Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!Shasta!kaufman
From: kaufman@Shasta.ARPA (Marc Kaufman)
Newsgroups: net.travel,net.aviation,net.sci
Subject: Re: Airport Fog - Thanks for replies
Message-ID: <243@Shasta.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Apr-86 20:12:40 EST
Article-I.D.: Shasta.243
Posted: Tue Apr 15 20:12:40 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Apr-86 04:58:54 EST
References: <520@ssc-bee.UUCP> <1501@lanl.ARPA> <530@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Reply-To: kaufman@Shasta.UUCP (Marc Kaufman)
Distribution: net
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.travel:2401 net.aviation:2758 net.sci:726

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!