A330-340, Cat2 on FMA, Autoland allowed?

[EK380]

Hi there,
This is related to A330-340, but more than likely applies to the A320 family as well.
Just a quick question a trainee asked me yesterday:
If after arming the APP, the FMA states "CAT2", can you then still do a CAT2 approach with Autoland?
The question, is not specific to any failures given in the QRH.
I think we "can" still do an autoland, as long as LAND green is there at 350ft, but there seems to be some disagreements.
Thanks for your replies,
EK380

[heebeegb]

Yes, you can. You will just have to alter your decision and reference requirements to allow for Cat2 landing. Loss of autoland capability is shown by CAT1 appearing on the FMA (as well as others of course).

[hetfield]

If weather is equal or better than CAT 2, why not?

If no low vis operation in progress, watch for ILS fluctuations and be prepared to take over (no ILS-signal protection etc.)

regards

[EK380]

Thanks heebeegb,
Just confirmed my initial thoughts.
This made me think about a secondary question;
Under JAR OPS rules, what is your company standard (not airport specific) min TDZ RVR for a CAT2 with a manual landing (autoland not availalbe due to A/C or airport)?
Our company regulations used to say that the REQ TDZ RVR could never be less than 350m for a CAT2 with a manual landing. But this is now taken out of the OM-A.
Thanks again for further replies

[Henry VIII]

as long as LAND green is there at 350ft

That's the gate for autoland capability.

Our company regulations used to say that the REQ TDZ RVR could never be less than 350m for a CAT2 with a manual landing. But this is now taken out of the OM-A.

If your company declare such limitation, you have to compy with. In my company (Jar-Ops rule), as per OM part A, after the OM or equivalent position gate as soon as you get in touch visually with the runway you split to visual approach & landing, so minimum TDZ rvr is no more needed. See and land.
Rgds.

[Ipaq]

JAR operators are required to have the required RVR by the former OM point, now called the equivalent point, usually around 4d from the threshold.
The controlling factor is the touchdown RVR, which in the case of Cat 2 is a minimum of 300 m.
If the RVR drops inside this point, you are allowed to continue to minima and either land if the correct visual cues are available, or else go-around.
The A320, 21 and 330 are quite capable and certified to autoland Cat 2

[outofsynch]

In fact in our company it is required to autoland off a cat II approach - assuming normal ops.

[tubby linton]

One of the ways to get CAT 2 is to lose an autothrust channel.Deselect AP1 and you should get CAT 3 single back.This is because usually AP1 is the master.

[EK380]

Guys,

Only outofsynch has kind of answered my second question...

I'll try again...,

Under JAR OPS rules, what is your company standard (not airport specific) min TDZ RVR for a CAT2 with a manual landing (autoland not availalbe due to A/C or airport)?

Our company regulations used to say that the REQ TDZ RVR could never be less than 350m for a CAT2 with a manual landing. But this is now taken out of the OM-A.

Rgds

[tired]

Assuming that it's an actual LVO, rather than a practice in good weather, my company does not allow manual landings off Cat2 approaches. We're JAR-Ops, but I think this is a company-specific thing, rather than a JAR-Ops thing. I've asked the Trainers a couple of times why manual landings are not permitted off Cat2 and no-one knows.

[lovdates]

Cat II RVR

JAR Ops 1.440 states:determining RVR is the TDZ RVR.
For App. Cat C A/C no less than 300m.
For App. Cat D A/C 350 m(can be reduced to 300 if AP on)

[safetypee]

JAR-OPS does not specifically prohibit manual landings in Cat 2 conditions; however, the regulations are sufficiently muddled to enable confusion and opportunity for error.

The aircraft equipment requirements for Cat 2 are in JAR-AWO which has been revised such that the costs of certificating a FD / manual approach (flight technical error) are so high that most manufacturers don’t bother. HUD certification is expensive, but worth it if you get Cat 3.

Most of the Cat 2 RVR limits in JAR-OPS are based on an automatic approach with their higher approach path delivery accuracies (low technical error); manual landings may be permitted if the autos fail, but often the regulations do not ensure that the visibility is suitable to continue the approach. In Cat 3 there are specific requirements relating to failures at or below 80% of DH which ensures sufficient visibility for landing – the approach phase is complete.

There are dangers in commencing an auto Cat 2 approach in legal minima, and then disconnecting the autos and continuing manually in marginal conditions - pressing on in circumstances where greater visibility would be safer and enabling earlier flight-path error detection.

[EK380]

Thanks for all your replies...especially LovDates. That was the answer I was after.

Keep it safe

[FlightDetent]

Company operates ATRs which are CATII manual landings. Hence CATII+M is allowed on all types, altough strongly discouraged (=considered stupid) when operationally not necessary. Special FC training is required for CATII+M, but RVR minima remain the same as for CATII+A.

A typical scenario would be landing at CAT II only airport elevated above autoland limit (some machines are restricted to 2500 ft p.a.). Second option is CAT II approach with x-wind above 20 kt, but with 300 RVR, that sound like a too much of a stunt to me.