RVOP/LVOP

[BEFAN5]

If an aerodrome has published LVOP procedures, are those also used for RVOP procedures? Question comes from a situation where the RVR for one runway was 1800, and the second runway all off a sudden shot up to 4000 but tower declined access to is because the airport was under LVOP procedures and only the runway with RVR 1800 can be used as stated in those LVOP procedures.

My understanding is that LVOP is less then 1200 RVR and RVOP is less then 2600 RVR up to 1200 RVR. So the airport would be under "reduced vis" not "limited". And with that being said, because there were no RVOP procedures in the CAP, and the LVOP page says for "ops under 1200 rvr" that the second runway should have been available to aircraft?

Thoughts?

[Rockie]

You are correct in your definition. RVOP is less than RVR 2600 (1/2sm) down to and including RVR 1200 (1/4sm). LVOP is below RVR 1200 (1/4sm) down to and including RVR 600 (1/8sm).

With an active tower the aerodrome operating visibility is in order of priority:
1. RVR for the runway of intended use.
2. Ground visibility, or
3. Visibility as determined by the Captain (strict conditions there)

Without an active tower the aerodrome operating visibility is in order of priority:
1. Any reported RVR
2. Ground visibility
3. Visibility as determined by the Captain.


You say in this case the tower was operating, so with an RVR of 4000 on your runway of intended use they shouldn't have even been conducting RVOP much less LVOP.

Without an active tower the limiting RVR would be 1800 which would dictate RVOP, not LVOP.

I think either the situation wasn't as I understand from your post or the tower made an error.

[ahramin]

Either LVOP is in place; or RVOP; or nothing, for the entire airport. You can't have one set of aircraft going to one runway under LVOP and one set of aircraft going to a different runway under normal ops at the same time.

In the situation you describe Tower had 2 options: Operate normally using the 4000' RVR runway, or operate LVOP using the 600' RVR runway. Can't do both at once. They can switch back and forth though, were you the only aircraft at the airport?

[BEFAN5]

There were multiple aircraft/carriers affected.

This occurred at Winnipeg earlier in the week where there is a published LVOP procedure that states only runway 36 can be used for departures when LVOP is in affect.

Multiple aircraft left their aprons (I saw a few Perimeter planes holding in apron 2 as close to the runway as possible waiting for it to hit the magic number) when the RVR for runway 31 went above 3000' as they were under the impression they could use it as per the hierarchy for an airport with an active ATC tower. There was a period when the RVR for runway 36 was around 1800 and the RVR for runway 31 was 3000 or so. (there is no archived speci for this from the CYWG metar, but the live rvr section on the nav can site was spitting out those numbers) The general impression was that 31 should have been an option for aircraft that require 1/2 mile for takeoff.

It would make sense for runway to be the active as the ceilings were at 100' and runway 36 has a CAT II to allow Air Can and Westjet etc to get in. But because RVR was above 1200 for part of the morning, I was just wondering how the LVOP procedure was still being applied to prevent runway 31 being used for departures.

It was just a situation that I think warranted a discussion as RVOP/LVOP still seems to be a stumper to a lot of people when it comes up a few times per year. Out come the CAP gens!

[Intentional Left Bank]

I ran into a similar situation in YEG last fall. 02/20 RVR 400, 12/30 2000. Tower refused to allow any aircraft to push back for taxi, despite our request that 02/20 be NOTAM'ed closed to allow for 12/30 use. We contacted our controlling flight dispatcher, who contacted the chief dispatcher, who called Nav Canada HQ, who called the tower, who closed 02/20 and gave us our taxi clearance. Took 20 minutes, but sometimes a phone call can help.

[Rockie]

I ran into a similar situation in YEG last fall. 02/20 RVR 400, 12/30 2000. Tower refused to allow any aircraft to push back for taxi, despite our request that 02/20 be NOTAM'ed closed to allow for 12/30 use. We contacted our controlling flight dispatcher, who contacted the chief dispatcher, who called Nav Canada HQ, who called the tower, who closed 02/20 and gave us our taxi clearance. Took 20 minutes, but sometimes a phone call can help.

That's very strange. The operating visibility for all runways in Edmonton is 1200 RVR or 1/4sm for RVOP (they do not have LVOP capability). With the tower in operation the following rule applies straight out of the CAP:

(1) For the purposes of Subsection (2) and (3), the visibility with respect to an aircraft is less than the
minimum visibility required for taxi, take off or landing if

(a) where the aerodrome does not have a published RVOP/LVOP for taxi, takeoff and landing
operations, any RVR located on the aerodrome, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined
by the pilot in command is less than any of that aerodrome’s operating visibility restrictions
published in the IAIP; or

(b) where the aerodrome has a published RVOP/LVOP for taxi, takeoff and landing operations
pertaining to the runway of the intended operation, any RVR or the runway visibility serving that
runway, the ground visibility, or the visibility as determined by the pilot in command is less than
the aerodrome’s operating visibility restriction published in the IAIP for that runway.

If 12/30 was your runway of intended use you had the required visibility and the tower should not have stopped you regardless of the status of 02/20

[Intentional Left Bank]

...and indeed that was our understanding and interpretation also. Tower that day was not receptive to comments or queries, and insisted that lowest on-field rvr was controlling. Which was why we suggested the runway closure. We weren't able to make a convincing case for tower, and couldn't taxi without a clearance.