Narrative:

Flight operated as call sign aircraft X from clt, nc, to toronto, canada. During descent, toronto approach utilizing ILS runway 6R CAT ii approach. We are not authority/authorized for CAT ii operations. When I requested the RVR for runway 6R, toronto approach responded with 'alpha three, bravo three, charlie four.' use of nonstandard radio phraseology? Differences in canadian terms? When I asked toronto approach for a clarification of the RVR values I was told that touchdown RVR was 3000 ft. Why was toronto utilizing CAT III approachs with a touchdown RVR of 3000 ft? Use of nonstandard procedures? Differences in canadian terms? ATC controller confusion? We continued the approach and landed without incident with adequate visibility.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A CANADAIR REGIONAL JET COMPLAINED ABOUT THE NONSTANDARD TERMS USED FOR THE RVR RWY VISIBILITY VALUES IN COMPARISON TO THE UNITED STATES TERMS.

Narrative: FLT OPERATED AS CALL SIGN ACFT X FROM CLT, NC, TO TORONTO, CANADA. DURING DSCNT, TORONTO APCH UTILIZING ILS RWY 6R CAT II APCH. WE ARE NOT AUTH FOR CAT II OPS. WHEN I REQUESTED THE RVR FOR RWY 6R, TORONTO APCH RESPONDED WITH 'ALPHA THREE, BRAVO THREE, CHARLIE FOUR.' USE OF NONSTANDARD RADIO PHRASEOLOGY? DIFFERENCES IN CANADIAN TERMS? WHEN I ASKED TORONTO APCH FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE RVR VALUES I WAS TOLD THAT TOUCHDOWN RVR WAS 3000 FT. WHY WAS TORONTO UTILIZING CAT III APCHS WITH A TOUCHDOWN RVR OF 3000 FT? USE OF NONSTANDARD PROCS? DIFFERENCES IN CANADIAN TERMS? ATC CTLR CONFUSION? WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT WITH ADEQUATE VISIBILITY.

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.