Narrative:

Upon arrival at the airport we noted a ground fog condition which I estimated visibility to be approximately 1/2 to 1/4 mi. After flight planning and arrival at the aircraft I checked the commercial charts and determined that austin, tx, takeoff capability was 600/600/600 RVR on the most capable runway (actually runway 17L). At that time I noticed 2 aircraft (B737's) taxiing to takeoff on runway 17R. We were subsequently given taxi instructions to runway 17R. At this time I was thinking that runway 17R must be the most capable runway and it didn't dawn on me that I had looked at the chart for the wrong runway (runway 17L). When switching to tower they advised 1200 ft RVR touchdown and 1400 ft RVR mid-point. I was thinking -- no problem, the runway capability has 600/600/600 RVR capability. We were then given takeoff clearance and upon lining up I noticed that there were no centerline lights but that there were full runway markings visible. I also noted that I could see runway 8 edge lights and it looked to be 1600 ft RVR. My mind then assumed that for the 1200 ft RVR reported that the runway markings must be an adequate substitute for the centerline lights (which they are not) but that the prevailing visibility would allow for a legal and safe takeoff, so the takeoff was continued uneventfully. As we continued down the runway the visibility improved even further to 10+ lights (runway edge). After takeoff I heard another air carrier state to the tower that he needed 1600 ft RVR for takeoff. At cruise I had another look at the takeoff page and noticed that I had in fact looked at the wrong chart, for runway 17L, and that 1600 ft RVR was required for takeoff on runway 17R. I felt that we in fact had 1600 ft RVR even though it was not reported as such by the tower. I feel that this was an error compounded by the fact that other aircraft were using the same runway for takeoff (they may have had better visibility than when we arrived at the takeoff position), which lulled me into a sense of security in my assessment of the situation. I will take more time to read the takeoff pages in future sits.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A B727 TOOK OFF WHEN THE WX WAS RPTED BELOW TKOF MINIMUMS FOR THE RWY USED.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT THE ARPT WE NOTED A GND FOG CONDITION WHICH I ESTIMATED VISIBILITY TO BE APPROX 1/2 TO 1/4 MI. AFTER FLT PLANNING AND ARR AT THE ACFT I CHKED THE COMMERCIAL CHARTS AND DETERMINED THAT AUSTIN, TX, TKOF CAPABILITY WAS 600/600/600 RVR ON THE MOST CAPABLE RWY (ACTUALLY RWY 17L). AT THAT TIME I NOTICED 2 ACFT (B737'S) TAXIING TO TKOF ON RWY 17R. WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN TAXI INSTRUCTIONS TO RWY 17R. AT THIS TIME I WAS THINKING THAT RWY 17R MUST BE THE MOST CAPABLE RWY AND IT DIDN'T DAWN ON ME THAT I HAD LOOKED AT THE CHART FOR THE WRONG RWY (RWY 17L). WHEN SWITCHING TO TWR THEY ADVISED 1200 FT RVR TOUCHDOWN AND 1400 FT RVR MID-POINT. I WAS THINKING -- NO PROB, THE RWY CAPABILITY HAS 600/600/600 RVR CAPABILITY. WE WERE THEN GIVEN TKOF CLRNC AND UPON LINING UP I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE NO CTRLINE LIGHTS BUT THAT THERE WERE FULL RWY MARKINGS VISIBLE. I ALSO NOTED THAT I COULD SEE RWY 8 EDGE LIGHTS AND IT LOOKED TO BE 1600 FT RVR. MY MIND THEN ASSUMED THAT FOR THE 1200 FT RVR RPTED THAT THE RWY MARKINGS MUST BE AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CTRLINE LIGHTS (WHICH THEY ARE NOT) BUT THAT THE PREVAILING VISIBILITY WOULD ALLOW FOR A LEGAL AND SAFE TKOF, SO THE TKOF WAS CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY. AS WE CONTINUED DOWN THE RWY THE VISIBILITY IMPROVED EVEN FURTHER TO 10+ LIGHTS (RWY EDGE). AFTER TKOF I HEARD ANOTHER ACR STATE TO THE TWR THAT HE NEEDED 1600 FT RVR FOR TKOF. AT CRUISE I HAD ANOTHER LOOK AT THE TKOF PAGE AND NOTICED THAT I HAD IN FACT LOOKED AT THE WRONG CHART, FOR RWY 17L, AND THAT 1600 FT RVR WAS REQUIRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 17R. I FELT THAT WE IN FACT HAD 1600 FT RVR EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT RPTED AS SUCH BY THE TWR. I FEEL THAT THIS WAS AN ERROR COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT OTHER ACFT WERE USING THE SAME RWY FOR TKOF (THEY MAY HAVE HAD BETTER VISIBILITY THAN WHEN WE ARRIVED AT THE TKOF POS), WHICH LULLED ME INTO A SENSE OF SECURITY IN MY ASSESSMENT OF THE SIT. I WILL TAKE MORE TIME TO READ THE TKOF PAGES IN FUTURE SITS.

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.