supraspinatus
Agree with what you say about CAT II/III ops, and what others have said about safeguarding the ILS. I have always been of the belief that the UK CAA (Aerodrome & Air Traffic Standards) and others have not grasped the whole issue which I maintain should make LVP mandatory for all licensed aerodromes (both instrument and non- instrument) for fixed wing movements.
Bearing in mind that the ATCO/FISO's prime tool for operating is MK1 eyeball, if MET conditions prevent ATC or AFIS from seeing the whole of the manoeuvring area, some level of LVP should be brought into force, in this case for runway safeguarding purposes. Such hazards as bird concentrations, other wildlife, runway incursions etc could occur without the ATCO/FISO seeing it. Not all aerodromes have a totally secure boundary.
At the bottom end of the aerodrome scale, how can an aerodrome operator operating an Air/Ground service exercise a duty of care if he/she cannot see the whole of the manoeuvring area to be used by a fixed wing aircraft? Especially bearing in mind that it is more likely that there is not a secure perimeter fence, increasing the likelihood of wildlife or trespassers.
If aerodrome staffing levels do not permit LVPs at non-instrument aerodromes, fixed wing departures requiring use of a licensed aerodrome should have their permission to use the aerodrome withdrawn (assuming its at an Ordinary Licence aerodrome) when part of, or the whole, manoeuvring area cannot be visually monitored by A/G. Going back to the duty of care, should all fixed wing movements be suspended until MET conditions improve?
Possibly an issue that AATSD Aerodrome and ATC Inspectors could give some thought to before subsequent Audits?