An air carrier B737 flight crew was informed that the RVR requirements were 'waived' by the ATCT loc...

Attributes
ACN	385663
Time
Date	199711
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : yvr
State Reference	BC
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1500 msl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : yvr
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-500
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 225 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	385663
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 255 flight time total : 17000 flight time type : 3600
ASRS Report	385900
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Airport
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Approaching yvr we were directed to hold at egret intersection by ZSE due to ground fog at yvr. We were asked what was our RVR requirement, we replied 2600 ft RVR. Air carrier B responded the same when they were asked by center. At that time the RVR was below 2600 ft and not expected to improve. Myself and my copilot got the impression by comments from yvr that their RVR readings were not accurate and that an aircraft was currently flying the ILS and yvr was waiting to see how they made out. I contacted my company to make arrangements to divert to sea. We were then cleared to yvr for the ILS runway 8R approach because visibility was improving (currently 2400 ft RVR). We were third behind air carrier a and air carrier B. We were on downwind and could see the runway 8R approach and runway lights (estimated 8 NM visibility). The 2 aircraft ahead of us landed. Turning onto final, tower says the RVR is 900 ft, then 1600 ft. We said we needed 2600 ft RVR and that we had the approach lights and runway in sight (estimated 10 NM final). We were in VFR conditions (no clouds). At this time, the tower told us the RVR was waived and we were cleared to land. To me, this meant to disregard the RVR because it was unreliable and we had greater than 1/2 mi visibility (minimums were 2600 ft RVR, 1/2 mi) so we could land. Since 2 aircraft had just landed ahead of me and I had the approach lights and runway in sight for the last 10 mi and my copilot saw the same as me, I proceeded and landed without incident. After landing we realized that things happened quickly and that visibility was uncertain or not clearly communicated by the tower and that we may have landed without the required minimums being officially stated. The tower should have clearly stated the minimums for their field and we should have asked for clarification, but visibility was good enough to be obviously 7 1/2 mi.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR B737 FLC WAS INFORMED THAT THE RVR REQUIREMENTS WERE 'WAIVED' BY THE ATCT LCL CTLR AND THEY PROCEEDED TO LAND WITHOUT ANY PROBS. LATER, THEY QUESTIONED THEIR ACTIONS AND THE LEGALITY OF SUCH A WAIVER EVEN THOUGH THE RVR READOUT WAS OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT.

Narrative: APCHING YVR WE WERE DIRECTED TO HOLD AT EGRET INTXN BY ZSE DUE TO GND FOG AT YVR. WE WERE ASKED WHAT WAS OUR RVR REQUIREMENT, WE REPLIED 2600 FT RVR. ACR B RESPONDED THE SAME WHEN THEY WERE ASKED BY CTR. AT THAT TIME THE RVR WAS BELOW 2600 FT AND NOT EXPECTED TO IMPROVE. MYSELF AND MY COPLT GOT THE IMPRESSION BY COMMENTS FROM YVR THAT THEIR RVR READINGS WERE NOT ACCURATE AND THAT AN ACFT WAS CURRENTLY FLYING THE ILS AND YVR WAS WAITING TO SEE HOW THEY MADE OUT. I CONTACTED MY COMPANY TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO DIVERT TO SEA. WE WERE THEN CLRED TO YVR FOR THE ILS RWY 8R APCH BECAUSE VISIBILITY WAS IMPROVING (CURRENTLY 2400 FT RVR). WE WERE THIRD BEHIND ACR A AND ACR B. WE WERE ON DOWNWIND AND COULD SEE THE RWY 8R APCH AND RWY LIGHTS (ESTIMATED 8 NM VISIBILITY). THE 2 ACFT AHEAD OF US LANDED. TURNING ONTO FINAL, TWR SAYS THE RVR IS 900 FT, THEN 1600 FT. WE SAID WE NEEDED 2600 FT RVR AND THAT WE HAD THE APCH LIGHTS AND RWY IN SIGHT (ESTIMATED 10 NM FINAL). WE WERE IN VFR CONDITIONS (NO CLOUDS). AT THIS TIME, THE TWR TOLD US THE RVR WAS WAIVED AND WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. TO ME, THIS MEANT TO DISREGARD THE RVR BECAUSE IT WAS UNRELIABLE AND WE HAD GREATER THAN 1/2 MI VISIBILITY (MINIMUMS WERE 2600 FT RVR, 1/2 MI) SO WE COULD LAND. SINCE 2 ACFT HAD JUST LANDED AHEAD OF ME AND I HAD THE APCH LIGHTS AND RWY IN SIGHT FOR THE LAST 10 MI AND MY COPLT SAW THE SAME AS ME, I PROCEEDED AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AFTER LNDG WE REALIZED THAT THINGS HAPPENED QUICKLY AND THAT VISIBILITY WAS UNCERTAIN OR NOT CLRLY COMMUNICATED BY THE TWR AND THAT WE MAY HAVE LANDED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED MINIMUMS BEING OFFICIALLY STATED. THE TWR SHOULD HAVE CLRLY STATED THE MINIMUMS FOR THEIR FIELD AND WE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION, BUT VISIBILITY WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO BE OBVIOUSLY 7 1/2 MI.

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.

An air carrier B737 flight crew was informed that the RVR requirements were 'waived' by the ATCT local controller and they proceeded to land without any problems. Later, they questioned their actions and the legality of such a waiver even though the RVR readout was obviously incorrect.