approved for cat III), I'm just trying to figure out what is supposed to happen on these minimum days like this, as someone who has probably only done about one approach to visibility minimums in their career. I also understand that what comes through in video is usually worse than what is actually happening.

The definition of flight visibility is: "the average forward horizontal distance, from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day." In the video, the threshold bars come in to view when the aircraft is over, or maybe a couple hundred feet outside of, the 1000 foot bar of the ALS. The runway itself comes into view just afterwards. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the lighted objects, that would indicate to me a flight visibility of about 1000-1200 RVR. Over the 500 foot markers, you can't even see the VASIs, which in this case are located about 300 feet past the 1000 footers, indicating an in flight RVR of less than 800.

So, with 91.175(c)(2) requiring that "the flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used" to operate below DA (even if you have the items listed in (c)(3) in sight, which they clearly did) and visibility being controlling in the 121 world, assuming the minimums are 1800 RVR, why would the pilot elect to continue the approach?
Click to expand...


It's real simple. RVR is controlling, so if tower/app tells me it's 1800rvr, I'm shooting it and landing(assuming I do get something). At 1800 you get the lights and have no problem like you saw on the video. You just need to actually shoot the approach with the needles centered, not wandering all over the place etc, if you hand fly everything. With the lights all the way up they shine through really well, and at night, it's cake.
 
BobDDuck said:
(Here's another one my friend shot at night... granted it was snowing too, but you get the idea. YouTube Video) Other than that, it's good. The time lapse feature is great.
Click to expand...
what night was this? I just ask as if it was last Thursday night I watched that flight come in before working at CAK. Tell your friend nicely done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top