Low Visibility Operations in Biz-jets

[Brain Potter]

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.

[galaxy flyer]

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

[Lucky8888]

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
Not totally true. The Falcon 900EX and 900LX are certified for Cat III.

[galaxy flyer]

Yeah, I see that TCDS, but it seems to be based on manually flown HUD guidance. The training and limitations might be interesting.

GF

[safelife]

Another problem is that low visibility qualifications have to be obtained from every country flown to - hardly practical in the biz jet world.

[Lucky8888]

Yeah, I see that TCDS, but it seems to be based on manually flown HUD guidance. The training and limitations might be interesting.

GF

It's not just the training and limitations but the maintenance and paperwork requirements as well. I'm happy with coupled Cat II.

[Max Torque]

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.

[Hawker 800]

6 monthly training also remember, and many private crews train annually. Unless you train before the winter, it's probably a waste of time.

[noneya]

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

[Jet Jockey A4]

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.

[CL300]

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..

[JTF]

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.

[Jet Jockey A4]

CL300...

The other advantage of CAT 2 is dispatch... where everyone is looking for 550m you are fishing for 300m...

Exactly what happened to us in Europe, but hopefully no more!

[Jet Jockey A4]

JTF...

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.

[Lucky8888]

JTF...

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.

Is this what you are thinking of?

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-167A.pdf

[GlobalNav]

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

I agree with your post, but respectfully not point number two. Indeed, Gulfstream does seek low visibility approaches and landings with EFVS, but they are not exactly Cat III operations. Rather, the EFVS enables the pilot to meet the requirements for descent and operation below Cat I DA/H, by providing the required "enhanced flight visibility" and view of required visual references. The reported visibility, I think per the intent of your point, may well be less than Category I, maybe even less than Category II. However it is difficult in most IMC conditions to achieve 2,400 ft of enhanced flight visibility when natural visibility is below 1,200 ft.

[GlobalNav]

Yeah, I see that TCDS, but it seems to be based on manually flown HUD guidance. The training and limitations might be interesting.

GF

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.

[galaxy flyer]

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

[GlobalNav]

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


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.

[INNflight]

Might be useful to a Zurich operator, tho.

To be honest, as Zurich-based (airline tho...) crew, it's hardly ever below CAT I for prolonged periods of time. Morning fog may mess it up for an hour or three, same in the evening.
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.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ GlobalNav...

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.

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.

[GlobalNav]

@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.

[His dudeness]

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.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ 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.

[GlobalNav]

@ 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.

No argument with you at all. The OEM has provided what they needed to for Cat II. I would encourage you to query your customers, US in particular, to see, if you can, how many actually maintain Cat II crew qualifications. My industry network includes knowledgeable representatives of Bombardier which have told me that pt91 operators consider the Cat II requirements too onerous and expensive to keep up. Your mileage may vary.

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.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ 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.

[galaxy flyer]

Not so much that it's expensive as its value for money

GF

[GlobalNav]

Not so much that it's expensive as its value for money

GF

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.

[CL300]

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 ...)

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ 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.

[Lucky8888]

The costs for training and maintenance (U.S.) of CAT II on the Falcon I fly are negligible. No reason not to have it.

[noneya]

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.”

[Amadis of Gaul]

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 ...)


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.

[FlyMD]

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..

[CL300]

training vs costs ... the same routine... have OPC in 2 days then have proper training or of course, like most of us, it is a tick in the box exercise..

[CL300]

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.

Top airports in Europe have CAT 2/3 approaches, GVA/ZRH/LTN/AMS/FRA to name a few, except if owner flown ( therefore less choice of airports generally) in charter, you are likely to visit these often. No ?

[galaxy flyer]

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

[Amadis of Gaul]

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

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.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Top airports in Europe have CAT 2/3 approaches, GVA/ZRH/LTN/AMS/FRA to name a few, except if owner flown ( therefore less choice of airports generally) in charter, you are likely to visit these often. No ?

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?

[CL300]

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.

[porterjet]

One other thing to consider is corporate/bizjet operators don't always use the main airline airport. The smaller out of town airports quite often don't have CAT II or III approaches.

[galaxy flyer]

A US operator could be based in NY and not fly in or out of a CAT II or III airport for years. TEB, MMU and HPN aren't CAT II yet. Well, maybe, HPN with the increased airline traffic.

[Amadis of Gaul]

One other thing to consider is corporate/bizjet operators don't always use the main airline airport. The smaller out of town airports quite often don't have CAT II or III approaches.



That's what I said.

[His dudeness]

Gentlemen,

if you`re asked what equipment in the airplane you need to have to conduct LVTO with 150mtrs or more RVR, what would be your answer ? (EASA)