Reporters complain about confusing operations specifications regarding RVR.

Attributes
ACN	80475
Time
Date	198801
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : tri
State Reference	TN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 3800 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	80475
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 3100 flight time type : 30
ASRS Report	80515
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
Publication	Unspecified

Narrative:

Confusion based on what tower described as tower visibility being 1 mi and runway 23 at tri-city RVR being 5000+' and rollout 800'. The runway length is 7999'. We based our decision upon our operating specifications and what tower reported. The contributing factor to the situation was fog. We delayed the flight 25 mins based on WX being lower than our operating specifications of 1200 RVR touchdown 1000' rollout. However, in our specifications it notes the conditions in which we can use those RVR's. Enclosed is a list of conditions. Note paragraph 'a.' conditions 1600 RVR with the list of situations. It was our decision that we met the conditions of paragraph 'a' of our lower than standard operations. Plus, the reported prevailing visibility was 1 mi better than standard for 2-ENG takeoff. It is our conclusion that our actions were sound and the interests of safety were met and applied in accordance with the far's and our operating specifications. Our intent in this report is to show the gray area in the reported RVR, visibility, and what our specifications allow.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTERS COMPLAIN ABOUT CONFUSING OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING RVR.

Narrative: CONFUSION BASED ON WHAT TWR DESCRIBED AS TWR VIS BEING 1 MI AND RWY 23 AT TRI-CITY RVR BEING 5000+' AND ROLLOUT 800'. THE RWY LENGTH IS 7999'. WE BASED OUR DECISION UPON OUR OPERATING SPECS AND WHAT TWR RPTED. THE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE SITUATION WAS FOG. WE DELAYED THE FLT 25 MINS BASED ON WX BEING LOWER THAN OUR OPERATING SPECS OF 1200 RVR TOUCHDOWN 1000' ROLLOUT. HOWEVER, IN OUR SPECS IT NOTES THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH WE CAN USE THOSE RVR'S. ENCLOSED IS A LIST OF CONDITIONS. NOTE PARAGRAPH 'A.' CONDITIONS 1600 RVR WITH THE LIST OF SITUATIONS. IT WAS OUR DECISION THAT WE MET THE CONDITIONS OF PARAGRAPH 'A' OF OUR LOWER THAN STANDARD OPERATIONS. PLUS, THE RPTED PREVAILING VIS WAS 1 MI BETTER THAN STANDARD FOR 2-ENG TKOF. IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT OUR ACTIONS WERE SOUND AND THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY WERE MET AND APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAR'S AND OUR OPERATING SPECS. OUR INTENT IN THIS RPT IS TO SHOW THE GRAY AREA IN THE RPTED RVR, VIS, AND WHAT OUR SPECS ALLOW.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.