Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0.25
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground OAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon pushback from the gate; we were informed by Ground that Runway 30 RVR was 300; inop; inop. I asked how Runway 28's visibility was and they replied 1;800 RVR for Runway 28R and no RVR for Runway 28L. I asked for the prevailing visibility which was 1/4 mile. According to the 10-9A page; 1/4 NM prevailing visibility was approved. The Controller specifically said no RVR on Runway 28L not 'inoperative RVR' and he made a point to state mid and rollout RVR inoperative on Runway 30. We requested taxi for Runway 28L and continued to get updates for the RVR for the other runways. Two separate Ground Controllers stated RVR for Runway 30 and 28R and that there was no RVR on 28L and the prevailing visibility was 1/4 mile. As we approached Runway 28R for takeoff; the Tower said 28R visibility was 4;000 RVR; no RVR for Runway 28L and prevailing visibility was still 1/4 mile. We elected to takeoff on 28L due to the longer runway and our calculated takeoff data was complete. After we were airborne; I studied the 10-9A page and noticed that 28L shows RVR on the chart. The terminology used by all Controllers was the same stating no RVR applicable for Runway 28L and they did state explicitly if RVR was available and/or inop on all other runways. NOTAMS did not show RVR decommissioned on 28L. So now the confusion is if the charts are wrong about the RVR being controlling for Runway 28L or if the Controller's terminology was wrong in saying no RVR on Runway 28L which led me to believe that prevailing visibility applied. I should have been more proactive in reviewing the 10-9A page where I would have caught the RVR notation. Then I would have queried the Controller more thoroughly about RVR applicability to Runway 28L and determined if 'no RVR' really meant the equipment is installed and not on or has been removed from that runway.


Second narrative: During pushback from the gate; Ground told us that Runway 30 RVR was 300; mid inop; rollout inop. Captain asked about visibility for Runway 28L and 28R. Ground said 1;800 RVR for Runway 28R and 'No RVR for Runway 28L but visibility was 1/4 mile.' OAK 10-9A page; Runway 28L 1/4 NM prevailing visibility was acceptable. The Controller specifically said 'No RVR on Runway 28L' not inop RVR. We started to taxi to Runway 28L. Two separate Ground Controllers stated RVR for Runway 30 and 28R but that there was no RVR on 28L and the prevailing visibility was 1/4 mile on 28L. As we approached Runway 28R for takeoff; I asked for current visibility. Tower said 28R visibility was 4;000 RVR; NO RVR for Runway 28L but prevailing visibility was 1/4 mile. We elected to take off on 28L due to the longer runway and the calculated takeoff data was input. After takeoff; Captain and I both looked over the 10-9A page again. We noticed that 28L shows RVR on the chart. The terminology used by all Controllers had stated 'No RVR' not inop RVR for 28L. Ground and Tower explicitly said if RVR was available and/or inop on all other runways. NOTAMS did not show RVR decommissioned on 28L. So now the confusion is if the charts are wrong about the RVR being controlling for Runway 28L or if the Controller's terminology was wrong is saying 'No RVR on Runway 28L;' which I assumed meant prevailing visibility applied. I should have asked Controller if 'no RVR' meant the RVR equipment for 28L was out of service or if it had been completely removed/decommissioned; and if it was out of service; ATC should have said 'inop RVR' not 'no RVR.'


Synopsis: Air carrier departing OAK experienced confusion regarding ATC's terminology regarding RVR readings and status.