Like I said, take it up with the FAA, maybe we can all spend $2 waiting on a new certificate to arrive in the mail with wording that is to your liking.

Or, just ask an APD or any other knowledgeable checkairman/instructor as to why it says what it does.

If you get a better answer then what I've given, by all means, hit us with it.

-Class B=1 sm and clear of clouds..... VMC?.

Well, thanks for trying but you gave us a non answer.

The fact that some circling approaches have mins below what is defined as "VFR" is beside the point since regardless of the actual circling mins, you still conduct the maneuver in "VMC ONLY." In your example that "not ALL airlines train to fly the manuever at the ACTUAL circling minima," what if an airline trained to do the manuever only to 800 and 2? Would their limitation say "VMC ONLY?" You would be below basic VFR weather minimums yet you would be still be able to theoretically conduct the manuever if the weather was at least that good and be in "VMC." That's according to your theory of course.

I know its all symantics but in this case the symantics does actually make a difference.

Like the other guy said, most (not all, but most) airlines are only allowed to execute circling when it's 1000/3 or better. You know, VFR WX criteria. Even if it's "marginal" per exact definition.

You mean VFR is 1 SM and clear of clouds. And yes, it would be VMC as well.

Read my previous post. At my previous carrier we were trained AND checked to circle at the circling mins. And I know were not the ONLY operator at that time to do so. So like I said, the type rating issued carried NO restriction. Also, in my previous post. Later, we were no longer trained nor authorized to execute a circle unless the WX was 1000/3 on jet equipment. And like I said, NO, a new type rating was not issued stating such. Just a revision to the FOM/FSM (what we call the CFM at XJT) stating such.

If you want to argue, at least give me the courtesy of reading what I wrote previously. And like I said, next time you are in the school house, ask an instructor and see what answer you get.

You sir, owe me a keyboard!

Not really arguing but just saying it was a non answer (ie asking me to ask someone else). I did read your post. Its irrelevant since you didn't get the type with the limitation to begin with. So if the company decided not to allow the manuever than obviously they are not going to slap the limitation on the actual certificate when they just write it into their ops manual.

The point remains that you cannot do the maneuver in IMC. The definition of VMC and VFR are two distinct things. So the point that you made in your posts that some circling minima are below basic VFR weather minimums is irrelevant. That is what I was trying to point out in my example of an airline training their pilots to conduct the manuver but only to 800 and 2. That is below basic VFR weather minimums and according to your logic they would not have the restriction on their certificate since that is below basic VFR weather.

You have to have... otherwise you wouldnt be in the rightseat.

Edited. Meant to use RA instead of DA.

Click here, go down to Visual Meteorological Conditions. It states a specfic "minma"

V

If the 121 operator defines VMC as being 1000/3, you know, VFR, then VMC complies with the 'minima" as it's outlaid by the FAA's defintion. I don't have the CFM/FOM handy as I'm at home so I can't readily look up how XJT defines it. But some OTHER airlines, and I'm guessing for a reason, use VMC to indicate VFR. Hence, the FAA using that specific wording on the type since it was obtained under a SPECIFIC operator's training program.

How so? If the airline trains to published circling minimums, how is that irrelevant? We're trained to CAT II mins, and every time I've done it, it was to one that had a specified RA on the plate. But we can ALSO execute a CAT II that does not have a RA (PIT I believe?). The IM NOW becomes the MAP. I've never been trained nor demonstrated this type of CATII, but I can STILL do it. Our CFM/FOM/OPSPECS carry no restrictions.

See above.