maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (04/04/86)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone very much for their responses to my queries regarding the proposal to implement a FIDO type solution to the problem of fog at airports. Having read and digested what was generously offered both via e-mail and openly on the net, I have come to the conclusion that the idea is both out of date and inpractical due to expense and risks to the environment as well as a potential disruptance to naighbors of airports. Furthermore the idea appear not the be necessary at all due to the availablity of the Cat III landing systems which have been used in airports in Europe. I did not know about this system until I was enlightened by several netters. Maybee some of you can enlighten me why this system is not being implemented on a full scale here in the US. Could it be that the FAA is not doing their job??? Mark A. Allyn !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (04/11/86)
> And you have to look at the other side of the coin - what are the take- > off minimums for Part 121 and 135 operatioons. "Two engines or more" > still would require 1/2 mile visability to depart, so even if you could > "get em down" you would end up with a bunch of heavy iron sitting on the > ground waiting. > Perhaps, in light of the available technology, maybee these parts (121 and 135) should be changed to reduce or eliminate the minimums any comments ??
kaufman@Shasta.ARPA (Marc Kaufman) (04/16/86)
In article <530@ssc-bee.UUCP> maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: >> And you have to look at the other side of the coin - what are the take- >> off minimums for Part 121 and 135 operatioons. "Two engines or more" >> still would require 1/2 mile visability to depart... >> > >Perhaps, in light of the available technology, maybee these parts >(121 and 135) should be changed to reduce or eliminate the minimums >any comments ?? I'd love to see a catagory III rejected takeoff from a V1 cut.. but only from somewhere else!
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (04/20/86)
> In article <530@ssc-bee.UUCP> maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) writes: > >> And you have to look at the other side of the coin - what are the take- > >> off minimums for Part 121 and 135 operatioons. "Two engines or more" > >> still would require 1/2 mile visability to depart... > >> > > > >Perhaps, in light of the available technology, maybee these parts > >(121 and 135) should be changed to reduce or eliminate the minimums > >any comments ?? > > I'd love to see a catagory III rejected takeoff from a V1 cut.. > but only from somewhere else! Can you please elaborate. I not quite sure what you mean.t