Low Visibility Operations in Biz-jets
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Visibility Operations in Biz-jets
Hello All,
I have an airline background and my experience of LVOs is Cat II / III with Autoland. To support a piece of work I am doing, it would be really useful to understand the philosophies within Corporate Aviation to LVOs. May I ask the following questions to the Business Aviation community?
1. Is Cat III / Autoland a common capability in biz-jets?
2. Is it routine for Corporate operators that use autoland to 'prove' each runway (like airlines) with a practice autoland before using it in anger? Do operators share any of this data or does each operator have to establish their own approvals?
3. The Corporate world seems to be a long way ahead of the airlines in the use of features like HUDLS / EVS / SVS. My perception is that these features allow Cat II / OTS Cat II approaches (with manual landing) to be flown at lots of airports without the need to 'prove' an autoland. Hence, although not quite bestowing the 75m RVR capability of Cat III, this philosophy comes close and is ultimately more useful. Is that a fair summary?
Thanks for any replies.
I have an airline background and my experience of LVOs is Cat II / III with Autoland. To support a piece of work I am doing, it would be really useful to understand the philosophies within Corporate Aviation to LVOs. May I ask the following questions to the Business Aviation community?
1. Is Cat III / Autoland a common capability in biz-jets?
2. Is it routine for Corporate operators that use autoland to 'prove' each runway (like airlines) with a practice autoland before using it in anger? Do operators share any of this data or does each operator have to establish their own approvals?
3. The Corporate world seems to be a long way ahead of the airlines in the use of features like HUDLS / EVS / SVS. My perception is that these features allow Cat II / OTS Cat II approaches (with manual landing) to be flown at lots of airports without the need to 'prove' an autoland. Hence, although not quite bestowing the 75m RVR capability of Cat III, this philosophy comes close and is ultimately more useful. Is that a fair summary?
Thanks for any replies.
1. Not available on any purpose-built business jet, as of now. Cat II onlyCan't say for Boeing BBJs.
2. N/A
3. Yes, HUD/EFVS systems make CAT II mins out of most ILSs. The FAA has recently issued some changes that clearly envision using EFVS or fused vision systems to CAT III mins.
Remember, very few airports frequented by business aircraft have CAT III autoland ILSs.
GF
2. N/A
3. Yes, HUD/EFVS systems make CAT II mins out of most ILSs. The FAA has recently issued some changes that clearly envision using EFVS or fused vision systems to CAT III mins.
Remember, very few airports frequented by business aircraft have CAT III autoland ILSs.
GF
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Not available on any purpose-built business jet, as of now. Cat II onlyCan't say for Boeing BBJs.
2. N/A
3. Yes, HUD/EFVS systems make CAT II mins out of most ILSs. The FAA has recently issued some changes that clearly envision using EFVS or fused vision systems to CAT III mins.
Remember, very few airports frequented by business aircraft have CAT III autoland ILSs.
GF
2. N/A
3. Yes, HUD/EFVS systems make CAT II mins out of most ILSs. The FAA has recently issued some changes that clearly envision using EFVS or fused vision systems to CAT III mins.
Remember, very few airports frequented by business aircraft have CAT III autoland ILSs.
GF
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Dock of the bay.
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything beyond Cat I is usually just not worth the cost, training, paperwork and extra maintenance requirements, unless a private owner has a very specific repetitive requirement at an airport that frequently is below Cat I - and then only on a time critical basis.
Taking an AOC perspective, NetJets, the largest operator of business jets, doesn't bother with these qualifications.
Many private owners also can't be bothered to fly in poor weather - remember over 50 percent of people feel apprehensive at some level about flying. If going the next day, or later the same day solves the problem, then that's just fine with them. They are usually in control of their own agendas anyway, so rescheduling whatever they were there to do is usually simple and cost neutral - unlike a scheduled airline operation where delays drive cost explosions and close the loop on the business case for Cat II and III.
But there are always exceptions - I'm guessing that there may be a few ultra-longrange operators who regularly have places with naff weather as their destinations after a max range flight - they might find it useful.
Another example I have come across is that some owners want all the kit and all the qualifications - just because. But Cat II aircraft and crew qualifications are only exceptionally going to hold up as a business case.
Taking an AOC perspective, NetJets, the largest operator of business jets, doesn't bother with these qualifications.
Many private owners also can't be bothered to fly in poor weather - remember over 50 percent of people feel apprehensive at some level about flying. If going the next day, or later the same day solves the problem, then that's just fine with them. They are usually in control of their own agendas anyway, so rescheduling whatever they were there to do is usually simple and cost neutral - unlike a scheduled airline operation where delays drive cost explosions and close the loop on the business case for Cat II and III.
But there are always exceptions - I'm guessing that there may be a few ultra-longrange operators who regularly have places with naff weather as their destinations after a max range flight - they might find it useful.
Another example I have come across is that some owners want all the kit and all the qualifications - just because. But Cat II aircraft and crew qualifications are only exceptionally going to hold up as a business case.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA/Europe/Central Asia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Gulfstream world, Gulfstream does not even offer CAT II on the G650. It is certified as a CAT I aircraft only. Unlike the previous Gulfstreams that were capable and certified CAT II.
When we were building our G650ER out, I asked why. Their answer was....
1. There was not enough operators wanting CAT II as an option, and even less actually maintaining crew proficiency, and aircraft CAT II maintenance status (they said something like 2 operators in the US maintained it on their G450/550). So for Gulfstream the certification cost of CAT II were not recoupable, so they opted out of making it an option.
2. And the bigger reason... Gulfstream has been one of the OEM's pushing the FAA to allow CAT III operations using EVS and HUD II. - So in the near future this will be a "Limited" reality for us.
I am sure the tread will spin, to how CAT III with EVS/HUD II is great or unsafe but I am telling you what I was told, and what direction we are seeing in regards to regulations.
my 2 cents
J
When we were building our G650ER out, I asked why. Their answer was....
1. There was not enough operators wanting CAT II as an option, and even less actually maintaining crew proficiency, and aircraft CAT II maintenance status (they said something like 2 operators in the US maintained it on their G450/550). So for Gulfstream the certification cost of CAT II were not recoupable, so they opted out of making it an option.
2. And the bigger reason... Gulfstream has been one of the OEM's pushing the FAA to allow CAT III operations using EVS and HUD II. - So in the near future this will be a "Limited" reality for us.
I am sure the tread will spin, to how CAT III with EVS/HUD II is great or unsafe but I am telling you what I was told, and what direction we are seeing in regards to regulations.
my 2 cents
J
All our crews on the Challenger 604 and Global Express are trained for CAT II.
In Canada, if privately flown, all you need is an annual training with CAT II and a PPC/IFR test every two years.
If you fly commercially (as in charters) you need to do annual training and do a PPC/IFR ride too.
As for maintenance with these new aircrafts with digital avionics it is a lot simpler and much less expensive to keep the aircraft CAT II certified. I'm told that instead of an annual inspection for certain avionics, we now have to do it bi-annually and the cost to the owner is peanuts.
Our Ops manual says we have to do an actual or simulated CAT II (by shooting an approach to CAT II limits on any ILS) once every 3 months.
In the last 2 years, I have had to delay substantially (5-6 hours) or cancel four flights while in Europe that if we had the CAT II approval would have gone on schedule.
Some crews have also been able to take advantage of our CAT II ops in wintery conditions here in Canada.
In Canada, if privately flown, all you need is an annual training with CAT II and a PPC/IFR test every two years.
If you fly commercially (as in charters) you need to do annual training and do a PPC/IFR ride too.
As for maintenance with these new aircrafts with digital avionics it is a lot simpler and much less expensive to keep the aircraft CAT II certified. I'm told that instead of an annual inspection for certain avionics, we now have to do it bi-annually and the cost to the owner is peanuts.
Our Ops manual says we have to do an actual or simulated CAT II (by shooting an approach to CAT II limits on any ILS) once every 3 months.
In the last 2 years, I have had to delay substantially (5-6 hours) or cancel four flights while in Europe that if we had the CAT II approval would have gone on schedule.
Some crews have also been able to take advantage of our CAT II ops in wintery conditions here in Canada.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other advantage of CAT 2 is dispatch... where everyone is looking for 550m you are fishing for 300m... Alternate the same, very flexible. And as said above, it is more a myth than reality, nowadays everyone goes to the sim ( CAT2 capable airframes) at least once a year, therefore, instead of shooting CAT1, you shoot CAT2... add 3 minutes per landing max..
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Netjets DOES train EVS approaches down to 100' for the Global program, but it hasn't gone live online yet. I don't know if it will be limited to US only once all the way approved. I'm curious how long it will take before EVS to the ground is approved.
CL300...
Exactly what happened to us in Europe, but hopefully no more!
The other advantage of CAT 2 is dispatch... where everyone is looking for 550m you are fishing for 300m...
JTF...
Most likely only in the USA... We have EVS on all our Globals and Transport Canada never approved/certified it on the Globals up here in Canada.
A US operator could not take EVS credit to shoot an approach down to 100' AGL here in Canada.
Not sure what the status of EVS is like in Europe.
With better an improved EVS systems (like the one on the 6000) and with synthetic vision being overlaid, I think it will be possible to land without visual reference in the future and I think the FAA just announced something to address this a few weeks ago.
Netjets DOES train EVS approaches down to 100' for the Global program, but it hasn't gone live online yet. I don't know if it will be limited to US only once all the way approved. I'm curious how long it will take before EVS to the ground is approved.
Most likely only in the USA... We have EVS on all our Globals and Transport Canada never approved/certified it on the Globals up here in Canada.
A US operator could not take EVS credit to shoot an approach down to 100' AGL here in Canada.
Not sure what the status of EVS is like in Europe.
With better an improved EVS systems (like the one on the 6000) and with synthetic vision being overlaid, I think it will be possible to land without visual reference in the future and I think the FAA just announced something to address this a few weeks ago.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Gulfstream world, Gulfstream does not even offer CAT II on the G650. It is certified as a CAT I aircraft only. Unlike the previous Gulfstreams that were capable and certified CAT II.
When we were building our G650ER out, I asked why. Their answer was....
1. There was not enough operators wanting CAT II as an option, and even less actually maintaining crew proficiency, and aircraft CAT II maintenance status (they said something like 2 operators in the US maintained it on their G450/550). So for Gulfstream the certification cost of CAT II were not recoupable, so they opted out of making it an option.
2. And the bigger reason... Gulfstream has been one of the OEM's pushing the FAA to allow CAT III operations using EVS and HUD II. - So in the near future this will be a "Limited" reality for us.
I am sure the tread will spin, to how CAT III with EVS/HUD II is great or unsafe but I am telling you what I was told, and what direction we are seeing in regards to regulations.
my 2 cents
J
When we were building our G650ER out, I asked why. Their answer was....
1. There was not enough operators wanting CAT II as an option, and even less actually maintaining crew proficiency, and aircraft CAT II maintenance status (they said something like 2 operators in the US maintained it on their G450/550). So for Gulfstream the certification cost of CAT II were not recoupable, so they opted out of making it an option.
2. And the bigger reason... Gulfstream has been one of the OEM's pushing the FAA to allow CAT III operations using EVS and HUD II. - So in the near future this will be a "Limited" reality for us.
I am sure the tread will spin, to how CAT III with EVS/HUD II is great or unsafe but I am telling you what I was told, and what direction we are seeing in regards to regulations.
my 2 cents
J
Manual Category III operations using HUD landing (and rollout) guidance have been approved now for more than 20 years. Granted most of these have been by several major pt 121 operators.
I know the history of hand flown HUD-based CAT II and III approaches but doing them in a FAR 121 operation is far different than in a corporate environment. I'd bet ALL of them in the YS were 121 operators.
Just maintaining currency would be a challenge in 91, plus the training burden, the aircraft maintenance demand for something used seldomly. I have 29 years of C-5 ops and an additional 15 of corporate--RVR 600 take-offs equal zero and CAT II landings, 1 in the C-5, none in the corporates. Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.
GF
Just maintaining currency would be a challenge in 91, plus the training burden, the aircraft maintenance demand for something used seldomly. I have 29 years of C-5 ops and an additional 15 of corporate--RVR 600 take-offs equal zero and CAT II landings, 1 in the C-5, none in the corporates. Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.
GF
I know the history of hand flown HUD-based CAT II and III approaches but doing them in a FAR 121 operation is far different than in a corporate environment. I'd bet ALL of them in the YS were 121 operators.
Just maintaining currency would be a challenge in 91, plus the training burden, the aircraft maintenance demand for something used seldomly. I have 29 years of C-5 ops and an additional 15 of corporate--RVR 600 take-offs equal zero and CAT II landings, 1 in the C-5, none in the corporates. Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.
GF
Just maintaining currency would be a challenge in 91, plus the training burden, the aircraft maintenance demand for something used seldomly. I have 29 years of C-5 ops and an additional 15 of corporate--RVR 600 take-offs equal zero and CAT II landings, 1 in the C-5, none in the corporates. Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.
GF
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.
Sure, they built the airport in the foggiest piece of real estate they could find, but to be honest even with my airline schedule I rarely do more than two or three actual CAT IIIs a year.