Cat III Approach Climb Limit weigts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cat III Approach Climb Limit weigts
Any of you guys out there subject to restricted max landing weights on the 73 when the destination is cat III.The outfit I work for has the max landing weight right down due to the restrictive nature of the clb limit weight. Any of you guys like to comment re your own port of employment?
Guest
Posts: n/a
We too have very restrictive lo-vis climb limiting landing weights. esp for the –500 series, 300 & 400 not usually a problem. We also get stiffed a further 3000Kg (approx) for “residual ice” which also doesn’t help.
Mabrodb – The JAR reason for the restrictive weight is that the Cat 2/3 go-arund climb gradient must be calculated on the actual go-around speed which is quite draggy and gives a poor climb. Whereas the rules for Cat 1 (or better) are that the go-around climb gradient can be calculated at any speed, so the manufacturer uses a more favourable speed when producing the graphs/tables to exploit this loophole and help the operator.
S & L
Mabrodb – The JAR reason for the restrictive weight is that the Cat 2/3 go-arund climb gradient must be calculated on the actual go-around speed which is quite draggy and gives a poor climb. Whereas the rules for Cat 1 (or better) are that the go-around climb gradient can be calculated at any speed, so the manufacturer uses a more favourable speed when producing the graphs/tables to exploit this loophole and help the operator.
S & L
Guest
Posts: n/a
m&v
You are correct, it is a combination of both our points.
The Cat 1 missed approach climb gradient is based on a manufacturer's selected speed (max 1.5 Vs) to produce a 2.1% gradient. The Low visibility is separate rule, which requires 2.5% gradient at the 'real' speed, therefore much lower weights.
S & L
You are correct, it is a combination of both our points.
The Cat 1 missed approach climb gradient is based on a manufacturer's selected speed (max 1.5 Vs) to produce a 2.1% gradient. The Low visibility is separate rule, which requires 2.5% gradient at the 'real' speed, therefore much lower weights.
S & L
Guest
Posts: n/a
From Jarops "Minimum steady gradient one engine inoperative required by the regulations is 2.1% at a speed not exceeding 1.4 Vs. In the case of a Category II approach a climb fradient of 2.5% is to be maintained. NB!!! Except for aircraft operated under UK regulation, where for single engine Category II approach a minimum gradient of 3.0% is required!!!! "
Not a lot of people know that (last bit)
Scally
Not a lot of people know that (last bit)
Scally
Guest
Posts: n/a
mabrodb-
Could those restrictions exist to be in compliance with OPS Specs. C054 b (2) (a)?
It requires 15% additional runway length if the RVR is less than 4000. If the low vis weights are the same as the "wet" weights, then it's probably the reason.
scally and sandl-
I'm not on a CAT III a/c, so the higher gradient requirement is new to me. Is that also required in the US? If so, I would guess that it's a dispatch/takeoff requirement. I doubt that many would care about that if they actually were planning a single engine CAT III.
Could those restrictions exist to be in compliance with OPS Specs. C054 b (2) (a)?
It requires 15% additional runway length if the RVR is less than 4000. If the low vis weights are the same as the "wet" weights, then it's probably the reason.
scally and sandl-
I'm not on a CAT III a/c, so the higher gradient requirement is new to me. Is that also required in the US? If so, I would guess that it's a dispatch/takeoff requirement. I doubt that many would care about that if they actually were planning a single engine CAT III.
