"Restricted to Cat I and II aircraft only"? - Charted visual approach

RussR

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,391
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Russ
Charted visual approach at HNL. What is meant by "Restricted to Cat I and Cat II aircraft only"? I am familiar with Cat I and Cat II (and Cat III) approaches, but that doesn't seem to be the meaning here, since it's a visual approach.

Before I ask the FAA ;), is there some meaning of Cat I and II I'm missing here? I would understand it if it said "Cat A and B aircraft only", but that's not what it says.

upload_2020-7-8_7-54-8.png
 
RussR said:
Charted visual approach at HNL. What is meant by "Restricted to Cat I and Cat II aircraft only"? I am familiar with Cat I and Cat II (and Cat III) approaches, but that doesn't seem to be the meaning here, since it's a visual approach.

Before I ask the FAA ;), is there some meaning of Cat I and II I'm missing here? I would understand it if it said "Cat A and B aircraft only", but that's not what it says.

View attachment 87471
Click to expand...
Aircraft size would be my guess.
 
aterpster said:
Nope. Approach categories are A, B, C, D, and E. Category I and II have something to do with wingspan and/or aircraft weight for runway purposes, not instrument procedures purposes.
Click to expand...
Ok. Call me educated. Too early in the morning, i guess.
 
aterpster said:
Nope. Approach categories are A, B, C, D, and E. Category I and II have something to do with wingspan and/or aircraft weight for runway purposes, not instrument procedures purposes.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure that might be it. If so, it doesn’t really belong on the Chart. And certainly not called CAT instead of Category. It’s what Controllers use for Runway separation. Category I is single engine props 12,500 lbs or less. II is twin props 12,500 lbs or less. III is everything else. So it looks like they don’t want Jets and heavier props doing it. If this is it, then putting it on the Chart is just confusing, especially as CAT which pilots relate to Instrument Approach minimums. It can taken care of by ATC simply not gIving the Clearance to Category III airplanes,
 
luvflyin said:
I’m pretty sure that might be it. If so, it doesn’t really belong on the Chart. And certainly not called CAT instead of Category. It’s what Controllers use for Runway separation. Category I is single engine props 12,500 lbs or less. II is twin props 12,500 lbs or less. III is everything else. So it looks like they don’t want Jets and heavier props doing it. If this is it, then putting it on the Chart is just confusing, especially as CAT which pilots relate to Instrument Approach minimums. It can taken care of by ATC simply not gIving the Clearance to Category III airplanes,
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Part 23 class I/II? Your numbers/weights are off, but it'd be strange to see them mixing up class/cat of GA aircraft.
 
jrcox19 said:
Are you talking about Part 23 class I/II? Your numbers/weights are off, but it'd be strange to see them mixing up class/cat of GA aircraft.
Click to expand...

No. It's this from the Controllers Handbook JO 7111.65Y(pretty sure Y is the current edition.) Paragraph 3-9-6

CATEGORY I small single−engine propeller driven
aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, and all helicopters.
CATEGORY II small twin−engine propeller driven
aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less.
CATEGORY III all other aircraft.

There are other things where words like category, class, group etc get used for unrelated things and cause confusion
 
I’ve landed on 4R in a 737 a few times ant I think the 777 has landed on it. I wonder why there is a weight restriction on 22L. Same piece of pavement.
 
Maybe they're using the Cat I/II as a surrogate way to say "smaller airplanes" for example, for noise abatement reasons?

However, choosing a term that is only in the ATC handbook (and then, only in the "Same Runway Separation" sections), that apparently most pilots don't know seems misguided.
 
RussR said:
Maybe they're using the Cat I/II as a surrogate way to say "smaller airplanes" for example, for noise abatement reasons?

However, choosing a term that is only in the ATC handbook (and then, only in the "Same Runway Separation" sections), that apparently most pilots don't know seems misguided.
Click to expand...

Probably. Them anchor clankers/jarheads at the golf course don't want that jet noise disturbing their concentration when putting
 
RussR said:
Maybe they're using the Cat I/II as a surrogate way to say "smaller airplanes" for example, for noise abatement reasons?

However, choosing a term that is only in the ATC handbook (and then, only in the "Same Runway Separation" sections), that apparently most pilots don't know seems misguided.
Click to expand...
When I operated into PHNL 1986-90, no airline airplanes ever used runways 22L/R for landing. Takeoffs were rare, if ever, for airlines except perhaps the inter-island airliners.
 
Cool approach. Basically right over Ford Island, over or next to the Arizona. From memory, higher terrain to your left shortly after coming on shore. I suspect the cat restriction is there because of the sharp turn at the end.

Where it comes ashore, there are actually 4 lagoons to the south, not just one as shown.
 
bflynn said:
Cool approach. Basically right over Ford Island, over or next to the Arizona. From memory, higher terrain to your left shortly after coming on shore. I suspect the cat restriction is there because of the sharp turn at the end.

Where it comes ashore, there are actually 4 lagoons to the south, not just one as shown.
Click to expand...


PHNL 1_24000.jpg
 
We did that visual approach last year in the sim. Very interesting to see it and then overfly Ford Island and have rising terrain on the left.
 
4L/R-22L/R also have the distinction of being so close that you can't exit one runway without incursing* onto the other. The distance between the solid lines of the hold short markings is about 20 feet.

upload_2020-7-8_12-58-2.png

* verb form of incursion?

But at least it's marginally better than it used to be. Before about 2015, this was how it was marked:

upload_2020-7-8_13-6-50.png
 
Last edited:
jrcox19 said:
That would be "incur" (incurring)
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's right. It's certainly not the same connotation.
Incur - become subject to (something unwelcome or unpleasant) as a result of one's own behavior or actions. "I will pay any expenses incurred"
Incursion - an invasion or attack, especially a sudden or brief one. "incursions into enemy territory"
Click to expand...
 
Premier 1 Driver better not try and land there :).
 
RussR said:
I don't know if that's right. It's certainly not the same connotation.
Click to expand...
incursion
[inˈkərZHən]
NOUN
  1. an invasion or attack, especially a sudden or brief one.
    "incursions into enemy territory"
    synonyms:
    attack on · assault on · raid on · invasion of · storming of · overrunning of · foray into · blitz on · sortie into · sally against/into · advance on/into · push into · thrust into · descent on · intrusion into · trespass on · infiltration of · obtrusion into · appropriation of
 
I will have to dig up my hand-drawn visual approach procedures I made in 2003ish and see how much they have changed...

Hawaii is a very fun and interesting place to fly.
 
luvflyin said:
If that’s the case the Chart should say Group, not CAT.
Click to expand...
I agree. And the more I dove into this, the more I think I’m wrong. Everything I’ve seen has the Aircraft Design Group being used in relation to airport operations on the ground (i.e. Taxiway W only usable for Group II or smaller).

I really think they mean Cat A or B not Cat I or II.
 
The only use so far that makes sense is the one posted by @luvflyin , from the 7110.65 where they use the terms Cat I and Cat II (and Cat III) in a section about same runway takeoff and landing separation, Where Cat I/II would be piston-powered airplanes under 12,500 pounds.
 
RussR said:
The only use so far that makes sense is the one posted by @luvflyin , from the 7110.65 where they use the terms Cat I and Cat II (and Cat III) in a section about same runway takeoff and landing separation, Where Cat I/II would be piston-powered airplanes under 12,500 pounds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, probably. It's pretty stupid though to put something so esoteric like that on an approach plate where 99% of the pilots using it (including myself) would have no idea what they were talking about.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Yeah, probably. It's pretty stupid though to put something so esoteric like that on an approach plate where 99% of the pilots using it (including myself) would have no idea what they were talking about.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I cannot find anything in the AIM that references it
 
From source:

Note: Radar required Procedure not authorized at night Restricted to CAT I and CAT II aircraft only Pilots may expect landing Runway 22R
 
luvflyin said:
That one describes the ‘route.’ There’s one of the 8260/whatevers that usually gives the reasons something is there. I’d bet that this CAT I, II thing is at ATC request.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the 8260-9 form, the "data record". There is none for a charted visual flight procedure. A CVFP is not TERPSed and does not get the same level of evaluation. A CVFP is developed by ATC, not TERPS, so the Cat I/II thing was indeed specifically put in there by ATC.
 
RussR said:
You're thinking of the 8260-9 form, the "data record". There is none for a charted visual flight procedure. A CVFP is not TERPSed and does not get the same level of evaluation. A CVFP is developed by ATC, not TERPS, so the Cat I/II thing was indeed specifically put in there by ATC.
Click to expand...

Ah. I see it had to go as far up the food chain as Flight Inspection in Oke City. You’d think that someone would have asked ‘what’s this CAT I and II stuff’ before slapping their signature on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top