Approach Ban Terms Confusion

[SE7EN]

A little confused about the terms RVR, Runway Vis & Ground Vis as they relate to the Approach Bans in the CAP GEN.

CAP GEN Page 24 talks about Approach ban hierarchy.
1)RVR 2)Runway Vis 3)Ground Vis

-Runway Vis Definition (AIM 9.19.2.6): An instrument-rated pilot or a qualified person (under CAR 804) can assess runway visibility when RV sensor detection equipment is not available.

-Ground Vis Definition (AC100-001) : AWOS/ATC/FSS reported Vis

-The Cap Gen definition for RVR is “ The range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centre line of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights….”

-The AIM definition for RVR is “ in respect of a runway, means the maximum horizontal distance, as measured by an automated visual landing distance system and reported by an ATC…..”

Why does one define RVR as an automated system and the other as something the pilot can see? Doesn’t the term Runway Visibility already define what “RVR” the pilot can see?

The hierarchy in the CAP GEN lists RVR as the primary way to determine Approach Ban, but then defines RVR as something the pilot can see which is the same as the definition for Runway Vis? Yet it distinguishes between & lists Runway Vis as second in the hierarchy? So if I’m approaching & the automated RVR is below minima but an instrument rated pilot reported the Runway Vis as being above minima, can I continue approach past FAF? (Assuming Automated RVR is in good working order).

[CpnCrunch]

RVR is always automated. When the cap gen refers to pilot visibility it uses the term "visibility as observed by the pilot in command". That definition on page 16 of the CAP GEN is just incomplete.

[SE7EN]

RVR is always automated. When the cap gen refers to pilot visibility it uses the term "visibility as observed by the pilot in command". That definition on page 16 of the CAP GEN is just incomplete.

The RVR definition I’m talking about is on page 13 of the CAP GEN, copy and pasted below

“RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR):
The range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centre line of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights delineating the runway or identifying its centre line.”

[CpnCrunch]

RVR is always automated. When the cap gen refers to pilot visibility it uses the term "visibility as observed by the pilot in command". That definition on page 16 of the CAP GEN is just incomplete.

The RVR definition I’m talking about is on page 13 of the CAP GEN, copy and pasted below

“RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR):
The range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centre line of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights delineating the runway or identifying its centre line.”

Yes, that is the one I was referring to above. Sorry you're right, it shows page number 13, but foreflight is showing page 16 of the pdf.

What I'm saying is that definition is wrong. But the entire approach ban thing is a big confusing mess anyway, and this seems to be confirmed by accident reports where pilots didn't know that they weren't allowed to do the approach.

[goldeneagle]

What I'm saying is that definition is wrong. But the entire approach ban thing is a big confusing mess anyway, and this seems to be confirmed by accident reports where pilots didn't know that they weren't allowed to do the approach.

Pretty sure most of them knew about the ban, proceeded anyways....

[CpnCrunch]

Pretty sure most of them knew about the ban, proceeded anyways....

There's a difference between knowing about the ban, and trying to figure out during the approach whether it's going to affect you. For me as a private owner, it's no big deal. 1/4SM, and I'm never going to be landing in anything close to that, so it doesn't affect me. I don't really give a crap about it, and just try to memorise as much as I can for the IPC. For airline pilots, you have a whole flight department to help figure it out, and you're not likely to even depart if the vis is below minimums at the destination anyway from what I've seen. I think this rule was dreamed up for the guys who fly in shitty conditions up north, and they are probably the ones you're referring to.

[bcflyer]

The hierarchy must be followed. Provided the airport has RVR, then they must all be at or above the min. The only time you would slide down the list is if the RVR wasn’t working.

[SE7EN]

RVR is always automated. When the cap gen refers to pilot visibility it uses the term "visibility as observed by the pilot in command". That definition on page 16 of the CAP GEN is just incomplete.

The RVR definition I’m talking about is on page 13 of the CAP GEN, copy and pasted below

“RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR):
The range over which the pilot of an aircraft on the centre line of a runway can see the runway surface markings or the lights delineating the runway or identifying its centre line.”

Yes, that is the one I was referring to above. Sorry you're right, it shows page number 13, but foreflight is showing page 16 of the pdf.

What I'm saying is that definition is wrong. But the entire approach ban thing is a big confusing mess anyway, and this seems to be confirmed by accident reports where pilots didn't know that they weren't allowed to do the approach.

Ok, figured it’s gotta be! Thanks!

[CpnCrunch]

The hierarchy must be followed. Provided the airport has RVR, then they must all be at or above the min. The only time you would slide down the list is if the RVR wasn’t working.

(One of) the confusing things is that it's not always a hierarchy, depending on whether it's takeoff, landing, ATC or uncontrolled (thinking of taxi and takeoff minimum visibility as well as the approach ban). I can't even remember which case this is, even though I drilled it into my head a month ago. So, really, I'm not surprised that pilots have problems with it. It's just a huge unnecessary and complicated piece of bureaucracy, which TC seems to love.