RVV below takeoff mins on runway 6.

Attributes
ACN	193464
Time
Date	199110
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : isp
State Reference	NY
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ccr
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
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 : 200 flight time total : 5575 flight time type : 175
ASRS Report	193464
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 2500
ASRS Report	192790
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Airport visibility was reported by tower as 1/8 mi while runway 6 visibility (reported as RVV) was 3/16 mi, both variable. Passenger were boarded and aircraft was taxied to runway 6, believing that RVV would improve before the tower visibility. At XA22L, the tower visibility improved to 1/4 mi while the runway 6 RVV was still less than 1/4 mi. Winds were calm. With sufficient tower visibility for takeoff on runway 24 but insufficient RVV for runway 6, aircraft should have been taxied to runway 24 for takeoff. Instead I misinterpreted takeoff legality requirements and failed to voice an objection to a runway 6 takeoff. Takeoff on runway 6 was then made uneventfully.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RVV BELOW TKOF MINS ON RWY 6.

Narrative: ARPT VISIBILITY WAS RPTED BY TWR AS 1/8 MI WHILE RWY 6 VISIBILITY (RPTED AS RVV) WAS 3/16 MI, BOTH VARIABLE. PAX WERE BOARDED AND ACFT WAS TAXIED TO RWY 6, BELIEVING THAT RVV WOULD IMPROVE BEFORE THE TWR VISIBILITY. AT XA22L, THE TWR VISIBILITY IMPROVED TO 1/4 MI WHILE THE RWY 6 RVV WAS STILL LESS THAN 1/4 MI. WINDS WERE CALM. WITH SUFFICIENT TWR VISIBILITY FOR TKOF ON RWY 24 BUT INSUFFICIENT RVV FOR RWY 6, ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXIED TO RWY 24 FOR TKOF. INSTEAD I MISINTERPRETED TKOF LEGALITY REQUIREMENTS AND FAILED TO VOICE AN OBJECTION TO A RWY 6 TKOF. TKOF ON RWY 6 WAS THEN MADE UNEVENTFULLY.

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.