CAT II in true

[compressor stall]

I'm pretty sure that this would be a hypothetical question, but flicking through the Airbus FCOM I notice that those aircraft that have Polar Nav mods fitted, that landing in CAT II when in TRUE is prohibited.

I don't have access to the Boeing manuals - out of curiosity is it the same for them? 787/777/767 etc?

Cheers

[donpizmeov]

No approval for auto rollout in any type that I am aware of, as runway heading is used in flare mode for runway alignment on touchdown. Can't happen when in true . You need the runway heading to be correctly aligned with the aircraft direction of travel down the LLZ .

[Uplinker]

Without diving into the manuals I am not sure if that would work in those parts of the world with large magnetic variations. CAT ll has no roll-out tracking, so if it just tracked the LOC down to minima it might work, or would it throw up conflict alerts?


(Sorry don, just realised you’ve answered that question)

[aterpster]

Anyone know of an true-required airport that has CAT II?

[compressor stall]

Probably none Aterpster (which I why I said hypothetical!).

Thanks for the info above dpmo, but hypothetically, what about a CAT II landing without autoland?

[fox niner]

Maybe Thule BGTL? Dont they have cat 2 or 3?

[FlightDetent]

CS: I’d agree it is at least in part connected to the fact that Airbus assume CAT2 = autoland everywhere in their books.

[eckhard]

Maybe Thule BGTL? Dont they have cat 2 or 3?

No, not according to Lido.

[wiggy]

..and whilst, this may may be coincidental, for the Cat 1 ILS’s it looks like coupled approaches N/A below 600’ MSL.

[aterpster]

Maybe Thule BGTL? Dont they have cat 2 or 3?

They have several Runway 8 true ILS charts, with the lower minimums requiring a climb gradient missed approach. But, none get as low as 200 HAT (289 and 5/8), which tells me the environment and/or facilities can't support CAT II or III.