CAT I approach during LVO
 

Let's assume you're approaching in CAT II wx (EASA airport LVO in force), but suddenly found that the tail wind is out of limitation and decided to ask for opposite rwy which has only CAT I but with prevailing good weather. You request ATC for the opposite rwy but got denied stating that once the airport has LVO/LVP in force you can fly only CAT II/III approaches. Is that legal? Will appreciate for any ICAO or EASA reference.

I would question why they're landing LVOs with a tailwind when the other end is Cat 1... Has this actually happened?

I can think of all sorts of scenarios that could lead to the choice of Cat 1 in to wind or Cat 3 with a tailwind, so the premise of the question seems reasonable. Not being a pilot I can only guess, but neither approach sounds to be allowed under normal circumstances (exceed autoland tailwind limits or descend below Cat 1 minima) so I would expect you to divert unless an emergency compelled you to land. Once you call the emergency then you call the shots and you decide which rule you want to break. In the event that you request a runway change it could take a while to set everything up to open the opposite direction runway.

An airfield can be in LVOps in CAT 1 conditions, so if a CAT 1 approach is available then it is legal. Sounds like a local restriction, in which case it's up to them if they decide to prohibit the CAT 1 approach having gone into LVOs.

I agree with D9009 as far as I recall going many years back when LVOps first were set out the procedure was commenced in order to protect the runway and landing aids etc for CAT 11/111. Nothing was done to dictate that CAT 1 was not permitted it was up to the crew to apply their minima for that. It just meant that if CAT 11 or 111 were undertaken then the safeguards for those approaches were in place.

I've never denied anybody in flying whatever approach they want. ATCOs are not police to check what licence and approvals your aircraft and crew have. Flying is your responsibility. It was not legal from them to deny you an approach. Failed approach can always contiune into missed approach....

LVOs are normally instated before actually being required. It gets the extra measures in place so that there no delay when the rvr falls below Cat 1 minima. The relevance of LVOs is that you can not fly below CAT 1 without the measures being in place.

Is the issue here not to do with the request being for the opposite runway? If I was flying to an airport with LVPs in force and a CATII/III approach, but the RVR was for example 1500m, I can't see any reason why they can or would stop you flying to CAT I mins, and frankly aside from keeping everyone in the loop there's not really reason to tell anyone anyway.

It's obviously different though if you are asking for the opposite runway, and I imagine there are various implications. I don't know if it's reasonable that an airport/ATCU might have procedures in place to say no ad-hoc runway changes during LVPs. I could definitely see a scenario if for example if it's somewhat busy and everyone else can land with the tailwind, and you want the whole operation swapped around for your approach. Depending on procedures, infrastructure, holding points etc this may just frankly not be reasonably possible without buggering up the entire thing.

it doesn't matter. As long as there is instrumental approach availible, it is all the same. cat i, ii or iii

If we re-phrased the answer from what may have actually happened:

It's denied, because once under LVP for one runway, approaches from the opposide side are dis allowed?

Technically, LVO is not put on for a runway, it's for the airport - tailored to protect whatever operations may go on in low visibilities.

I think that FlightDetent was saying that part of the LVPs may have been a requirement to remain with only one runway in use.

2 s

why would they be? Protected area arround LLZ is affected same way if you land from the other side....

I just thought that having aircraft land from the opposing sides of a single physical runway is not the most favourite ATC sport. On a busy airport, such are those where CATIII is justifiably installed.

Consequently once LVO is up and running for one side (the only equipped one), a pilot's request to shoot an approach against all the flow is expectedly answered with a polite suggestion to reconsider the idea.

Not to mention that even if approved and done, after vacation the aircraft might end up in a part of taxiway system that is not properly marked, equipped or approved for LVP OPS while they'd be in force. Lessons from Linate not to be forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linate_Airport_disaster.

it only means, when you clear someone on opposite RWY during LVP, that nobody can't be cleared to proceed on ILS for two reasons - LLZ signal is disturbed and of course, you don't want to have head-on traffic on ILS in case of MAP :)

I understand that selecting CAT II (or III) for one direction immediately de-selects the ILS for the reciprocal runway. Perhaps this is what the controller was referring to.

It is not just about approaches and departures. When LVOs are declared, then many airports have particular routings for aircraft on the ground with various runway entry and exit routes not being available as well as differing availability of taxiways and routings. Having an aircraft landing in the opposite direction will create havoc to the LVO ground operations, particularly if ground radar is not available.