Low Visibility Operations in Biz-jets
@ GlobalNav...
Any corporation that can afford a $20M plus aircraft can afford to be a CAT II operator. The cost of training the crews to CAT II is negligible and the maintenance cost with modern digital avionics is also negligible.
In our operation here in Canada, both private and commercial, as per our COM and SOPs, we had to do an initial company CAT II course/lesson (on-line) followed by a small written exam. Then when in training at Bombardier for a recurrent, we had an initial CAT II slide presentation prior to our sim followed by a sim session with four CAT II approaches some with failures during the approach and one with a missed approach... Done!
Once the above is done, all that is required in our operation as per our COM and SOPs, is our annual recurrent training in which a CAT II approach is flown.
The difference between the commercial ops (704) and private ops (604) is that if you operate commercially to keep you CAT II validation a PPC/flight test is required annually versus in a private ops it is every two years.
So the only additional cost pilot wise is the initial course and sim training. Afterwards a CAT II approach is used for the precision approach portion required by TC (instead of a CAT I) in our regular recurrent sim training.
On the maintenance side, I'm told by our chief engineer that in our normal/regular maintenance programs that have been in effect for many years (this even prior to being CAT II certified) on both the Challenger 604 and our Globals cover the CAT II maintenance requirements... We do not have to do anything special to keep the aircrafts CAT II certified so no additional costs.
Agreed. The cost of maintaining Cat II and Cat III qualifications, both for crew training and equipment is apparently more than it's worth in the pt 91 world. It would seem that the G650 coming out of the factory as Cat I instead of Cat II is an acknowledgment of that, plus the accomplishments of EFVS and eventually, perhaps, potential of SVS to provide access to more airports in low visibility without the Cat II baggage.
In our operation here in Canada, both private and commercial, as per our COM and SOPs, we had to do an initial company CAT II course/lesson (on-line) followed by a small written exam. Then when in training at Bombardier for a recurrent, we had an initial CAT II slide presentation prior to our sim followed by a sim session with four CAT II approaches some with failures during the approach and one with a missed approach... Done!
Once the above is done, all that is required in our operation as per our COM and SOPs, is our annual recurrent training in which a CAT II approach is flown.
The difference between the commercial ops (704) and private ops (604) is that if you operate commercially to keep you CAT II validation a PPC/flight test is required annually versus in a private ops it is every two years.
So the only additional cost pilot wise is the initial course and sim training. Afterwards a CAT II approach is used for the precision approach portion required by TC (instead of a CAT I) in our regular recurrent sim training.
On the maintenance side, I'm told by our chief engineer that in our normal/regular maintenance programs that have been in effect for many years (this even prior to being CAT II certified) on both the Challenger 604 and our Globals cover the CAT II maintenance requirements... We do not have to do anything special to keep the aircrafts CAT II certified so no additional costs.
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 8th Mar 2017 at 13:22.
@Jet Jockey A4
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I believe that most pt91 operators of bizjets that came equipped with Cat II out of the factory (whether Gulfstreams, Bombardier, etc.) have chosen not maintain Cat II qualification.
There is a means to do so, but I suppose not enough demand, given the cost.
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I believe that most pt91 operators of bizjets that came equipped with Cat II out of the factory (whether Gulfstreams, Bombardier, etc.) have chosen not maintain Cat II qualification.
There is a means to do so, but I suppose not enough demand, given the cost.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are an German EASA NCC operator (what you Mericans know as Part 91) and we have biggest difficulty with the LBA to get our LVOps up and going.
With NCC you are stuck with 800m VIS for T/O, which is a show stopper often.
Our Sovereign could be equipped to be CAT II able (just a software update) but given my ongoing experience with our authority I doubt it would be ever possible to get and keep it.
With NCC you are stuck with 800m VIS for T/O, which is a show stopper often.
Our Sovereign could be equipped to be CAT II able (just a software update) but given my ongoing experience with our authority I doubt it would be ever possible to get and keep it.
@ GlobalNav...
Just to make sure we understand each other, our Challenger and Globals came from the factory with a CAT II supplement in their AFMs. This means the aircraft is certified to do CAT II approaches.
Like I said our regular maintenance program keeps those aircrafts airworthy to conduct the CAT IIs... The aircraft does not lose its CAT II certification or status because a flight department decided not to conduct CAT II operations.
It is up to the operator or a flight department's management to ask its country's authority (FAA, TC or JAA/EASA) to get CAT II approval in the same way an operator needs to get an Ops spec for 1200 RVR or 600 RVR takeoffs or to fly in RVSM airspace just to name a few.
Just to make sure we understand each other, our Challenger and Globals came from the factory with a CAT II supplement in their AFMs. This means the aircraft is certified to do CAT II approaches.
Like I said our regular maintenance program keeps those aircrafts airworthy to conduct the CAT IIs... The aircraft does not lose its CAT II certification or status because a flight department decided not to conduct CAT II operations.
It is up to the operator or a flight department's management to ask its country's authority (FAA, TC or JAA/EASA) to get CAT II approval in the same way an operator needs to get an Ops spec for 1200 RVR or 600 RVR takeoffs or to fly in RVSM airspace just to name a few.
@ GlobalNav...
Just to make sure we understand each other, our Challenger and Globals came from the factory with a CAT II supplement in their AFMs. This means the aircraft is certified to do CAT II approaches.
Like I said our regular maintenance program keeps those aircrafts airworthy to conduct the CAT IIs... The aircraft does not lose its CAT II certification or status because a flight department decided not to conduct CAT II operations.
It is up to the operator or a flight department's management to ask its country's authority (FAA, TC or JAA/EASA) to get CAT II approval in the same way an operator needs to get an Ops spec for 1200 RVR or 600 RVR takeoffs or to fly in RVSM airspace just to name a few.
Just to make sure we understand each other, our Challenger and Globals came from the factory with a CAT II supplement in their AFMs. This means the aircraft is certified to do CAT II approaches.
Like I said our regular maintenance program keeps those aircrafts airworthy to conduct the CAT IIs... The aircraft does not lose its CAT II certification or status because a flight department decided not to conduct CAT II operations.
It is up to the operator or a flight department's management to ask its country's authority (FAA, TC or JAA/EASA) to get CAT II approval in the same way an operator needs to get an Ops spec for 1200 RVR or 600 RVR takeoffs or to fly in RVSM airspace just to name a few.
The advent of vision systems, especially EFVS, offers the prospect of instrument approaches and landings in less than the typical Cat I visibility minima without the Cat II burden and to many more runways. This is exactly what the FAA is making available.
@ GlobalNav...
Well I don't understand why it would be expensive in the USA when it is not in Canada for both private/604 (which is the same as pt91) and commercial/704 (which is similar to pt125) operators.
I agree with you that hopefully in the future EFVS will be the way to go but in Canada we are still at this time not allowed to use our EVS system on the Global to lower our visual minimums... We cannot take credit of the EVS because TC never approved it. We hope to get TC to change their mind about it and also get credit for HUDs for lower vis.
Well I don't understand why it would be expensive in the USA when it is not in Canada for both private/604 (which is the same as pt91) and commercial/704 (which is similar to pt125) operators.
I agree with you that hopefully in the future EFVS will be the way to go but in Canada we are still at this time not allowed to use our EVS system on the Global to lower our visual minimums... We cannot take credit of the EVS because TC never approved it. We hope to get TC to change their mind about it and also get credit for HUDs for lower vis.
I am not arguing the cost nor the value of Category II but only observe that the majority of operators of bizjets that came out of the factory with Cat II have chosen, presumably for economic reasons, not to use it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat 2 costs "supposed costs" are coming from managers raised in this vision. Days where type ratings were all conducted in planes, etc..
Nowadays CAT 2 is a given ( besides the approval), training costs are identical and maintenance the same (included in every single maintenance manual coupled with RVSM and EGPWS checks)
But the myth is solid, and very few people would get to challenge a "stiff" chief pilot on this subject. Again, it is not a matter if you have to shoot all day long CAT2 approaches ( Autopilot does anyway), but it is a DISPATCH criteria for take off ,en-route and destination alternates ! thus saving fuel, or being able to go on routes that would not be available legally.
On top in case18 RVR=300 remove slots in marginal weather conditions, magic.
So please : STAY out of CAT 2 approvals, likewise we will fly your passengers next time :-)
CAT 3B ( falcons) is another story on training, records, etc... more paperwork indeed ( although not impossible, but the first two years are a bit a pain in the ...)
Nowadays CAT 2 is a given ( besides the approval), training costs are identical and maintenance the same (included in every single maintenance manual coupled with RVSM and EGPWS checks)
But the myth is solid, and very few people would get to challenge a "stiff" chief pilot on this subject. Again, it is not a matter if you have to shoot all day long CAT2 approaches ( Autopilot does anyway), but it is a DISPATCH criteria for take off ,en-route and destination alternates ! thus saving fuel, or being able to go on routes that would not be available legally.
On top in case18 RVR=300 remove slots in marginal weather conditions, magic.
So please : STAY out of CAT 2 approvals, likewise we will fly your passengers next time :-)
CAT 3B ( falcons) is another story on training, records, etc... more paperwork indeed ( although not impossible, but the first two years are a bit a pain in the ...)
@ CL300...
Thank you... I could not have said it better.
This thing about the cost of CAT II with modern aircrafts with digital avionics is blown out of proportion and I think you are correct in saying people just don't know what they are talking about.
Having CAT II in Europe is a big bonus for exactly what you said. The 300M RVR mention in case 18 of the ICAO flight plan definitely improves the chances of completing a flight even if the weather at destination is not fully CAT II weather. If not CAT II certified, as soon as LVOP starts or the RVR values drop below 550M you are grounded... Same thing in Canada, if your destination airport is in CAT II operation they won't allow non CAT II aircraft to even takeoff from their departure airports to that field... In the last 2 years this happened to us on flights from Montreal to Toronto, several flights out of Paris for Zurich, Brussels and London.
Thank you... I could not have said it better.
This thing about the cost of CAT II with modern aircrafts with digital avionics is blown out of proportion and I think you are correct in saying people just don't know what they are talking about.
Having CAT II in Europe is a big bonus for exactly what you said. The 300M RVR mention in case 18 of the ICAO flight plan definitely improves the chances of completing a flight even if the weather at destination is not fully CAT II weather. If not CAT II certified, as soon as LVOP starts or the RVR values drop below 550M you are grounded... Same thing in Canada, if your destination airport is in CAT II operation they won't allow non CAT II aircraft to even takeoff from their departure airports to that field... In the last 2 years this happened to us on flights from Montreal to Toronto, several flights out of Paris for Zurich, Brussels and London.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA/Europe/Central Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on the FAA side of the pond.
FAA Issues Advisory Circular Outlining New EFVS Ops
by Matt Thurber
- April 18, 2017, 1:59 AM
EFVS
After changing the rules to allow the use of enhanced flight vision systems (EFVS) instead of natural vision to descend below 100 feet above touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) then land and roll out, the FAA has now published Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106A to explain how operators can use the new regulations. EFVS was first allowed in January 2004, allowing pilots to fly to 100 feet above TDZE using approved EFVS, typically infrared sensor-derived imagery projected on a head-up display (HUD). The pilot then had to use natural vision to land and roll out.
The original rule offered a huge advantage for EFVS-equipped airplanes, as pilots could often land in poor weather using ordinary Cat I ILS approaches, without having to meet the complex training and equipage requirements for Cat II and III approaches.
Performance-based Rule
The new rule, issued on December 16 last year, makes EFVS equipment even more valuable, because it allows pilots to continue past 100 feet to touchdown and rollout, flying the airplane, but looking through the HUD and seeing the approach lights and runway lights and markings as EFVS imagery. Notably, the new rule does not specify the type of sensor required in an EFVS, leaving it to industry to develop and certify new technology that may replace infrared sensors or use them in new ways, or married to other sensors that help the pilot see the runway and its environment. While the old rule required a HUD, the new rule allows other types of image-delivery mechanisms, leaving the door open for new products such as wearable HUDs. Head-down displays (instrument panel displays) cannot be used for EFVS operations, however, except that the copilot in a two-pilot aircraft can use a head-down display to monitor the pilot’s view through the HUD.
According to the AC, “We have made every attempt to write EFVS regulations that are performance-based and not limited to a specific sensor technology. The regulations accommodate future growth in real-time sensor technologies used in most EFVSs and maximize the benefits of rapidly evolving instrument approach procedures (IAP) and advanced flight-deck technology to improve safety and access during low-visibility operations.”
Approaches that meet the criteria for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout include standard IAP or special IAP with a decision altitude (DA) for precision approaches, or decision height (DH) for approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV). In some cases, pilots may also fly certain non-precision approaches (those that use a minimum descent altitude as a DA/DH) using EFVS, with OpSpec C073, MSpec MC073 or LOA C073 approval.
EFVS operations are not permitted for circling approaches, so pilots can’t use EFVS to view “an identifiable part of the airport” to descend below minimum descent altitude (MDA); they must use natural vision. However, the AC does go on to note that pilots can use the EFVS “to supplement natural vision and improve situational awareness at any time.”
It should be noted that the enhanced visibility facilitated by the EFVS cannot be less than the visibility specified for the particular approach procedure.
Operators might need specific approvals for EFVS operations. Part 91 operators are not required to obtain approval for operations to 100 feet above TDZE, but they will need approval—OpSpec, MSpec or letter of authorization (LOA)—for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Commercial operators (91K, 121, 125, 129 or 135) need OpSpec, MSpec or LOA approval for both types (to 100 feet and rollout/touchdown).
An added benefit for commercial operators is that they can receive approval for dispatching or releasing a flight with low takeoff minimums and “beginning or continuing an approach when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for the IAP to be flown.”
FAA Issues Advisory Circular Outlining New EFVS Ops
by Matt Thurber
- April 18, 2017, 1:59 AM
EFVS
After changing the rules to allow the use of enhanced flight vision systems (EFVS) instead of natural vision to descend below 100 feet above touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) then land and roll out, the FAA has now published Advisory Circular (AC) 90-106A to explain how operators can use the new regulations. EFVS was first allowed in January 2004, allowing pilots to fly to 100 feet above TDZE using approved EFVS, typically infrared sensor-derived imagery projected on a head-up display (HUD). The pilot then had to use natural vision to land and roll out.
The original rule offered a huge advantage for EFVS-equipped airplanes, as pilots could often land in poor weather using ordinary Cat I ILS approaches, without having to meet the complex training and equipage requirements for Cat II and III approaches.
Performance-based Rule
The new rule, issued on December 16 last year, makes EFVS equipment even more valuable, because it allows pilots to continue past 100 feet to touchdown and rollout, flying the airplane, but looking through the HUD and seeing the approach lights and runway lights and markings as EFVS imagery. Notably, the new rule does not specify the type of sensor required in an EFVS, leaving it to industry to develop and certify new technology that may replace infrared sensors or use them in new ways, or married to other sensors that help the pilot see the runway and its environment. While the old rule required a HUD, the new rule allows other types of image-delivery mechanisms, leaving the door open for new products such as wearable HUDs. Head-down displays (instrument panel displays) cannot be used for EFVS operations, however, except that the copilot in a two-pilot aircraft can use a head-down display to monitor the pilot’s view through the HUD.
According to the AC, “We have made every attempt to write EFVS regulations that are performance-based and not limited to a specific sensor technology. The regulations accommodate future growth in real-time sensor technologies used in most EFVSs and maximize the benefits of rapidly evolving instrument approach procedures (IAP) and advanced flight-deck technology to improve safety and access during low-visibility operations.”
Approaches that meet the criteria for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout include standard IAP or special IAP with a decision altitude (DA) for precision approaches, or decision height (DH) for approach procedures with vertical guidance (APV). In some cases, pilots may also fly certain non-precision approaches (those that use a minimum descent altitude as a DA/DH) using EFVS, with OpSpec C073, MSpec MC073 or LOA C073 approval.
EFVS operations are not permitted for circling approaches, so pilots can’t use EFVS to view “an identifiable part of the airport” to descend below minimum descent altitude (MDA); they must use natural vision. However, the AC does go on to note that pilots can use the EFVS “to supplement natural vision and improve situational awareness at any time.”
It should be noted that the enhanced visibility facilitated by the EFVS cannot be less than the visibility specified for the particular approach procedure.
Operators might need specific approvals for EFVS operations. Part 91 operators are not required to obtain approval for operations to 100 feet above TDZE, but they will need approval—OpSpec, MSpec or letter of authorization (LOA)—for EFVS operations to touchdown and rollout. Commercial operators (91K, 121, 125, 129 or 135) need OpSpec, MSpec or LOA approval for both types (to 100 feet and rollout/touchdown).
An added benefit for commercial operators is that they can receive approval for dispatching or releasing a flight with low takeoff minimums and “beginning or continuing an approach when the visibility is reported to be less than the visibility minimums prescribed for the IAP to be flown.”
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat 2 costs "supposed costs" are coming from managers raised in this vision. Days where type ratings were all conducted in planes, etc..
Nowadays CAT 2 is a given ( besides the approval), training costs are identical and maintenance the same (included in every single maintenance manual coupled with RVSM and EGPWS checks)
But the myth is solid, and very few people would get to challenge a "stiff" chief pilot on this subject. Again, it is not a matter if you have to shoot all day long CAT2 approaches ( Autopilot does anyway), but it is a DISPATCH criteria for take off ,en-route and destination alternates ! thus saving fuel, or being able to go on routes that would not be available legally.
On top in case18 RVR=300 remove slots in marginal weather conditions, magic.
So please : STAY out of CAT 2 approvals, likewise we will fly your passengers next time :-)
CAT 3B ( falcons) is another story on training, records, etc... more paperwork indeed ( although not impossible, but the first two years are a bit a pain in the ...)
Nowadays CAT 2 is a given ( besides the approval), training costs are identical and maintenance the same (included in every single maintenance manual coupled with RVSM and EGPWS checks)
But the myth is solid, and very few people would get to challenge a "stiff" chief pilot on this subject. Again, it is not a matter if you have to shoot all day long CAT2 approaches ( Autopilot does anyway), but it is a DISPATCH criteria for take off ,en-route and destination alternates ! thus saving fuel, or being able to go on routes that would not be available legally.
On top in case18 RVR=300 remove slots in marginal weather conditions, magic.
So please : STAY out of CAT 2 approvals, likewise we will fly your passengers next time :-)
CAT 3B ( falcons) is another story on training, records, etc... more paperwork indeed ( although not impossible, but the first two years are a bit a pain in the ...)
I think part of the issue may be that a bizjet almost by definition has access to quite a bit more numerous airports than an airliner, many of these ares smaller, non-commercial fields that don't have anything above a Cat I anyway. Thus, it's likely not a very pressing issue for most operators.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Age: 55
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We operate 2 long-range Bizjet commercially, and we maintain CAT2 status on both of them.
Problems are:
- We do not operate with reliable regularity to CAT2 airports, which makes it difficult to maintain the currency. To shorten recurrent SIM training, you are supposed to do a number of real or practiced CAT2 approaches during each 6-month period between SIM sessions, and we struggle to do that.
- On in the SIM we have to maintain EVS/HUD, CAT2, Right hand seat, London-City qualifications. Couple that with the requirements for UPRT, RTO, non-precision, circling etc... and most of our time in the machine is devoted to box-ticking instead of "real" training. There is a limit to how many SIM session you can reasonably pile on in a recurrent, and we would really like to keep our OPCs to 1 day....
Once the rules and requirements for EVS/CVS approaches allow us to reach 100ft minima on most airports and in most countries, we will be very glad to ditch the burdensome CAT2..
Problems are:
- We do not operate with reliable regularity to CAT2 airports, which makes it difficult to maintain the currency. To shorten recurrent SIM training, you are supposed to do a number of real or practiced CAT2 approaches during each 6-month period between SIM sessions, and we struggle to do that.
- On in the SIM we have to maintain EVS/HUD, CAT2, Right hand seat, London-City qualifications. Couple that with the requirements for UPRT, RTO, non-precision, circling etc... and most of our time in the machine is devoted to box-ticking instead of "real" training. There is a limit to how many SIM session you can reasonably pile on in a recurrent, and we would really like to keep our OPCs to 1 day....
Once the rules and requirements for EVS/CVS approaches allow us to reach 100ft minima on most airports and in most countries, we will be very glad to ditch the burdensome CAT2..
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think part of the issue may be that a bizjet almost by definition has access to quite a bit more numerous airports than an airliner, many of these ares smaller, non-commercial fields that don't have anything above a Cat I anyway. Thus, it's likely not a very pressing issue for most operators.
Maybe in the EU, but a NY, LA, Dallas corporate operator could fly around the US for a year without landing at a CAT II/III runway.
GF
GF
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind corporate aviator, I'm in my 11th year of 121 flying, and can remember exactly ONE real Cat III approach and fewer than five Cat II ones, this despite being based in the Nasty Northeast for 4 years. So, even though I've landed at plenty of such runways, the capability is not used very often.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I would think a huge selling point of a bizjet would be the ability to stay away from such crowded places, but maybe not. I suppose being 27th in line for takeoff is somehow sweeter in a G650. No?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it is, however these platforms are very well on the top of the list for Bizjet usage. Again, customer rules, skippers are only there to drive the ship.