CAT IIIC minimums

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:001c01c6b9e5$41b26ee0$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
The lowest authorized ILS minimums, with all required ground and airborne
systems components operative, are
. Category I - Decision Height (DH) 200 feet and Runway Visual Range (RVR)
2,400 feet (with touchdown zone and centerline lighting, RVR 1800 feet),
. Category II - DH 100 feet and RVR 1,200 feet,
. Category IIIa - No DH or DH below 100 feet and RVR not less than 700
feet,
. Category IIIb - No DH or DH below 50 feet and RVR less than 700 feet but
not less than 150 feet, and
. Category IIIc - No DH and no RVR limitation.

I found the above on page 5-49 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook at
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...ures_handbook/

So contrary to what others have suggested, the NA does not mean "not
authorized";
rather, it means "not applicable".

No, NA means "not authorized". See
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco..._IAP_Intro.pdf , p.
53. (Also, Jeppesen's Instrument/Commercial Manual, Appendix B, lists NA as
an abbreviation for "not authorized".)

The material you cited above is entirely consistent with the "not
authorized" meaning.

There is no CAT IIIc approach into JFK for runway 4R

Sorry, can you say how you arrived at that conclusion?

which is why it is not listed on the plate.

Couldn't it be unlisted because there are no DA or RVR limitations to list?

--Gary

-----Original Message-----

From: Gary Drescher ]

Posted At: Monday, August 07, 2006 8:13 AM

Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr

Conversation: CAT IIIC minimums

Subject: CAT IIIC minimums



"Jim Carter" wrote in message

news:001c01c6b9e5$41b26ee0$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .

The lowest authorized ILS minimums, with all required ground and
airborne

systems components operative, are

....

I found ... on page 5-49 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook at




http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...ocedures_handb
oo

k/



....



No, NA means "not authorized". See


http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco..._IAP_Intro.pdf
,

p.

53. (Also, Jeppesen's Instrument/Commercial Manual, Appendix B, lists
NA

as

an abbreviation for "not authorized".)



The material you cited above is entirely consistent with the "not

authorized" meaning.





Gary,

I pulled up the pdf file you supplied as reference and had adobe
search for the "not authorized" phrase. There is only one instance found
under the Alternate Minimums paragraph on page 53: "If NA appears,
alternate minimums are not authorized due to unmonitored facility or
absence of weather reporting service." I did not reference Jeppesen
because they are not the authority for this information.



Could this be a case of NA meaning one thing for CAT IIIc and
something else for other purposes? It probably would have made more
sense if the visibility requirement was shown as not required or
inapplicable.



How could an approach be authorized if the visibility requirement
is "not authorized"?





There is no CAT IIIc approach into JFK for runway 4R



Sorry, can you say how you arrived at that conclusion?





There is no CAT IIIc minima listed on the plate even though there is CAT
IIIa and b.





which is why it is not listed on the plate.



Couldn't it be unlisted because there are no DA or RVR limitations to

list?



--Gary



No, then it would be an unpublished approach wouldn't it? The definition
of CAT IIIc is zero/zero (more explicit language is found in my original
reference). The approach would be listed on the JFK plate if it was
approved and published. The EWS plate lists all three approach minima.

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
news:000801c6ba26$9bd59ff0$4001a8c0@omnibook6100.. .
Could this be a case of NA meaning one thing for CAT IIIc and
something else for other purposes?

No. In addition to the inherent implausibility of such an inconsistency, Sam
has pointed out that FAR 97.3n explicitly defines NA to mean "not
authorized" with regard to IAPs.

How could an approach be authorized if the visibility requirement is "not
authorized"?

I don't follow. If "NA" appears in the IIIC line, it means a IIIC approach
is not authorized.

Couldn't it be unlisted because there are no DA or RVR limitations to
list?

No, then it would be an unpublished approach wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. The IIIC approach is published by virtue of the approach
plate that is labeled "CAT III". By definition, CAT III comprises IIIA,
IIIB, and IIIC. There's a section of the plate that lists visibility
limitations for the subcategories; the omission of IIIC from that section
means that there is no visibility limitation for IIIC.

The EWS plate lists all three approach minima.

Assuming that's a typo for EWR (I find no EWS), the plate for ILS 4R CAT III
does not list minima for IIIC; rather, it says the IIIC approach is not
authorized (NA). http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00285I4RC3.PDF

--Gary

IIIB, and IIIC. There's a section of the plate that lists visibility
limitations for the subcategories; the omission of IIIC from that section
means that there is no visibility limitation for IIIC.

I have to disagree with you on that: I believe the omission of certain
approach minimums equates to a statement that such approach is not authorized.
On the same plate (KJFK 4R CAT III), there's no circling minimums, and this
doesn't obviously imply that circling with no visibility limitation is allowed.

Andrey



The EWS plate lists all three approach minima.

Assuming that's a typo for EWR (I find no EWS), the plate for ILS 4R CAT III
does not list minima for IIIC; rather, it says the IIIC approach is not
authorized (NA). http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00285I4RC3.PDF

--Gary

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
I have to disagree with you on that: I believe the omission of certain
approach minimums equates to a statement that such approach is not
authorized.
On the same plate (KJFK 4R CAT III), there's no circling minimums, and
this
doesn't obviously imply that circling with no visibility limitation is
allowed.

Sure, but if CAT III approaches inherently preclude circling (which I
suspect is the case), then the omission of visibility minima for CAT III
circling approaches isn't analogous. (I haven't seen an example of a CAT I,
LOC, VOR or NDB approach plate that does not either specify circling minima,
or say explicitly that circling is NA.)

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
(I haven't seen an example of a CAT I,
LOC, VOR or NDB approach plate that does not either specify circling minima,
or say explicitly that circling is NA.)


Circling isn't authorized at KLAX and some other major airports, simply
by not having a circle-to-land minima box on the chart. The source
document, however, does state "NA" in the line for circling minimums.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:1QKBg.656$0F5.46@fed1read04...
Gary Drescher wrote:
(I haven't seen an example of a CAT I,
LOC, VOR or NDB approach plate that does not either specify circling
minima, or say explicitly that circling is NA.)


Circling isn't authorized at KLAX and some other major airports, simply by
not having a circle-to-land minima box on the chart. The source document,
however, does state "NA" in the line for circling minimums.

Yup, you're right.

--Gary