Flight question about transmisometer requirements for CAT ii landing.

Attributes
ACN	95555
Time
Date	198809
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lax
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 100 agl bound upper : 2500
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : lax
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : straight in arrival : profile descent
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 80 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 45
ASRS Report	95555
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Weather
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We were cleared for the profile descent to 25L at lax. Approach control gave us the WX (RVR-5000,1000,800). Then approach control asked if we were CAT III. The captain told me to say we were no CAT III. They cleared us for the approach; however, they asked again if we were CAT III. Again, the captain told me to say we were not CAT III. I then told the captain I don't feel we were legal for the 25L approach because of the mid and roll out RVR's are below the 1200 required for the approach. The captain said we were legal and he proceeded on the approach and landed west/O incident. Observation: I have done a personal survey of 10 airline pilots to see if they felt we were legal for the 25L approach with the reported RVR noted above. I have been very surprised to hear the different responses to the question. I would appreciate your help in obtaining a far reference to clarify this matter. Callback conversation with reporter revealed following information. Conversation indicated reporter was able to get some information from company but not find far reference. I advised him it was in an advisory circular and that in his incident they were legal.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT QUESTION ABOUT TRANSMISOMETER REQUIREMENTS FOR CAT II LNDG.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR THE PROFILE DSCNT TO 25L AT LAX. APCH CTL GAVE US THE WX (RVR-5000,1000,800). THEN APCH CTL ASKED IF WE WERE CAT III. THE CAPT TOLD ME TO SAY WE WERE NO CAT III. THEY CLRED US FOR THE APCH; HOWEVER, THEY ASKED AGAIN IF WE WERE CAT III. AGAIN, THE CAPT TOLD ME TO SAY WE WERE NOT CAT III. I THEN TOLD THE CAPT I DON'T FEEL WE WERE LEGAL FOR THE 25L APCH BECAUSE OF THE MID AND ROLL OUT RVR'S ARE BELOW THE 1200 REQUIRED FOR THE APCH. THE CAPT SAID WE WERE LEGAL AND HE PROCEEDED ON THE APCH AND LANDED W/O INCIDENT. OBSERVATION: I HAVE DONE A PERSONAL SURVEY OF 10 AIRLINE PLTS TO SEE IF THEY FELT WE WERE LEGAL FOR THE 25L APCH WITH THE RPTED RVR NOTED ABOVE. I HAVE BEEN VERY SURPRISED TO HEAR THE DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IN OBTAINING A FAR REFERENCE TO CLARIFY THIS MATTER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED FOLLOWING INFO. CONVERSATION INDICATED RPTR WAS ABLE TO GET SOME INFO FROM COMPANY BUT NOT FIND FAR REFERENCE. I ADVISED HIM IT WAS IN AN ADVISORY CIRCULAR AND THAT IN HIS INCIDENT THEY WERE LEGAL.

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.