 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier medium large transport made a takeoff at azu in WX reported below runway mins for takeoff.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 199642 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199201 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : azo |
| State Reference | MI |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Light | Dawn |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 160 flight time total : 5700 flight time type : 1500 |
| ASRS Report | 199642 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far |
| 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:
As we were taxiing out to runway 17 for takeoff, the tower gave the new ATIS as 100 obscured, 1/4 mi for runway 17. We looked at the airport diagram page in the manual to check what takeoff min were required for that runway. It showed 400-1. Even though it didn't say standard above these numbers, I interpreted the 1 mi min as standard. We then decided that we could go to 1/4 mi for takeoff with adequate forward visual reference. I didn't think the ceiling limitation was binding and I'm still not sure. Our belief was confirmed when another airliner said that they could takeoff under these conditions and proceeded to do so. We then obtained a takeoff alternate from our dispatcher and took off from runway 17 at A20. I'm not sure if we broke takeoff mins or not. If we did, why did the tower allow part 121 and 135 operators to use runway 17? Is the ceiling listed in the takeoff mins section binding? I've read through the FARS to find a clear answer to this and I'm still not sure. I figured I better report this just in case a violation comes sneaking up.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: ACR MLG MADE A TKOF AT AZU IN WX RPTED BELOW RWY MINS FOR TKOF.
Narrative: AS WE WERE TAXIING OUT TO RWY 17 FOR TKOF, THE TWR GAVE THE NEW ATIS AS 100 OBSCURED, 1/4 MI FOR RWY 17. WE LOOKED AT THE ARPT DIAGRAM PAGE IN THE MANUAL TO CHK WHAT TKOF MIN WERE REQUIRED FOR THAT RWY. IT SHOWED 400-1. EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN'T SAY STD ABOVE THESE NUMBERS, I INTERPRETED THE 1 MI MIN AS STANDARD. WE THEN DECIDED THAT WE COULD GO TO 1/4 MI FOR TKOF WITH ADEQUATE FORWARD VISUAL REF. I DIDN'T THINK THE CEILING LIMITATION WAS BINDING AND I'M STILL NOT SURE. OUR BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED WHEN ANOTHER AIRLINER SAID THAT THEY COULD TKOF UNDER THESE CONDITIONS AND PROCEEDED TO DO SO. WE THEN OBTAINED A TKOF ALTERNATE FROM OUR DISPATCHER AND TOOK OFF FROM RWY 17 AT A20. I'M NOT SURE IF WE BROKE TKOF MINS OR NOT. IF WE DID, WHY DID THE TWR ALLOW PART 121 AND 135 OPERATORS TO USE RWY 17? IS THE CEILING LISTED IN THE TKOF MINS SECTION BINDING? I'VE READ THROUGH THE FARS TO FIND A CLR ANSWER TO THIS AND I'M STILL NOT SURE. I FIGURED I BETTER RPT THIS JUST IN CASE A VIOLATION COMES SNEAKING UP.
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.