CAT IIIC minimums

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

'Autoland' and 'Approach CAT' are two separate subjects. It is true
that 'autoland' is a requirement for the conduct of an approach and
landing if the wx conditions are below CATII minimums, but autoland
can also be used in VFR conditions.

OK, I see now. Thanks!

Andrey



The reason for the requirement to conduct autolandings every so often
(we had that requirement at the old PanAm) is to insure that the
equipment remains in calibration. If the autolandings were not logged,
the equipment had to be removed from the a/c and bench calibrated at
scheduled intervals.

Many of our PanAm B-727s had autoland capability with only a CATII
approach capability.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

"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

Gary Drescher wrote:



Circling isn't authorized at KLAX and some other major airports, simply by
not having a circle-to-land minima box on the chart.

Just like you ain't never gonna do a published missed.

Newps wrote:


Gary Drescher wrote:



Circling isn't authorized at KLAX and some other major airports,
simply by not having a circle-to-land minima box on the chart.


Just like you ain't never gonna do a published missed.

Just like?