Hello,
I would like to know what happens when the RVR of the active runway(s) drops below 75 metres? Would the airport be closed temporarily?

The airport would not close. The RVR would be given by tower and you would most likely be asked what RVR you need.....

It is worth noting that the public perception of airports closing due to weather phenomena is not really accurate. In general terms, ATC doesn't say "we are closed and can't take anyone". ATC passes on the weather and the pilots make a decision. Same with tropical storms, snowfall, etc... The pilots must stay legal of course but it is their job to make an assessment. Also conditions can change quickly.

You could imagine an admittedly unlikely scenario where an aircraft must land immediately (e.g. uncontrollable fire) and the closest airport is well below published visibility minima. The autopilot can't see the fog and clouds anyway so an autoland would work fine. You'd have to stop on the runway but no one else is going to be landing and it's better than burning up in the air. Closing the airport, meaning shutting down the power to the ILS, sending ATC home and giving the fireys the day off would have been rather counter-productive in this scenario.

bruh wrote:

Hello,
I would like to know what happens when the RVR of the active runway(s) drops below 75 metres? Would the airport be closed temporarily?

Airports would not close, they would switch to low visibility operations. Tower would continue to operate and continue to issue clearances to land. A landing clearance is not an instruction to land, the final decision to land is with the PIC.

The actual rules employed within the cockpit in these conditions will depend on the regulator and airline.

Where I work if the RVR dropped to below 75m, it would be below landing minuma, company “approach ban” procedures would be in carried out, we could descend until 1000 ft to get a better RVR, otherwise go around at 1000’.

If already below 1000’ and then advised the RVR is less than 75m, continue down to the DH to see if you have the required visual reference, which can be just one runway light. If you have the visual reference land otherwise go around.

If already below 1000’ and then advised the RVR is less than 75m, continue down to the DH to see if you have the required visual reference, which can be just one runway light. If you have the visual reference land otherwise go around.

As zeke said. Just to add: Cat 3B No DH minima require no visual references (i.e. you don't need to see anything), so the RVR passed by tower could be "fudged" to 75m (300ft USA, Canada and Aussie have other differences...) to allow you to land.

Then takeoff minima could be different. Again, company and regulator would determine those. Aircraft equipment will affect those too. E.g. the B777 is capable of taking off in RVR 75m with PVD, certain other types require 125m RVR.

The most difficult part would be taxiing around the airport!

p277 wrote:

The most difficult part would be taxiing around the airport!

Thank you mentioning that part as that was quite true in my experience. It was a relief to get to the runway.

Once on the runway, my biggest fear was that an aircraft would get lost and taxi onto the runway during our take off rioll.

FlyHossD wrote:

Once on the runway, my biggest fear was that an aircraft would get lost and taxi onto the runway during our take off rioll.

Isn't that one of the points of low visibility procedures though? From what I was told by a tower controller once, in a basic airport without ground transponder or radar, only one aircraft is allowed onto the maneuvering area at any given time during LVP. From what I've seen from visits in towers, if they do have the mentioned equipment, then there is practically no chance that anybody makes a mistake in front of a competent controller without getting caught instantly. The equipment is just so good.

VSMUT wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Once on the runway, my biggest fear was that an aircraft would get lost and taxi onto the runway during our take off rioll.

Isn't that one of the points of low visibility procedures though? From what I was told by a tower controller once, in a basic airport without ground transponder or radar, only one aircraft is allowed onto the maneuvering area at any given time during LVP. From what I've seen from visits in towers, if they do have the mentioned equipment, then there is practically no chance that anybody makes a mistake in front of a competent controller without getting caught instantly. The equipment is just so good.

You would hope! Even less then zero visibility fog can cause issues.

https://youtu.be/equVF3ULVw8

VSMUT wrote:

Isn't that one of the points of low visibility procedures though? From what I was told by a tower controller once, in a basic airport without ground transponder or radar, only one aircraft is allowed onto the maneuvering area at any given time during LVP. From what I've seen from visits in towers, if they do have the mentioned equipment, then there is practically no chance that anybody makes a mistake in front of a competent controller without getting caught instantly. The equipment is just so good.

What some airports will do in those cases is to have follow me cars.

shamrock137 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Once on the runway, my biggest fear was that an aircraft would get lost and taxi onto the runway during our take off rioll.

Isn't that one of the points of low visibility procedures though? From what I was told by a tower controller once, in a basic airport without ground transponder or radar, only one aircraft is allowed onto the maneuvering area at any given time during LVP. From what I've seen from visits in towers, if they do have the mentioned equipment, then there is practically no chance that anybody makes a mistake in front of a competent controller without getting caught instantly. The equipment is just so good.

You would hope! Even less then zero visibility fog can cause issues.

https://youtu.be/equVF3ULVw8

True, we watched that one some time during my training. Luckily we have the Jeppesen Jeppview app on our EFBs, and it shows our position on the taxi chart with a remarkable precision. Theoretically we could taxi the plane without looking out using that application. It really aids us in situational awareness.

VSMUT wrote:

Theoretically we could taxi the plane without looking out using that application

You may want to rephrase that, no one would ever support you if you hit something because you “knew” (thought) your actual position based upon a non certified application on a non certified device for that application.

zeke wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Theoretically we could taxi the plane without looking out using that application

You may want to rephrase that, no one would ever support you if you hit something because you “knew” (thought) your actual position based upon a non certified application on a non certified device for that application.

What could possibly go wrong?

zeke wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Theoretically we could taxi the plane without looking out using that application

You may want to rephrase that, no one would ever support you if you hit something because you “knew” (thought) your actual position based upon a non certified application on a non certified device for that application.

Of course not, I'm just using it to describe how accurate it is. The situational awareness is just so great with these EFBs.

Aircraft under Part-91 can also depart 0/0.

Most passengers weather experiences are part-121 mins related.