Is 1time Cat II/III rated?

[Boeing797]

Just curious. Is 1Time Cat II/III rated?

[Shrike200]

No.

Edit: I'm completely wrong. My humblest apologies. :ouch: :\

[glorybusdriver]

Yes 1Time is CAT II rated, I've sat in the jumpseat where they performed a actual CAT II into Cape Town with autoland.

[glorybusdriver]

Yes 1Time is CAT II rated, I've sat in the jumpseat where they performed an actual CAT II into Cape Town with autoland.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Let us pray that...

1 Time is Cat 11 rated.
glorybusdriver had the necessary etc & so forth, to sit in the jump seat.

Standby perhaps for a most deafening silence?:ooh::)

[777Contrail]

:} interesting.........................

[747madman]

PLS CAN ANY ONE LET US KNOW :eek:

1TIME HAVE NOT PAY THE FUEL BILL FOR 2 MONTHS

IS THIS A NWT IN HAPPENING :{ :{ :{ :{ :{

[Ibhayi]

PLS CAN ANY ONE LET US KNOW :eek:

1TIME HAVE NOT PAY THE FUEL BILL FOR 2 MONTHS

IS THIS A NWT IN HAPPENING :{ :{ :{ :{ :{

Is this speculation or fact, I am surprised a fuel retailer would supply an airline with that much credit?

[Ibhayi]

PLS CAN ANY ONE LET US KNOW :eek:

1TIME HAVE NOT PAY THE FUEL BILL FOR 2 MONTHS

IS THIS A NWT IN HAPPENING :{ :{ :{ :{ :{

Is this speculation or fact, I am surprised a fuel retailer would supply an airline with that much credit?

[flux]

1Time is cat 2 rated. Why the question?

[deerated]

Yes, 1TIME is CAT2 rated.

Crews perform the required initial training as per SACAA regs and recurrency is done Bi-Anually.

We also keep record of every Cat2 Simmulated/Actual for recency requirements.

About the Fuel....I understand....invoicing about 20 days in arrears.

Whats the urgent need to find out about Cat2 compliancy?
p.s. MD80 does a nice Auto-Land too!:D

Cheers,

Deerated:ok:

[fastfly]

This smacks of MUD slinging to me...:*

[JeanJacquesBurnel]

Yes 1time is CAT11 rated.

No they are not behind on the fuel bill.

Go look at this link :

1time holdings - SENS (http://www.1timeholdings.co.za/sens.htm)

1Time is a listed company and as such is obliged to warn shareholders of potential profitability problems. In fact, if you go ahead and read the link, you will see that round about the time all the bleating started on this forum, 1Time issued a cautionary stating that they were acquiring another company, hardly indicative of a company in the pooh.

[boypilot]

Last I heard 1Time were not autoland approved- Cat 11 manual landing only with appropriate minima.

[mossie2008]

say what u want to say

1time did not pay :D

from Capetown and Durban

[DC3Mishkey]

yes they do. Ask the fuel vendors how much money exec aero owes them!

[Toppled AH]

YES 1Time is CAT II rated and so are all the pilots in who fly for them...as for the fuel........its paid DAILY..........has SAA paid there fuel bill? thats the question you should be asking.......seem they ran a 2 billion rand loss AGAIN.......

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

There was a little snippet way back at the beginning of all this furor to the effect that someone had sat in a cockpit and watched a Cat 11 approach into Capetown with an autoland. Someone please refresh the tired brain but don't you need a Cat 111 rating for an autoland from a Cat 11 approach?:confused:

[Toppled AH]

Just making sure the equipment was servicable...I guess...VFR i don't see why not.

Auto Coupled to below DH.....Quote....Thus airworthiness requirements may, through minimum engagement height for the Automatic Flight Control system, affect the DH to be applied, 300 meters RVR may be used for a Category D a/c conducting an AUTO LAND...Unquote.....

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
Surely not VFR? The original jumpseat rider reported that the approach in question had been in actual Cat 11 conditions.
Open to correction of course, as always, but an RVR of 300mtrs places the approach limitations into the realm of a Cat 111A operation? The RVR limit for a Cat 11 operation is 370mtrs? So then, if one interpolates the paragraph relating to auto coupled below DH, would it be true to say that a Cat 11 rated crew can make an approach in a Category D aircraft in Cat 111 conditions provided that the approach is coupled, that an auto land is planned and that the RVR is not less than 300mtrs?
Slightly:confused:

[kykweer]

MD 80 is Cat C aircraft. 1time is Cat II approved. All crew trained in LVP take-offs as well to 125m RVR. Autoland not required but recommended for Cat II. RVR 300m. 1time uses a self imposed 350m RVR restriction since they used to attend simulator anually. They now attend simulator every 6 months, thus I am unsure if 350m RVR still applies. MD 80 autopilot limitation: Cat III with autoland. No autoland, autopilot must be off by 50 feet AGL, Cat II. No autoland allowed if engine failure prior to 50 feet AGL. The MD80 has a parralel yaw damper. Cat II does not require autoland certification or monitoring since autoland is not required. Crew may perform autoland provided autoland serviceability test performed during pre-flight on ground. Cat II approaches (Simulated and actual) are recorded in tech log for monitoring of autopilot system. Hopes this clears up the speculation.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Many thanks for that excellent response. Been a while since it applied but thought that the limit for a Cat 11 approach was RVR 370mtrs?:)

[Ibhayi]

Can somebody please explain the difference between a CAT I, II, III and IIIC ( I think I heard that once).

[skychick2]

CAT I : dicision height not lower 200' and RVR not less than 550m , can be manually flown and land.

CAT II : dicision height(DH)below 200' , but not lower than 100' and RVR not less than 300m ( autoland )
RVR not less than 400m (manual landing)App flown by autopilot..man landing(coupled app)

CAT III a dicision heigth(DH) lower than 100',but RVR not less than 200m-autoland

CAT III b dicision(DH) height lower than 50' or ''NO'' (DH), but RVR not less than 75m-autoland.

I think I got it right.:ok:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Try this as a basic guide.
Both aircraft and airport have to have the necessary approved and calibrated equipment and the crews have to be so rated.
In the case of the 111c ILS, I think it is correct to say that the auto pilot/auto throttle must be able to bring the aircraft to a stop on the runway.
The aircraft in a Cat 111c approach may then have to wait, in conditions of extremely poor visibility, for a 'Follow Me' vehicle. This is of course becoming less of a necessity as ground radar is installed at certian airports, to the rage of local inhabitants who remain convinced that sterilisation awaits them.:E

* Category I - A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation and with either a visibility not less than 2,625 feet (800 m) or a runway visual range not less than 2,400 feet (730 m), (with touchdown zone and center lightning, RVR 1,800ft). An aircraft equipped with an Enhanced Flight Vision System may, under certain circumstances, continue an approach to CAT II minimums. [14 CFR Part 91.175 amendment 281]
* Category II - Category II operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation but not lower than 100 feet (30 m), and a runway visual range not less than 1,200 feet (370 m).
* Category III is further subdivided
o Category III A - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
+ a) a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
+ b) a runway visual range not less than 700 feet (210 m).
o Category III B - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
+ a) a decision height lower than 50 feet (15 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
+ b) a runway visual range less than 700 feet (210 m) but not less than 150 feet (46 m).
o Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations. A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the runway surface.

The above is from the internet and is copied in here with no promise that it is absolutely up to date. In the case of any ILS approach other than a Cat 1, there is a requirement that the airport in question will implement certain ground orientated safeguards, hence Cat 11 holding points for departing aircraft to minimise distortion to the ILS glide path?:O

[Toppled AH]

Kykweer you pretty much summed it all up.....as clear as day light.....Cavorting cheetah...please tell me where you find a 370 mterer RVR, I can't find it anywhere maybe you can tell me what PART section and reference....as far as the law goes its 300 mts......for a CAT A,B,C with a DH of 100ft - 120ft for CAT II Approaches....

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

As previously pointed out, only copied from the net. This linked source below and previous one being Wiki, which is a questionable source provided. Do not have Jepps or refernece material on German mountain top. Suggest slight discrepancies showing through in your posts. But quite happy to accept the fact, as understood, which is that in SA one may commence and complete a Cat 11 approach with an RVR of 300mtrs followed by manual landing. Although it is noted that no source, including previous posters other than yourself, seem to think that a Cat 11 minima is 300mtrs. Perhaps you would be so kind as to substantiate that not disputed claim in the interests of aviation clarity?.:)

UK Airport Forum :: View topic - Cat III Auto Landings & ILS (http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?mforum=airportsuk&p=2980)

ILS categories
A standard ILS is termed "Category I", allowing landings for suitably equipped aircraft in weather with 2400 ft (732m) visibility or 1800 ft (549m) in case of touchdown and centerline lighting and 200 ft ceiling (cloud base or vertical visibility). More advanced Category II and III systems allow operations in near-zero visibility, but require special additional certification of the aircraft and of the pilot. Category II approaches permit landing with a 100 foot decision height and visibility as low as 1200 ft (366m). Category III is flown by an autoland system on board the landing aircraft, and permits operations even with no decision heights and visibility better than 700ft (Cat IIIa) or between 150ft and 700ft (Cat IIIb). Each operator certified for Cat III operations will have specific decision heights and visibility minima established which are unique to their certification. Some operators are authorized to land in zero/zero conditions (Cat IIIc). Category II/III installations include in-runway centreline and touchdown zone lighting, as well as other aids and enhancements.

An ILS is required to shut down upon internal detection of a fault condition as mentioned in the monitoring section. With the increasing categories, ILS equipment is required to shutdown faster since higher categories require shorter response times. For example, a Cat I localizer must shutdown within 10 seconds of detecting a fault, but a Cat III localizer must shutdown in less than 2 seconds. [2]

Mind you, very glad to see that 1 Time are Cat 11 rated. Perhaps there could be confirmation of the idle thought that for a Cat 11 approach to be flown, both flight deck crew members must be current with a Cat 11 endorsement to that effect?:eek:

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Actually, don't think that the MD80 is equipped with a thrust and guidance system that permits operation below Cat 111A.
Seem to remember that the fundamental difference between an aircraft system for a Cat 111A and anything more limiting is that, below Cat 111A it is a requirement that the aircraft have, possibly among other fitments, auto reverse?:)

[Toppled AH]

I think we going off the topic of the thread...the question was...IS 1TIME CAT II / CAT III CERTIFIED...

1Time is most definatly CAT II certified and not CAT III.....

If you still not sure and KYKWEER made it very clear what 1Time requirements are.... please feel free to phone the training captain at 1Time...he is very nice guy and i'm sure he will help you with any uncertainty you have....

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:


Indeed, the topic is still on track. Having established the fact that the company may fly Cat 11 approaches, we are now attempting to discuss certain limitations.
References have been posted to substantiate the argument that an RVR of 300 mtrs falls below the authorised limits of a Cat 11 ILS operation.
There are those on this forum who are of the opinion, apparently, that an RVR of 300mtrs falls within the limits of a Cat 11 operation.
That may very well be the case, it is not particularly in dispute, neither is the integrity of the airline concerned. All that has been requested is a suitable reference to confirm the assertions of those who believe that an RVR of 300mtrs permits a Cat 11 approach.
That is not an unreasonable request? References have been provided, as requested, to jusitfy this writer's thoughts on the subject. A reciprocated courtesy would not be too unimaginable? It is an interesting point of aviation here on which some have made statements which they should themselves corroborate.:D

[Boeing797]

Thanks guys. The MD-80 sounds like a really capable aircraft!

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Thank you for that little exercise in clarity! Certainly the most twinkling of posts.
As a matter of interest, for a Cat 11 approach, in general terms, refresh the brain please, is the operator allowed to take the least limiting RVR as between touch down, mid point and stop end or only the first two, or indeed, something completely different?:)

Of course the MD83 is a capable aircraft. It's a Boeing!:)

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

That depends entirely on whether or not one is making an approach at Edinburgh.:eek:

[deerated]

Seems lots of misinformation going around?:ugh: They are not behind with fuel payments, and CAT2 Autoland approaches happen regularly. Trust me.Hope that answers those out there that think they have the answers to 1Times SOP`s...

Enjoy the weekend

Cheers
Deerated:ok:

[captain danger]

in all my years here on pprune and in particular africa aviation forum...:ok:

you never seem to share or say anything of interest to the rest of the guys/girls out there.:bored:

why dont you for a change offer something of interest :mad:

and before you begin with yre absolute b:mad:t im a high time driver who has grown very tired of yre drivel and kak praat!

bring something to this forum :ooh: or please go away.....

regards

[cavortingcheetah]

Dear Captain Danger,

Such a blistering attack as yours, even cloaked in the guise of a first time correspondent, must be taken seriously and it would be impolitic to ignore such comments.
It may be that you are correct and that nothing written by this poster on these forums has ever been of use to anyone and that would be a pity were it so.
However,as a self confessed high time flyer, well versed in the need for self control, surely you will appreciate the fact that such a splenetic outburst as yours might have been better delivered in a calm and reasoned manner, possibly written with some slight degree of courtesy? A request perhaps that a little of the usual flippancy, which might be irritating to some, I agree, were moderated.
It did occur to me that you might be an escapee from that excellent African Forum on the other side. There is someone there with whom I have crossed playful swords in the past. But the style is missing so I must deduce that you are not he.
I have therefore, at least for the time being, decided to disregard your post and to continue as before until such other event may arise as to give me greater cause for thought and moderation.
Toodle pip.
cc

[Clarence Over]

For those interested, the reference for RVR requirements is South Africa AIP ENR 1.8 Section 4 "Precision Approach - Category II Operations". Of particular interest in Table 6 - RVR for category II approach vs. DH. 300m is quite correct.

[boypilot]

To Scanafrica and company - in response to your sarcasm - no one here is disputing whether the MD80 can do a successful autoland or the 1Time crews competence in the execution thereof -

Here are the facts take them as you must - 1Time are not Cat IIIa approved for amongst other reasons but more importantly because they are not autoland approved . To the best of my knowledge there is no autoland monitoring/ maintenance program in place - For the purposes of approach ban, planning etc - the 350m RVR must be applied. It is not a 1Time self imposed penalty and doubtful whether it is observed, judging by your comments - it is an RVR degradation of 50m which is standard for all Cat II manual landings-1Time/ Aeronexus do not have operator/ maintenance approval for autolands- i.e Cat 11 minima with a manual landing is 350m ! As much as 1Time recommends the use of autolands for CatII approaches should the prefight find the system operable, the RVR minima of 350m still applies as this is the limit of their LVO CAA Approval. This approval precedent was set by the CAA with blue tail Sunair on the MD80 fleet- but I guess you weren't around then.
Until there is a monitored autoland system in place and Aeronexus is approved to maintain it you can go to sim as often as you like. The fundamental difference between a CatII and Cat IIIa approach is the mandatory requirement for an autoland following a Cat IIIa approach.Most operators applying for LVO approval or who are CatII and CAt IIIa approved have approved autoland maintenance and monitoring as well as the required training program to go with it - hence they are Cat II and Cat IIIa approved- Your so called LVO training should have covered these points - if they were'nt go get your money back.:ok:

[flux]

Good points Boypilot. Just to make it clear then, are 1Time CATII compliant? And CC, if you are not sure of something, don't post it! AWOP'S in exile are the same as they are here! Edinburgh or not.

[boypilot]

Flux to confirm 1Time are Cat II Manual landing approved and therefore restricted to 350m RVR. Scanafrica feel free to confirm with CP or CTC and I am sure all will be explained. Fly safe enjoy the Mad Dog.:ok:

[Toppled AH]

Cheepers Cavortingcheetah....do you read Shakespear?

[mainbearing]

A bit off the thread, but can any one up to speed out there tell me how many rwys in SA at the moment are actually CAT11 or CAT111 certified?

[boypilot]

FAJS - Rwy 03L/R and 21L Cat II
FACT- RWY 19 Cat II and RWY 01 Cat IIIb

[countingteeth]

FAJS - Rwy 03L/R and 21L Cat II
FACT- RWY 19 Cat II and RWY 01 Cat IIIb

I was under the impression that the CatIII equipment in FACT was inop because parts had been stolen.... :} :} Has it since been replaced?

I can't contribute anything towards the topic technically, other than to say I have witnessed (from the jumpseat) three Autolands during my piddly life : one on a Comair 734 into Durban, one on a 1time MD83 into Cape Town, and one on a 1time MD87 into Jo'burg (which was with one of the Airline's Training Captains). On all three occasions the various Captains mentioned to me that they dont like using it because it lands too hard, and passengers think they have :mad: up the landing :}.

WRT the fuel bill : 1time are billed daily for their fuel. They do not operate a forward account, nor do they have any fuel hedges. From what I remember, its illegal to forward sell fuel in this country without charging interest - hence the reason you can't purchase fuel on a credit card. You need a seperate account that attracts interest from date of sale. They would thus need to finance their forward account through one of the banks (like SAA do), and it would be the bank suspending their facilities, not the oil company.

Peace.

[putt for dough]

Just goes to show that in these anonymous forums
any old fool can post under the disguise of being
a "HEV" in our aviation fraternity, whether it be from
a german mountain top or not!:ugh:
Thanks to those with the informative replies
that the original poster required:ok:

[flyguysa]

Off the topic a bit, sorry guys.... According to the NOTAMS, FAJS 03L ILS has been downgraded to CAT I.....

[grjplanes]

Regarding the fuel of 1Time I have a little question. DC9 vs MD-82/3, fuel-efficiency.Although I know both these aircraft isn't very fuel-efficient at all, I believe the MD-82/3 is better than the DC9. Now I have witnessed lately that 1Time sends in a DC9 on the JNB-GRJ route quite often, and then they're fully booked in at least one of the directions. But in the last 2 weeks (outside school holidays) they've sent in MD82/3 more often, and then there's always some room left.So I'm wondering, take JNB-GRJ route, what is more fuel-efficient for them, flying a DC9 full at 110 pax, or flying a MD82/3 with 110 pax. Say the pricing worked the same, start from around R480, by full or 110 pax pricing at around R1200.Is it worth it for them to still have DC9s, and for how long will they still be operating for 1time mainline service?

[spongebathbob]

The DC9's are supposed to be discontinued at the end of July this year but I see some are still in service, the reason for the use of George and to Joburg is probably the miss conception that the MD87 looks very similar to the DC as its seats 130 pax, the DC9 105 pax and not 110 as stipulated or the MD has gone tits up and a replacement a/c has been brought
in, the MD JT8-217/219 use less fuel that the DC9 JT8-15, so yes 100 pax on the MD is more efficient than the DC9

[countingteeth]

the MD JT8-217/219 use less fuel that the DC9 JT8-15, so yes 100 pax on the MD is more efficient than the DC9

Actually not. Here are the approx figures :

MD82 fuel burn : 950 Gallons/Hour (3167lbs/hr/engine)
DC9 fuel burn : 870 Gallons/Hour (2900lbs/hr/engine)

If you extrapolate that out, @ 110 pax, the MD82 uses 32.6L/seat/hr and the DC9 uses 29.9L/seat/hr. Expressed differently, the fuel cost per passenger is only equal when a DC9 is carrying 110 pax and the MD82 is carrying 120 pax (and for interests sake, the MD87 is carrying 114 pax. The MD82 matches the MD87 per seat fuel burn at 140 vs 132). That is of course bearing in mind that the 950 Gallons/Hour burn quoted above is for a full MD82. At 120 pax, the burn will be slightly better.

The trip cost also doesnt only consist of fuel. There are lease payments, insurance costs, maintenance etc all built into the hourly figure. All things considered, generally speaking, if you can fill a plane with more than 114 pax on a route like GRG, it makes sense to send a MD87. Anything less than 114 and your trip costs and corresponding yields will be better on a DC9. If you can get a load factor above 142 pax, send the MD82. If you dont have a MD87 available, and you can get a load factor above 120, send the MD82.

[JeanJacquesBurnel]

1Time's DC9's are definitely 110 seaters.

[spongebathbob]

Cavotingcheetah......are you that guy with the thick glasses, white coat and pens in the pocket.......?