Narrative:

Localizer approach to runway 27 at san. WX was reported as 1200 ft overcast, 800 ft scattered, visibility 2 mi, wind 300 degrees at 12 KTS, and RVR 4000 ft. No RVR is shown on the commercial approach plate so we used prevailing visibility assuming the RVR is not part of that approach. Runway overrun was visible at vdp (3.4 NM) but lower clouds and rain shortly obscured the view and a missed approach executed. Further study of the commercial san 10-09A shows RVR available for takeoff on runway 27 though not listed for any category aircraft (even a and B -- 1 mi) on the 11-2 approach plate. Is this an oversight and should RVR control? Or has the controling authority/authorized not included RVR's in the minimums? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he has discussed this matter with company regulatory compliance personnel and they all agree he was legal to make the approach. The problem was not the visibility anyway, but the clouds were lower than given and consequently they lost sight of the airport. After diverting and then returning it was like the red sea parting, there were clouds on both sides of the approach but clear in the middle. He disagreed with analyst that the runway was not involved in this non precision localizer approach, but did agree that RVR must be runway specific and the RVR given was for the opposite direction runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 FLC QUESTIONS THEIR APCH REGARDING RVR MINIMUMS.

Narrative: LOC APCH TO RWY 27 AT SAN. WX WAS RPTED AS 1200 FT OVCST, 800 FT SCATTERED, VISIBILITY 2 MI, WIND 300 DEGS AT 12 KTS, AND RVR 4000 FT. NO RVR IS SHOWN ON THE COMMERCIAL APCH PLATE SO WE USED PREVAILING VISIBILITY ASSUMING THE RVR IS NOT PART OF THAT APCH. RWY OVERRUN WAS VISIBLE AT VDP (3.4 NM) BUT LOWER CLOUDS AND RAIN SHORTLY OBSCURED THE VIEW AND A MISSED APCH EXECUTED. FURTHER STUDY OF THE COMMERCIAL SAN 10-09A SHOWS RVR AVAILABLE FOR TKOF ON RWY 27 THOUGH NOT LISTED FOR ANY CATEGORY ACFT (EVEN A AND B -- 1 MI) ON THE 11-2 APCH PLATE. IS THIS AN OVERSIGHT AND SHOULD RVR CTL? OR HAS THE CTLING AUTH NOT INCLUDED RVR'S IN THE MINIMUMS? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH COMPANY REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PERSONNEL AND THEY ALL AGREE HE WAS LEGAL TO MAKE THE APCH. THE PROB WAS NOT THE VISIBILITY ANYWAY, BUT THE CLOUDS WERE LOWER THAN GIVEN AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY LOST SIGHT OF THE ARPT. AFTER DIVERTING AND THEN RETURNING IT WAS LIKE THE RED SEA PARTING, THERE WERE CLOUDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE APCH BUT CLR IN THE MIDDLE. HE DISAGREED WITH ANALYST THAT THE RWY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS NON PRECISION LOC APCH, BUT DID AGREE THAT RVR MUST BE RWY SPECIFIC AND THE RVR GIVEN WAS FOR THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION 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.