LVO's
Oh, and 8, I looked at Hanover, 27r, which we carry as an alternate- we have CatIIIb 0',75m on that runway, so I guess it's US landing while YOU divert?
Maybe just your company that's restricted to CatIIIa there?
Maybe just your company that's restricted to CatIIIa there?
Last edited by Wizofoz; 10th Aug 2012 at 20:50.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz, I'm referring to Jeppesen published mins. Jepp depicts 175 M for CAT III A RWY 16 in MEL and for a good reason. CAT III A is classified as follows:
ILS CATEGORIES (ICAO) same for Ozz regs btw.
a.
ILS Category I — An ILS approach procedure which provides for an approach to a decision height not lower than 60m (200ft) and a visibility not less than 800m (2400ft) or a runway visual range not less than 550m (1800ft).
b.
ILS Category II (Special authorization required) — An ILS approach procedure which provides for an approach to a decision height lower than 60m (200ft) but not lower than 30m (100ft) and a runway visual range not less than 300m (1000ft) for aircraft categories A, B, C (D with auto landing), and not less than 350m (1200ft) for aircraft category D without auto landing.
c.
ILS Category III (Special authorization required) —
1.
IIIA — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with either a decision height lower than 30m (100ft) or with no decision height and with a runway visual range of not less than 175m (574ft).
2.
IIIB — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with either a decision height lower than 15m (50ft) or with no decision height and with a runway visual range of less than 175m (574ft) but not less than 50m (150ft).
3.
IIIC — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.
Well, EK got this CASA EX83/12 - Exemption - from standard take-off and landing minima - Emirates which explains the difference. Others can shoot CAT III A in MEL with TDZ 175, MID 175 and ROLLOUT 100 which can be ignored if ALD is within TDZ and MID. Auto land and rollout is required in this case however only fail passive.
If EK has managed to keep the mins uniform throughout the network by getting authorizations from different authorities then, it's the best option. I personally prefer EU OPS one.
ILS CATEGORIES (ICAO) same for Ozz regs btw.
a.
ILS Category I — An ILS approach procedure which provides for an approach to a decision height not lower than 60m (200ft) and a visibility not less than 800m (2400ft) or a runway visual range not less than 550m (1800ft).
b.
ILS Category II (Special authorization required) — An ILS approach procedure which provides for an approach to a decision height lower than 60m (200ft) but not lower than 30m (100ft) and a runway visual range not less than 300m (1000ft) for aircraft categories A, B, C (D with auto landing), and not less than 350m (1200ft) for aircraft category D without auto landing.
c.
ILS Category III (Special authorization required) —
1.
IIIA — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with either a decision height lower than 30m (100ft) or with no decision height and with a runway visual range of not less than 175m (574ft).
2.
IIIB — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with either a decision height lower than 15m (50ft) or with no decision height and with a runway visual range of less than 175m (574ft) but not less than 50m (150ft).
3.
IIIC — An ILS approach procedure which provides for approach with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.
Well, EK got this CASA EX83/12 - Exemption - from standard take-off and landing minima - Emirates which explains the difference. Others can shoot CAT III A in MEL with TDZ 175, MID 175 and ROLLOUT 100 which can be ignored if ALD is within TDZ and MID. Auto land and rollout is required in this case however only fail passive.
If EK has managed to keep the mins uniform throughout the network by getting authorizations from different authorities then, it's the best option. I personally prefer EU OPS one.
Last edited by 9.G; 10th Aug 2012 at 21:29.
It also explains why we don't use 175, 75, 75 for CatIIIa. We HAVE CatIIIb when everything is working, and only need CatIIIa when we have to downgrade.
I may have mentioned that??
Why would I quote Jepperson when we don't use them?
I may have mentioned that??
Why would I quote Jepperson when we don't use them?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coz it's not about specific operator here wiz, it's about rules and regs. Of course different operators will have different mins etc all depends on how much cash they're willing to spend. The intent of this thread is to clarify applicable regs let it be EU OPS, FAA or Ozzie ones. If you wanna talk specifically EK there's a thread dedicated to EK. This is for general public.
coz it's not about specific operator here wiz, it's about rules and regs.
And that's the interpretation YOU'VE decided to put on the thread so you can amaze us with your knowledge.
The thread was started by a newbie who wanted to know about CatIIA operations with minima of 50', 200m,125m,75m. Try reading the OP for reference.
Again, none of the information you've provided is wrong- but you presume to dictate what the topic of discussion is when it was actually about the rationale behind a particular set of minima in particular circumstances.
Last edited by Wizofoz; 10th Aug 2012 at 21:49.
Glad to provide you with some light entertainment, Checkie!!!
9.G has provided good, accurate information here and, I will certainly admit, shown me some things I didn't know.
My entire exposure to LVOs has been the 737 in Europe (which did not have roll-out guidence), and now the 777 in which we retain the 50', 200m minimum for CatIIIa for reasons I've outlined.
I DIDN'T realise 0'DH and 75m mid field was possible CIIIa.
Just a shane he can't present information without insulting perjoratives like "Utter Bollocks" attached!
9.G has provided good, accurate information here and, I will certainly admit, shown me some things I didn't know.
My entire exposure to LVOs has been the 737 in Europe (which did not have roll-out guidence), and now the 777 in which we retain the 50', 200m minimum for CatIIIa for reasons I've outlined.
I DIDN'T realise 0'DH and 75m mid field was possible CIIIa.
Just a shane he can't present information without insulting perjoratives like "Utter Bollocks" attached!
Both entertaining AND informative, Wiz.
But for your error in writing "guaranteed" when you meant "required" I was with you all the way.
My only experience of CatIII ops has been here in Europe, as I left Oz before CatIII was available there. European ops have always specified Cat IIIa as having a decision height of at least 50 feet, so I wasn't aware of no decision height Cat IIIa ops (min vis 175m) in other places around the world either.
But for your error in writing "guaranteed" when you meant "required" I was with you all the way.
My only experience of CatIII ops has been here in Europe, as I left Oz before CatIII was available there. European ops have always specified Cat IIIa as having a decision height of at least 50 feet, so I wasn't aware of no decision height Cat IIIa ops (min vis 175m) in other places around the world either.
No, I MEANT Guarenteed- I was just WRONG!!
It is interesting that people have mentioned there being "Many" CatIIIa only runways.
I've looked, and we seem to have none- CatIIIb or straight to CatII or I.
It is interesting that people have mentioned there being "Many" CatIIIa only runways.
I've looked, and we seem to have none- CatIIIb or straight to CatII or I.
8che
On the LIDO chart, yep, best available is CatIIIa BUT- we don't have LVO approval there, so are restricted to CatI.
On the LIDO chart, yep, best available is CatIIIa BUT- we don't have LVO approval there, so are restricted to CatI.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz, I wrote absolute bollocks not utter bollocks. It kinda makes it academical in a way but point taken. Sandpit takes it's toll, I guess. You're right I'm a pedant as the devil is always in the details.
that however doesn't absolve any of them from complying with the following:
Publication of minimums does not constitute authority for their use by all operators. Each individual operator must obtain appropriate approval for their use.
GENERAL
Jeppesen charted minimums are not below any State-provided minimums. Higher existing minimums for FAR 121 operators and those applying U.S. Operations Specifications are footnoted. RVR/CMV/VIS values are shown in measuring units as reported by the governing agency.
In case a operator is willing to pay for, tailored charts can be produced and that's what you fortunately have Wiz.
Jepperson are not a statutory authority, they are a commercial provider, as is LIDO.
Publication of minimums does not constitute authority for their use by all operators. Each individual operator must obtain appropriate approval for their use.
GENERAL
Jeppesen charted minimums are not below any State-provided minimums. Higher existing minimums for FAR 121 operators and those applying U.S. Operations Specifications are footnoted. RVR/CMV/VIS values are shown in measuring units as reported by the governing agency.
In case a operator is willing to pay for, tailored charts can be produced and that's what you fortunately have Wiz.
Last edited by 9.G; 11th Aug 2012 at 09:55.
No sweat, 9. Perhaps a little more thought into the how as well as the what information is delivered?
As I said, educational, and yes I had a mistaken impression, so please don't stop making factually correct posts.
As I said, educational, and yes I had a mistaken impression, so please don't stop making factually correct posts.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 CAT III OPERATIONS (EU-OPS 1)
CAT III operations are subdivided as follows:
a.
CAT IIIA: decision height lower than 100ft and RVR not less than 200m,
b.
CAT IIIB: decision height lower than 100ft or no decision height and RVR less than 200m but not less than 75m.
DECISION HEIGHT
For operations in which a decision height is used, an operator must ensure that the decision height is not lower than:
–
the minimum decision height specified in the Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent documents,
–
the minimum height to which the precision approach aid can be used without the required visual reference,
–
the decision height to which the flight crew is authorized to operate.
Operations with no decision height may only be conducted if:
–
the operation with no decision height is authorized in the Aircraft Flight Manual,
–
the approach aid and aerodrome facilities can support such operations,
–
the operator has an approval for CAT III operations with no decision height.
NOTE: In the case of a CAT III runway it may be assumed that operations with no decision height can be supported unless specifically restricted as published in the AIP or by NOTAM.
Whether an aerodrome is CAT III A or B mainly depends on the lightning system installed in particular taxi lights with red stop bars etc. That's why many aerodromes chose CAT III A certification only as it's cheaper yet still allows a fully automated approach, landing and rollout even with NO DH. Taxi is another story.
CAT III operations are subdivided as follows:
a.
CAT IIIA: decision height lower than 100ft and RVR not less than 200m,
b.
CAT IIIB: decision height lower than 100ft or no decision height and RVR less than 200m but not less than 75m.
DECISION HEIGHT
For operations in which a decision height is used, an operator must ensure that the decision height is not lower than:
–
the minimum decision height specified in the Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent documents,
–
the minimum height to which the precision approach aid can be used without the required visual reference,
–
the decision height to which the flight crew is authorized to operate.
Operations with no decision height may only be conducted if:
–
the operation with no decision height is authorized in the Aircraft Flight Manual,
–
the approach aid and aerodrome facilities can support such operations,
–
the operator has an approval for CAT III operations with no decision height.
NOTE: In the case of a CAT III runway it may be assumed that operations with no decision height can be supported unless specifically restricted as published in the AIP or by NOTAM.
Whether an aerodrome is CAT III A or B mainly depends on the lightning system installed in particular taxi lights with red stop bars etc. That's why many aerodromes chose CAT III A certification only as it's cheaper yet still allows a fully automated approach, landing and rollout even with NO DH. Taxi is another story.
Last edited by 9.G; 11th Aug 2012 at 10:56.
