Air taxi pilot takes off with visibility less than required in operations manual.

Attributes
ACN	159456
Time
Date	199010
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mht
State Reference	NH
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 200
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 9000 flight time type : 600
ASRS Report	159456
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

After waiting better than 1 hour for the cargo to arrive (late due to WX), then loading the aircraft the visibility certainly looked better than 1 mi. However, after the start, ATIS was tuned in and it was discovered that only 3/4 mi was the tower visibility. Since I could see the trees at the far end of the runway I surmised ground level visibility must be better than tower visibility. Rather than get into an argument with the tower, I said I could depart with 3/4 mi visibility. In fact I had been trained in different and similar aircraft for reduced visibility takeoffs. I was certain it could be done safely, and it was. However, it was in violation of the company operations manual since we are limited to 1 mi standard. The company would like to have reduced visibility takeoff included in the operations manual, but the local FSDO says when we take a flight check in this maneuver we must also take a 6 month rid, turning a 30 second evolution into an hour or better operation, consuming large amounts of precious fuel and engine time unnecessarily. I'm sure that this was factor in my decision to go and it seems a small matter to check a pilot on reduced visibility alone. Alas, not the case. Opinion, for free: 99% of all pilots could easily make a reduced visibility takeoff no sweat. In fact, 135 operators train using 0 visibility.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AIR TAXI PLT TAKES OFF WITH VISIBILITY LESS THAN REQUIRED IN OPERATIONS MANUAL.

Narrative: AFTER WAITING BETTER THAN 1 HR FOR THE CARGO TO ARRIVE (LATE DUE TO WX), THEN LOADING THE ACFT THE VISIBILITY CERTAINLY LOOKED BETTER THAN 1 MI. HOWEVER, AFTER THE START, ATIS WAS TUNED IN AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONLY 3/4 MI WAS THE TWR VISIBILITY. SINCE I COULD SEE THE TREES AT THE FAR END OF THE RWY I SURMISED GND LEVEL VISIBILITY MUST BE BETTER THAN TWR VISIBILITY. RATHER THAN GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THE TWR, I SAID I COULD DEPART WITH 3/4 MI VISIBILITY. IN FACT I HAD BEEN TRAINED IN DIFFERENT AND SIMILAR ACFT FOR REDUCED VISIBILITY TKOFS. I WAS CERTAIN IT COULD BE DONE SAFELY, AND IT WAS. HOWEVER, IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE COMPANY OPS MANUAL SINCE WE ARE LIMITED TO 1 MI STANDARD. THE COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REDUCED VIS TKOF INCLUDED IN THE OPS MANUAL, BUT THE LCL FSDO SAYS WHEN WE TAKE A FLT CHK IN THIS MANEUVER WE MUST ALSO TAKE A 6 MONTH RID, TURNING A 30 SEC EVOLUTION INTO AN HR OR BETTER OPERATION, CONSUMING LARGE AMOUNTS OF PRECIOUS FUEL AND ENG TIME UNNECESSARILY. I'M SURE THAT THIS WAS FACTOR IN MY DECISION TO GO AND IT SEEMS A SMALL MATTER TO CHK A PLT ON REDUCED VISIBILITY ALONE. ALAS, NOT THE CASE. OPINION, FOR FREE: 99% OF ALL PLTS COULD EASILY MAKE A REDUCED VISIBILITY TKOF NO SWEAT. IN FACT, 135 OPERATORS TRAIN USING 0 VISIBILITY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.