why is there no CAT III plates?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why is there no CAT III plates?
Hey,
I was thumbing through my jeppy - TUK04, Heathrow, Manchester, Liverpool etc etc.. and no CAT III approach plates, just CAT I & II. ~Very confused?
Help please!
Thanks gang
G74
I was thumbing through my jeppy - TUK04, Heathrow, Manchester, Liverpool etc etc.. and no CAT III approach plates, just CAT I & II. ~Very confused?
Help please!
Thanks gang
G74
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't understand why, major international airports such as EGLL would not publish, and jeppesen print a CAT III plate!!.... confusion must come from this. Shooting a CAT III B Approach off a CAT II Plate! I don't know..........
Genius 747: EGLL do not publish their own plates; they're published by the UK CAA then copied by private companies Jeppesen, who are un-regulated, thus they can print what they like.
Correction; for un-regulated read self-regulated.
Correction; for un-regulated read self-regulated.
Last edited by chevvron; 5th Jan 2007 at 06:37.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: hotel
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike in CAT I and II the DH and RVR in CATIII are only aircraft related and the same in the whole world. At DH you will always be over the runway. The only thing you have to know is if the runway is CATIII or not.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: On this planet, right above the equator
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and if you like Jeppesen would design and print a taylord copy of a CAT II and CAT III approach for your airline, or your self if you like to spend the money involved in taylored charts 
.
Most companies I used to work for, used only the standard set issued by Jeppesen and we had to use a list where for each airport and each runway the applicable minima and req'd. RVR values was published. Was easy to use and not a big issue
. For "the rest" of the approach the CAT II chart is sufficient, as except for the minima box there would be not much of a change.
.Most companies I used to work for, used only the standard set issued by Jeppesen and we had to use a list where for each airport and each runway the applicable minima and req'd. RVR values was published. Was easy to use and not a big issue
. For "the rest" of the approach the CAT II chart is sufficient, as except for the minima box there would be not much of a change.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Insert something funny here==>__________
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company uses Jeppesen charts.
We have tailored Jeppesen charts for CAT II/III plates with our company name printed on the header. Slightly easier to use than what alatnariver describes but probably a lot more expensive!!
We have tailored Jeppesen charts for CAT II/III plates with our company name printed on the header. Slightly easier to use than what alatnariver describes but probably a lot more expensive!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth shall we have to search for a small text on the airport diagram plate stating CATII/III...? It's simply rediculous. Sometimes (when diverting for instance), you don't have any time to waste.
But more importantly is that for CATIIIa, minima is not 50 feet RA...it's less than 100 down to 50 feet RA. So lets say the CATII minima is 105 RA for a specific approach, how can we just set 50 RA for a CATIIIa approach using the same plate?? To spell it out, how can it be that if the JAR-OPS CATII system minima can not be applied for an approach, why shall we automatically apply the system minima for a CATIIIa approach?
For that very reason it would have been sooooooo much easier with the damn plate in our hands.
But more importantly is that for CATIIIa, minima is not 50 feet RA...it's less than 100 down to 50 feet RA. So lets say the CATII minima is 105 RA for a specific approach, how can we just set 50 RA for a CATIIIa approach using the same plate?? To spell it out, how can it be that if the JAR-OPS CATII system minima can not be applied for an approach, why shall we automatically apply the system minima for a CATIIIa approach?
For that very reason it would have been sooooooo much easier with the damn plate in our hands.
Last edited by RYR-738-JOCKEY; 5th Jan 2007 at 12:14.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why shall we automatically apply the system minima for a CATIIIa approach?
Have a look at the front of the TEXT Jepp binder and you'll find the Cat II/III minima for each airport and runway. Everything else on the plate is the same. I'm a bit concerned you didn't know that (if your alias is what you do).
P
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Have a look at the front of the TEXT Jepp binder and you'll find ..."
Well, we don't carry a complete Jepp binder. We assemble a tripkit containing plates for dest+alternates. But anyway, thanx for the info. I have done alot of CATIIIa's and to my understanding the 50 RA is what we use. It has indeed puzzled me for a long time but I now understand that it is because of specific RYR ops...not having the complete binder onboard.
Well, we don't carry a complete Jepp binder. We assemble a tripkit containing plates for dest+alternates. But anyway, thanx for the info. I have done alot of CATIIIa's and to my understanding the 50 RA is what we use. It has indeed puzzled me for a long time but I now understand that it is because of specific RYR ops...not having the complete binder onboard.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds rather a dubious practice. What happens if you're halfway there and need to put down somewhere in a hurry with a fire or whatever? If you only have plates for destination, alternates, and a few company stations on the way then you could find yourself very limited indeed.
The simple answer to the originally posted question is that Jeppesen's standard subscription service does not include CATIII charts. They must be ordered on an individual basis. The reason for this is that CATIII certification is based upon state approval, and in some cases, different operators have different CAT III RVR minima, depending on the aircraft equipment, training and experience, and the regulations of the state of registry.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Insert something funny here==>__________
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there then a difference between airport facilities for CATII and CATIII?
I mean is the only difference between II and III aircraft equipment and training etc.?
Or is there also different criteria concerning ILS sensitive areas, ground equipment and so on?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
738 jock
The cat 2 minima may be 105 ra, but that would still be 100 ft above the runway, most likely a dip in terrain on approach, sometimes the cat 2 is 80 ra but you wouldn't be permitted less than system minima. There is no cat2 (for cat c or above) to MAN 6r due to the valley on approach but you can still do cat3.
IN
The cat 2 minima may be 105 ra, but that would still be 100 ft above the runway, most likely a dip in terrain on approach, sometimes the cat 2 is 80 ra but you wouldn't be permitted less than system minima. There is no cat2 (for cat c or above) to MAN 6r due to the valley on approach but you can still do cat3.
IN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permafrost wrote: "I'm glad there is a logical explanation ;-)"
Yep...it's not my fault ;-)
No, but seriously the reason for my attitude is that I believe that we're not applying the correct minima in some cases. We always (at least to my understanding) use the 50 RA for CATIIIa which I believe is wrong.
As in my example of a CATII minima of 105 RA, I presume the CATIIIa would be higher than 50, perhaps 55...
I believe J.O. has the answer for my case.
(Seat1APlease: Of course we carry plates for unforeseen diversions enroute..."emergency bricks" which we in normal ops don't open. BTW did you know that seat 1a has the highest death potentional in a crash?
)
Yep...it's not my fault ;-)
No, but seriously the reason for my attitude is that I believe that we're not applying the correct minima in some cases. We always (at least to my understanding) use the 50 RA for CATIIIa which I believe is wrong.
As in my example of a CATII minima of 105 RA, I presume the CATIIIa would be higher than 50, perhaps 55...
I believe J.O. has the answer for my case.
(Seat1APlease: Of course we carry plates for unforeseen diversions enroute..."emergency bricks" which we in normal ops don't open. BTW did you know that seat 1a has the highest death potentional in a crash?
)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Issi Noho,
You cannot do any form of low vis approach on to 06R at Man !
The ILS is a Cat1 installation only.
If Cat11 is not available you can bet your bottom dollar Cat111 is out as well.
If all else fails Aerad enroute supplements will tell you what the airfield is capable. (or ATC of course)
You cannot do any form of low vis approach on to 06R at Man !
The ILS is a Cat1 installation only.
If Cat11 is not available you can bet your bottom dollar Cat111 is out as well.
If all else fails Aerad enroute supplements will tell you what the airfield is capable. (or ATC of course)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. My mistake I should have said MAN 06L
2. when the approach is surveyed/tested 100 ft above the runway threshold on the glide path is calculated and ground beneath that point in space (most likely approach lights not runway) is also surveyed if this happens to be a small mound it is quite feasible that the RA displayed when the ac is 100 ft above threshold elev may be 80 ft. Your ops manual, if your submission for cat2 approval was thorough enough, should have guidance on this to avoid pilots thinking the minima they use is rubbish.
3. By virtue of the fact most airports don't surround themselves with small hills it is more likely to have a dip in the ground surrounding a runway hence you often see CAT 2 minima of 105 or 110. This is still 100ft above runway threshold.
4 CAT 3 is very definitely above the runway at decide 50ft is therefore correct.
5. MAN 06L has minima for Cat2 for catB ac but not C/D due to erroneous RA readings at decide associated with the higher speeds and the river cutting below. CAT3 is permitted all cats
Hope this clarifies my point.
IN
2. when the approach is surveyed/tested 100 ft above the runway threshold on the glide path is calculated and ground beneath that point in space (most likely approach lights not runway) is also surveyed if this happens to be a small mound it is quite feasible that the RA displayed when the ac is 100 ft above threshold elev may be 80 ft. Your ops manual, if your submission for cat2 approval was thorough enough, should have guidance on this to avoid pilots thinking the minima they use is rubbish.
3. By virtue of the fact most airports don't surround themselves with small hills it is more likely to have a dip in the ground surrounding a runway hence you often see CAT 2 minima of 105 or 110. This is still 100ft above runway threshold.
4 CAT 3 is very definitely above the runway at decide 50ft is therefore correct.
5. MAN 06L has minima for Cat2 for catB ac but not C/D due to erroneous RA readings at decide associated with the higher speeds and the river cutting below. CAT3 is permitted all cats
Hope this clarifies my point.
IN