Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
From: maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn)
Newsgroups: net.travel,net.aviation,net.sci
Subject: Re: Airport Fog - Thanks for replies
Message-ID: <537@ssc-bee.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Apr-86 21:19:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-bee.537
Posted: Sat Apr 19 21:19:39 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 06:58:40 EDT
References: <520@ssc-bee.UUCP> <1501@lanl.ARPA> <530@ssc-bee.UUCP> <243@Shasta.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.travel:2478 net.aviation:2797 net.sci:755

> 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