Originally Posted by
safetypee
Gin, why shouldn't the AP be certificated to Cat 3 limits if the HUD already has that capability. The sensors and engineering should be approved, similarly proof of guidance if other operators have the AP capability.
Is the HUD dual; was it an add on, or built in as standard ?
Don't assume that AP approval will be expensive vs add-on HUD. AP hardware can allocated a failure probability, not so the human. Thus the human certification could require more evaluation.
Who / what monitors the human, how; 'HUD … very capable, hyper accurate', but only if you follow the commands accurately, and who can tell inside the deviation alerts.
There are some very 'interesting' HUD approvals around the world; EASA disliked HUD for operations in extreme conditions (Cat 3); is that still the situation, or do the latest Airbus have dual / dual installations.
The certification/approval for CAT III auto land is not the problem. As you say, plenty of other operators have this. I don’t know what’s involved with Aircraft modification (to get to CAT III auto land capable), but as I said, I can’t imagine this is a cheap engineering exercise. That’s the issue, cost wise. What I’m saying is that if you were the operator (like mine) with a CAT II auto land only fleet but HUD fitted why would you spend all the money on aircraft modifications when you can get CAT III capability with zero aircraft modifications Required using the (already installed) HUD?
Our aircraft were delivered with the HUD (only on the left as I previously mentioned), obviously it’s optional as there are many operators out there without them. You mention the monitoring. You’ve obviously got the FO Monitoring plus AIII mode has a pretty sophisticated Inbuilt monitoring capability e.g. if you get too far off localiser or GS or even put too much bank on down low you will get what’s called an “approach warning” (FO sees this as well on the HUD monitoring panel on their side), which is an immediate go around.