Helicopters and Low Visibility Operations?
 

Forgive me if it is a stupid question, but I have never came across this topic being discussed...

Are there any helicopters/operators approved for low-visibility ops, ie. CATII/III landings?

If not, why?

Would the LVO capability be operationally useful in some environments, eg. North Sea?

Greetings,

S.

Helicopters can be approved for low viz operations.

Our Ops manual allows a departure minimum of 150m RVR/visibility (with runway edge/FATO lighting, centreline lighting and RVR information). The Cat 1 ILS minimum is 500m (at EGPD).

When flying SAR in helicopter the weather operated in is very often too bad for IFR flying.

So we have to fly VFR anyway because there is no CATIII approach on scene and the airport where the hospital is has no CATI, II or III. and weather is way worse than IFR minima.

Bristow used to have a low vis 300m RVR low vis approach approval in Aberdeen. It was before the widespread use of coupled auto pilots, we used to hand fly it in the S-61N.

One operator I know of has an approval for 'Cat 1 with 100 ft DH' which is to all intents a Cat II limit.

Cougar operates Lower Than Standard at St.John's NL and Halifax NS. Flights are routinely flown to DH of 100' (RadAlt) and RVR600. To fly the Cat II the operators has to be authorized by Transport Canada in their AOC and then all pilots have to be trained and flight checked to LTS standards. The airport has to have a CatII/III system in place with associated equipment. The aircraft must be able to be capable of flying it and have the appropriate equipment. When the airport declares they are in Low Vis ops, then there are also restricted movements on the aeodrome taxiways and aprons. Its a pretty big deal and expense to go to these operations for those few days that require it. Busy airports will have it and those that are affected by weather like St.John's will have it. For offshore, GPS approaches LPV, and radar will give the operator as low as one really wants to go, short of a tractor beam!

For the benefit of the Europeans - that's 600 FEET RVR, not metres......

SARBlade, what is the reason for using an alternative Cat 1 procedure rather than straight Cat II?

And not forgetting if you are VFR in Class G -

Lowest of the lot.

Not for me it f"!^&ng isn't!!!!:)

For VFR ops in UK's Class G, there is now a lower visibility limit of 1500 metres.

When I was a Nubbin' we used to dream of having 300m's vis.....and in the Aleutians it was sometimes just that....a dream!

212man, Not sure what you mean by alternative, but Cat I, AFAIK, is still a 200' DH with 2400'RVR, while a Cat II is 100' DH with 1200'RVR. The Cat II still offers a higher success rate of a landing in low weather than does a Cat I ILS. Most of the world offers the Cat I approaches, it being the standard. I would assume that the company did not have enough money to spend to have a Cat II assessment done but rather got an Op Spec to cover the lower DH. Visibility would still remain at 2400'. that's just a guess mind you, all I can input into why your aforementioned company had a DH 100' on a Cat I approach.:)

As for Cat III, I am not bothering to look up the requirements for it nor the minima, let's just say its low and usually tied to automatic landing systems, and very low visual range.