Cat 3 D/H/RVR missing from plates.
 

Noticed on a few plates recently that they have CAT 3 titled but no mention of the required DH and RVR. Is it still CAT3 or not? Find this very strange.

Thanks

CAT 3 approaches need specific operator approval - so the minima is probably in the CCI pages, as the plate is generic for all operators.

So why then using that logic are the CAT 2 minima displayed ? That also needs operator approval.

Same thing in FAA land. The crew has to know the capability of their aircraft and what they are trained for. The FAA is slowly getting away from labeling approaches CAT 3A or CAT 3B or CAT 3C. Now the updated approach plate will just have a RVR. In a plane with a fail operational autopilot the crew might be able to shoot approach with 300 RVR and no DH. But a different airplane with a fail passive autopilot might be limited to 700 RVR and have a 50 foot DH.

Very true. Then how do you know the required RVR is 200m and not 175m when it’s not displayed.

Don’t think Cat 2 minima varies.

so logic wise it would be better employed not to state the CAT2 minima then….

Cat 2 minima does vary, depending on the terrain immediately before the runway

Correct. I meant it doesn’t vary by aircraft type or airline in the same way as Cat 3 (apart from CAT C D etc which is published on the plate).

Still not really answered my question unfortunately. What happens if there’s no details on the CCI pages. Why is the minima still missing on the charts but still states Cat3?

In the case of CAT III with no DH and no RVR, that would only exist under CAT IIIc. But CAT IIIc is still purely theoretical — no airport in the world currently operates it.

What we have today are CAT III procedures with no DH, but they still require an RVR.This means that the lowest landing minima published on the chart is “no DH,” and the actual usable minima (DH or RVR)depend on the aircraft, the crew qualification, and the operator’s policy. The RVR minimum, however, is still defined by the airport and must be met.

If CAT IIIc were ever implemented and did not require RVR (essentially RVR 0), that would only indicate the maximum capability of the airport. Whether you can actually land or not would still depend on the same factors mentioned above.The DH or RVR shown on the chart represents the capability of the runway or the airport — not the capability of the aircraft or the pilot.If there were “No DH” and “No RVR,” it could be written as zero or simply left blank.

I’ve only ever seen CAT III charts with no DH, but I have never seen any chart with no RVR or no minima as you said. Could you show an example or provide such a chart? I’d like to see it.

When I say no DH/RVR I mean a complete absence of the figures within the minima box. Although the minima box is still titled CAT3, found at the bottom left of the chart.

Whose chart is it—Lido, Jeppesen, or the AIP?If they really publish it that way, there should be an explanation in the chart legend.If possible, please upload a picture of it. I’ve genuinely never seen one like that.

We have answered your question - you just don’t understand it. Can I ask in what capacity you are asking and why? And maybe showing a bit of gratitude / appreciation that people are trying to help you answer the question would be nice.

It's telling you the airport equipment complies with Cat 3. There's no minima because the minima is specific to the operator (known in most airlines as the 'OPS SPEC' documentation). If your airline does Cat 3 it will be stated somewhere what minima and at which airfield you can use it.

Think of it this way: If the chart had absolute Cat 3B minima of 75m with no decision height, and your aircraft was Cat 3A (most 737s) then you might land illegally by using that chart minima?

PS Not all LIDO users have CCI pages. That's a chargeable option from LIDO. My airline puts the minima in a Cat3 table in the eQRH.

Because the obstacle/terrain survey will result in a certain DH, which depends on the terrain profile ahead of the runway threshold. For Cat 3, by definition, you'll already be over the threshold at minimums.