Narrative:

At XX51 am, I taxied from the terminal to the active runway 26R at ontario. On the way to the runway, I heard the tower give an RVR report of 1000, 5200, 2500 to an aircraft taking off. I do not remember the tower giving our flight the visibility when we approached the runway. Visibility as we taxied was very good, at least the 1 mi reported. Several aircraft took off ahead of us and we were then cleared for takeoff on 26R. Visibility appeared to me to be about 1500 ft. After 2000 ft of takeoff roll the visibility improved to 1 mi or better as reported. At cruise, the so asked about runway requirements for a RVR 1000 takeoff. On checking the flight operations manual, we discovered that RVR 1000 did indeed call for centerline lights. Runway 26R is not the primary instrument runway at ont and has only centerline runway markings, not lights. The transmissometer for ont is next to runway 26L. I believe the visibility was above that reported for takeoff on 26R, but it was still the official RVR, regardless. My failure to recognize the runway requirements for takeoff, I believe, was influenced by the fact that several other aircraft took off ahead of us. This is not a valid excuse but it does tend to reinforce the presumption that the takeoff is legal. Also, the visibility appeared much better than reported and this tended to push the RVR 1000 report to the back of my mind to the extent that I more or less discounted it. The problem, as stated before, is that a reported RVR is official, even if the equipment is located some distance away and the actual visibility is better than reported. The solution is for each runway to have its own transmissometer, but that is expensive. Other than that, the solution is to disregard what others are doing and carefully assess the runway conditions for each takeoff using reported WX conditions, regardless of individual estimates of conditions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT MADE A TKOF FROM ONT IN LOW RVR WITHOUT THE REQUIRED RWY C/L.

Narrative: AT XX51 AM, I TAXIED FROM THE TERMINAL TO THE ACTIVE RWY 26R AT ONTARIO. ON THE WAY TO THE RWY, I HEARD THE TWR GIVE AN RVR RPT OF 1000, 5200, 2500 TO AN ACFT TAKING OFF. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE TWR GIVING OUR FLT THE VISIBILITY WHEN WE APCHED THE RWY. VISIBILITY AS WE TAXIED WAS VERY GOOD, AT LEAST THE 1 MI RPTED. SEVERAL ACFT TOOK OFF AHEAD OF US AND WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR TKOF ON 26R. VISIBILITY APPEARED TO ME TO BE ABOUT 1500 FT. AFTER 2000 FT OF TKOF ROLL THE VISIBILITY IMPROVED TO 1 MI OR BETTER AS RPTED. AT CRUISE, THE SO ASKED ABOUT RWY REQUIREMENTS FOR A RVR 1000 TKOF. ON CHKING THE FLT OPS MANUAL, WE DISCOVERED THAT RVR 1000 DID INDEED CALL FOR CENTERLINE LIGHTS. RWY 26R IS NOT THE PRIMARY INST RWY AT ONT AND HAS ONLY CENTERLINE RWY MARKINGS, NOT LIGHTS. THE TRANSMISSOMETER FOR ONT IS NEXT TO RWY 26L. I BELIEVE THE VISIBILITY WAS ABOVE THAT RPTED FOR TKOF ON 26R, BUT IT WAS STILL THE OFFICIAL RVR, REGARDLESS. MY FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE RWY REQUIREMENTS FOR TKOF, I BELIEVE, WAS INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OTHER ACFT TOOK OFF AHEAD OF US. THIS IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE BUT IT DOES TEND TO REINFORCE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TKOF IS LEGAL. ALSO, THE VISIBILITY APPEARED MUCH BETTER THAN RPTED AND THIS TENDED TO PUSH THE RVR 1000 RPT TO THE BACK OF MY MIND TO THE EXTENT THAT I MORE OR LESS DISCOUNTED IT. THE PROBLEM, AS STATED BEFORE, IS THAT A RPTED RVR IS OFFICIAL, EVEN IF THE EQUIP IS LOCATED SOME DISTANCE AWAY AND THE ACTUAL VISIBILITY IS BETTER THAN RPTED. THE SOLUTION IS FOR EACH RWY TO HAVE ITS OWN TRANSMISSOMETER, BUT THAT IS EXPENSIVE. OTHER THAN THAT, THE SOLUTION IS TO DISREGARD WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING AND CAREFULLY ASSESS THE RWY CONDITIONS FOR EACH TKOF USING RPTED WX CONDITIONS, REGARDLESS OF INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATES OF CONDITIONS.

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.