Narrative:

As we prepared the aircraft for departure at crp, the WX was reported as w1x1/16F, r13vr06v08, departing 13. While boarding the passenger, ground reported that the RVR was then 1600'. As we called for taxi, ground stated that the winds were out of the north at 6 KTS and asked if we would like runway 31. We accepted this and proceeded to runway 31. As we were taxiing, ground reported that the RVR had decreased to 800-1200'. We proceeded to the end of the runway to await better WX. Another carrier was now following us to 31. We had previously told ground that we needed runway 1600'. When RVR increased to 1600', ground notified us and cleared us for takeoff. As we rolled, ground cleared the other carrier into position. They asked about the WX and then stated that they were legal for takeoff only on runway 13. That got our attention as our charts showed takeoff minimums to be RVR 16 or 1/4 for all runways. After takeoff we rechked the charts and realized that only runway 13 has an RVR available. We don't believe that ground ever referred to the RVR readings as runway 13 RVR, but only as 'RVR is now such and such.' apparently, the other carrier didn't realize this either, until the last minute. We think we were suckered into this by ground stating the winds and offering runway 31 west/O really giving the WX at that end of the runway (prevailing visibility). Also, we believe the charts should show that RVR or pv minimums only on the runways to which they apply. Others should only show minimums of prevailing visibility. Additionally, tower should always specify that the RVR given is only for a specified runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MG FLT CREW THINKS THEY MADE A TKOF WITH RVR REPORTED TO THEM IN ERROR. TKOF RWY WAS 31 RVR. RWY WAS NOT SPECIFIED, BUT CHART LISTS RVR ONLY ON RWY 13. TWR REPORTED RVR 1600' CLEARED FOR TKOF AND OFF THEY WENT.

Narrative: AS WE PREPARED THE ACFT FOR DEP AT CRP, THE WX WAS RPTED AS W1X1/16F, R13VR06V08, DEPARTING 13. WHILE BOARDING THE PAX, GND RPTED THAT THE RVR WAS THEN 1600'. AS WE CALLED FOR TAXI, GND STATED THAT THE WINDS WERE OUT OF THE N AT 6 KTS AND ASKED IF WE WOULD LIKE RWY 31. WE ACCEPTED THIS AND PROCEEDED TO RWY 31. AS WE WERE TAXIING, GND RPTED THAT THE RVR HAD DECREASED TO 800-1200'. WE PROCEEDED TO THE END OF THE RWY TO AWAIT BETTER WX. ANOTHER CARRIER WAS NOW FOLLOWING US TO 31. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TOLD GND THAT WE NEEDED RWY 1600'. WHEN RVR INCREASED TO 1600', GND NOTIFIED US AND CLRED US FOR TKOF. AS WE ROLLED, GND CLRED THE OTHER CARRIER INTO POS. THEY ASKED ABOUT THE WX AND THEN STATED THAT THEY WERE LEGAL FOR TKOF ONLY ON RWY 13. THAT GOT OUR ATTN AS OUR CHARTS SHOWED TKOF MINIMUMS TO BE RVR 16 OR 1/4 FOR ALL RWYS. AFTER TKOF WE RECHKED THE CHARTS AND REALIZED THAT ONLY RWY 13 HAS AN RVR AVAILABLE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT GND EVER REFERRED TO THE RVR READINGS AS RWY 13 RVR, BUT ONLY AS 'RVR IS NOW SUCH AND SUCH.' APPARENTLY, THE OTHER CARRIER DIDN'T REALIZE THIS EITHER, UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. WE THINK WE WERE SUCKERED INTO THIS BY GND STATING THE WINDS AND OFFERING RWY 31 W/O REALLY GIVING THE WX AT THAT END OF THE RWY (PREVAILING VISIBILITY). ALSO, WE BELIEVE THE CHARTS SHOULD SHOW THAT RVR OR PV MINIMUMS ONLY ON THE RWYS TO WHICH THEY APPLY. OTHERS SHOULD ONLY SHOW MINIMUMS OF PREVAILING VISIBILITY. ADDITIONALLY, TWR SHOULD ALWAYS SPECIFY THAT THE RVR GIVEN IS ONLY FOR A SPECIFIED RWY.

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.