Talk:Runway visual range

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Wikipedia is not a technical manual. While this is all interesting stuff, we should make sure that someone coming to the article knowing nothing about approach procedure or aeronautics can understand. Also, while this is not copyright, is there really any point in just copying another website? Why not just give the URL? That way the information is updated by someone else. DJ Clayworth 21:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an error; it was supposed to be for Class IIIC (not b) there is no RVR limit required, right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.33.48 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure that older jet aircraft (at least Boeings) had a visual height, not distance as warning system. On Boeing 707 and 720 this minimum height was 400 feet above ground. Clouds often "disappears" (for the pilots) at a certain height rather than a certain distance. Since my knowlidge of this subject is rather old, I do not argue anything. Just asking if minimum height has become obsolete. Boeing720 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good points...

You make some good points, while the wilipedia is not a technical manual, it is an 'encyclopedia,' and as such has a duty to be technically correct to the extent possible. Truth be known, I entered the article about runway visual range only because I was adding my techincal knowledge to another article that made reference to this particular subject.

Again, I agree this wikipedia is not a techincal, but i feel it is important to be as techically correct as is possible. For some people many of the terms and ideas contained in this article is jibberish, and for others who may want to know that level of detail it may be a good source for useful information. Besides, others may not know what technical manual to turn to for this information. Not to mention that someone who would be looking at such a piece of obscure aviation minutia would either need to know what runway visual range is, or ought to know what it is already.

I only wish there was such a complete reference on the internet when I was a student.

Globalise!

This article is VERY AMERICAN. I don't know if it people are aware of this, but most of the world does RVR IN METRES, NOT FEET and any values given in the article are relevant to the USA only (and a few other places that deviate from the international standard).

The globalization was best done by major surgery. The new one is much snappier, has much less trivial technical detail and is international. Technical and globalize tags consequently removed.BaseTurnComplete 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flying technology is actually globalized. Idon't know about RVR, but f.i. altitude and vertical speed is globalized as feet (and thousands of feet per minutes). However I do agree with BaseTurnComplete in general. International english is the "Queens English". Boeing720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converting RVR to metereorological visibility

File:US_Terminal_Procedures_Vol_1_Michigan_1998-03.jpg --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]