LVO catIII approval under EASA

[Cagedh]

Under AMC6 SPA.LVO.105 LVO approval (http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Annex%20to%20ED%20Decision%202012-019-R.pdf) is written:
ELIGIBLE AERODROMES AND RUNWAYS
(a) Each aircraft type/runway combination should be verified by the successful completion of at least one approach and landing in CAT II or better conditions, prior to commencing CAT III operations.

The Belgian CAA is requiring the airline I work for (we are catIIIb approved, operating Airbus) to make a successful autoland on any runway we want to make a catIII approach to, before actually doing a real catIII approach to that runway. The British and German branches of my airline have never heard of such a requirement from their respective CAA and can perform catIII approaches to any runway which is catIII compliant.

I believe the Belgian CAA is wrong and misinterpreting the EASA rule. There's no logic in requiring every operator to demonstrate autoland capability on every runway it wants to operate to in catIII, or is there? I would think that the catIII approval of a runway by the state it is situated in, would be enough.

Is the Belgian CAA out of line by requiring this from us? How do you interpret the rule I quoted above?

[4Screwaircrew]

Where I am has the requirement for an Autoland in CAT II or better prior to CAT III approaches on any runway, we are a UK operator.

[Denti]

Yup, our OM A has a similar rule that each aircraft type, equipment and runway combination has to be verified by an approach and landing in CAT II or better weather, or in case of irregular pre-threshold terrain or known deficiencies each combination has to be proven in CAT I or better conditions.

However, there is a caveat that an unproven runway may still be used in case of an unplanned weather deterioration or in case of emergency.

[FullWings]

I can’t find it in our OM A but we are being asked to autoland on CAT II/III runways in good weather so they can get full approval, therefore the rule must be there somewhere (:mad: electronic manuals!)

[RAT 5]

I find it an astonishing requirement. Every runway?? The installation is approved and tested; the a/c type is approved and tested; the airlines is approved and the crew are approved and tested. What more is necessary? If EASA says that this is not enough for a blanket approval then they they should say that every a/c and every crew needs to perform a practical demonstration that they are capable. Every crew & a/c can perform differently, so they need to be confirmed. That in effect is what they are saying. Nonsense. If all the components are approved then any combination of those components should also be approved.
If this edict is true I'd demand and love to hear an explanation from those who made it. Often, in aviation, a change in procedure comes about after an incident and i the hope of being proactive in prevention. What has happened to cause such requirement?

[Cagedh]

I find it an astonishing requirement. Every runway?? The installation is approved and tested; the a/c type is approved and tested; the airlines is approved and the crew are approved and tested. What more is necessary?

Outside the busy summer season, our aircraft often get chartered for non-routine destinations. I can imagine myself going to e.g. Zagreb, Croatia where we have state approval to conduct CatIIIB with RVR of 75 m and NO DH, but not able to land in lowvis due to this requirement and having to fly a catII approach with manual landing at some alternate airport. Is that safer then??? :ugh: I can't see the logic in that!

Thanks for the replies. I'm "glad" to see that it's not only the Belgian CAA which requires the application of this idiotic EASA requirement. :*

[RAT 5]

I'm "glad" to see that it's not only the Belgian CAA which requires the application of this idiotic EASA requirement.

Why are the airlines and respective XAA"s not lobbying the EASA to: 1 find a reason for this; and if that is nonsense then 2. reversing/removing it.

[mono]

Is it that unreasonable?? It doesn't mention the operator, just the a/c type.

"Each aircraft type/runway combination should be verified"

The way I read that is that if ANY operator of your type has carried out either a standard approach (practice autoland) or an actual autoland satisfactorily to that particular destination/runway, then so can you.

[wiggy]

The Belgian CAA is requiring the airline I work for (we are catIIIb approved, operating Airbus) to make a successful autoland on any runway we want to make a catIII approach to, before actually doing a real catIII approach to that runway.


Well my two pence worth is that was always a requirement for us under the old and older CAA regs. In order for the company to gain approval for CAT 3 Ops on a "new" (to us) runway someone in the company needed to have performed and documented standard landing. Also AFAIK we've grandfathered over old approvals, so we're not having to do it all again following the transition to EASA.

[pilot-737]

The Belgian CAA reads only the (a)
But maybe you should point out :

(d) For the purpose of this AMC, an aircraft type or variant of an aircraft type should be deemed to be the same type/variant of aircraft if that type/variant has the same or similar: ...

And then

(e) Operators using the same aircraft type/class or variant of a type in accordance with (d) above may take credit from each other's experience and records in complying with this subparagraph.

So if you combine (a), (d) and (e) if an other operator has successfully demonstrated compliance for the same type/rwy in the past.... You may take credit of this experience .....
Ask the Belgian CAA ... If SN Brussels already demonstrated the a320 autoland capability on EBBR 25L... Why every operator should do the same with his A320... And with the same logic why you should do it with only one of your A320s and not with your entire fleet.....