Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I've looked at all the approach charts and there is a place for CAT IIIc minimums but it is listed as N/A. Are there any operator that are allowed to do them?
Are there operators allowed to do CAT IIIc?
- Thread starter Cessnaflyer
- Start date
JulietBravo
On Call, On Demand
CAT IIIc is autoland, essentially N/A means Not Applicable. You can land in 0/0.
Italianaviator
Well-Known Member
Yeah but don't you have to have auto taxi capability on your airplane and airport, which means localizers on the taxiways too? I mean whats the good to land at an airport if you can't vacate the runway or just have to sit on a runway because you can't see the taxiways or markings. That was my thought behind CAT IIIc. I wouldn't see the point to land in conditions worse than CATIIIa or b; at least you would have enough visibility to taxi.
Cessna414JJB
Unknown Member
Perfectly fine "Cessna Sundowner" why? :laff:
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
This starts to explain it. Also, there are Low Visibility Taxi Diagrams for major airports.
casey
Well-Known Member
CAT IIIc is a set of minimums (or lack thereof) to execute and approach and land on a runway. It may require autoland, but dont equate the two. Whether an approach requires autopilot use or autoland use is a function of the aircraft (heads up guidance systems, flight directors, number of autopilots), crew training and the regulations you are operating under.
Autolands on the other hand can be conducted in visual conditions to a Cat I runway if the plane is so equipped.
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
How about the irony in your avatar?
triple7
Well-Known Member
There are SMGCS routes that are published in the jeps. Low vis taxi charts that specify the route to be taxied. Below 1200 rvr requires centerline lights, and below 600 rvr requires cl and Edge lights on the taxiway, at least in our op specs. Basically you are following a string of taxi lights very very slowly.
A300Capt
Freight Dawg
I know of no US operators who's OpSpecs allow for a CATIIIc approach and landing. The landing is not the problem, it's the taxiing part that becomes the problem.
At UPS CATIIIB approaches are approved down to 600RVR on most of our fleets at approved airports. 300RVR CATIIb approaches are approved at a view major airports on the B75/76 fleet. Also at UPS anything less than CAT I approaches are conducted using the full autoland capabilities of the aircraft with the Capt as the PF and the F/O monitoring.
At UPS CATIIIB approaches are approved down to 600RVR on most of our fleets at approved airports. 300RVR CATIIb approaches are approved at a view major airports on the B75/76 fleet. Also at UPS anything less than CAT I approaches are conducted using the full autoland capabilities of the aircraft with the Capt as the PF and the F/O monitoring.
Holding Short
Well-Known Member
I didn't see any irons.
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
Wow..........do I really need to spell it out? You're dogging on a guy (CFI non-the-less) who asks a questions about a CatIIIc approach with a Cessna in his Avatar when you yourself are a STUDENT pilot with the cockpit of a big shinny jet in your avatar. THAT is irony........
(At least that's what it looks like from just reading this post, I could be taking it all out of context.\)
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
Um, I was thinking he was noting the irony of someone being a CessnaFlyer and having something non-Cessna as an avatar. I might, as usual, be all wet on that though.
MarkE
Greetings, Professor Falken
That was the impression i got as well. I think DPA is just having a little fun.
DPApilot
GUYSH! GUYSH! GUYSH!
I think he was implying that it was hypocritical for me to say that, when im a student pilot with an A320-232 as my avatar..
But, in all fairness, i got to fly it!
