Can we fly approach cat2 manually?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe there is a reason why you can't. But you probably wouldn't.
As far as I understand, if you have a HUD you can manually fly a CAT IIIB. It's only the DH that changes from a normal, CAT I approach. I stand by to be correct.
I think one caveat is Flight Directors must be operational.
As far as I understand, if you have a HUD you can manually fly a CAT IIIB. It's only the DH that changes from a normal, CAT I approach. I stand by to be correct.
I think one caveat is Flight Directors must be operational.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: belize
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat II approach to manual landing is fine. Our SOP was Captain only, Disconnect by 80ft to a manual landing depending on FMA. If its CAT 1 on FMA its disconnect by 160ft on the Airbus.
Plenty of airports that are CAT II but cant do an autoland due to terrain.
Plenty of airports that are CAT II but cant do an autoland due to terrain.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The required visual references for CAT II operations are predicated on maneuvering to a manual landing from the DH. However, whether you can do so depends on your airplane certification...Boeing certifies for manual CAT II landings, I don't know about Airbus and others...and also depends on your operator's program as approved by the local authorities. Part of that approval will address recurrent training for manual CAT II's. If you're not doing them in the sim, that's a good indication that your company doesn't have a program in place for manual CAT IIs, but it doesn't say they could not get such a program if they wanted it.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall times where NO AUTO LAND was invented yet and folks were manually flying down to CAT II mins on conventional aircrafts. It's only recently, 20 years back, airbus came up with AP ON concept to have CAT II displayed on FMA. 
Bungfai, it depends on the aircraft equipment, training and regulation.
If HUD with Cat 3 clearance then, yes, but see below.
With a head down FD, first the aircraft system has to be certificated (relatively expensive AFM approval), then crews have to be trained and approved. Even so, the operator might have decided that additional training/currency cost is not justified if there is a good Cat 2 autopilot. Or alternatively that an automatic approached it is judged to be lower risk than manual flight, but this could still leave a manual landing option from an accurate approach.
The range of Cat 2 visibilities can create some the highest safety risks in low visibility operations. The RVRs can change relatively quickly due to the fog formation or dispersal phases, whereas Cat 3 fog usually involves a more stable fog condition. There are also similar risk issues with other low visibility conditions – snow / blowing snow, rain, cloud base, or dust, where additional risks from crosswind might increase the overall risk, particularly if there is need to manoeuvre at/after DH..
Given the choice, an auto approach is safer.
We shouldn’t ask if we can do something – look for confirming evidence, but instead ask ‘should we be doing it’ search for the safest, lowest risk option. Your company may have done that for you.
If HUD with Cat 3 clearance then, yes, but see below.
With a head down FD, first the aircraft system has to be certificated (relatively expensive AFM approval), then crews have to be trained and approved. Even so, the operator might have decided that additional training/currency cost is not justified if there is a good Cat 2 autopilot. Or alternatively that an automatic approached it is judged to be lower risk than manual flight, but this could still leave a manual landing option from an accurate approach.
The range of Cat 2 visibilities can create some the highest safety risks in low visibility operations. The RVRs can change relatively quickly due to the fog formation or dispersal phases, whereas Cat 3 fog usually involves a more stable fog condition. There are also similar risk issues with other low visibility conditions – snow / blowing snow, rain, cloud base, or dust, where additional risks from crosswind might increase the overall risk, particularly if there is need to manoeuvre at/after DH..
Given the choice, an auto approach is safer.
We shouldn’t ask if we can do something – look for confirming evidence, but instead ask ‘should we be doing it’ search for the safest, lowest risk option. Your company may have done that for you.
Yes, you are. LVP approval is dependent on the aeroplane certification, AOC, local CAA and many others. It is entirely possible and not out of ordinary that two companies, using same aeroplanes, under same CAA have different requirements and procedures for CAT 2 & 3 approaches - it's the matter of what was written on application for LVP approval and what was demonstrated. As for me, ATR could do either automatic or manual cat 2. Airbus was strictly automatic approach but manual landing could be done from CAT2 and not from CAT3. Q400 can either do automatic CAT2 without Head-up Guidance System or manual CAT2 or 3A, using HGS. No autoland there.
Could be that minima have moved downwards since I got certified on Q400 or i might by type/installation specifi, but the way we do it is CAT3A - 50 ft min DH and 200m RVR and doing HGS approach into actual 200m RVR is one of the most exciting things I've done in an aeroplane - it beats spinning Zlin 142 by wide margin. I don't like too much excitement when flying for subsistence.
Could be that minima have moved downwards since I got certified on Q400 or i might by type/installation specifi, but the way we do it is CAT3A - 50 ft min DH and 200m RVR and doing HGS approach into actual 200m RVR is one of the most exciting things I've done in an aeroplane - it beats spinning Zlin 142 by wide margin. I don't like too much excitement when flying for subsistence.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Far east
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for all nice answers. My company (B777) book says cat2 operation requiring FMA to annunciate LAND2, which means requiring auto approach. Manual landing can be done if RVR is 350 or more. Auto approach needed but can land manually.
It's up to your aircraft type, type of operation, ops manual and regulatory authority. The A320 will only annunciate Cat I when manually flown, so in that type the answer is no, much like the 777 as described by Bungfai.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of Airbus operation , not Company SOP, in case of "NO FLARE" after an automatic approach is possibile , with adeguate visual reference, to disconnet the a/p and manually complete the landing in Cat 2- 3DH-3No DH .
Even in the Airbus with the FMA indicating "Cat 1" you can and may perform a manual Cat II landing.
It was a well discussed subject in my company and finally they said Airbus suggests you shouldn't, but you still may do it.
But you will have to make sure you got the equipment you need, e.g. one radio altimeter, so do so, as that is not ECAM monitored then.
(well on the A320 you'll need the RA anyway as hopefully you won't be attempting an CAT II approach in direct law --- which would still be legal, btw!).
It was a well discussed subject in my company and finally they said Airbus suggests you shouldn't, but you still may do it.
But you will have to make sure you got the equipment you need, e.g. one radio altimeter, so do so, as that is not ECAM monitored then.
(well on the A320 you'll need the RA anyway as hopefully you won't be attempting an CAT II approach in direct law --- which would still be legal, btw!).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safelife, regarding the airbus I'll disagree with your statement. Limitations are very clear
CATEGORY II AUTOMATIC APPROACH WITHOUT AUTOMATIC LANDING
Minimum decision height: 100 ft. One autopilot at least must be engaged in APPR mode and CAT 2 or CAT 3 SINGLE or CAT 3 DUAL capability must be displayed on FMA. Minimum height for AP disconnection: 80 ft.
CATEGORY II AUTOMATIC APPROACH WITH AUTOMATIC LANDING
Minimum decision height: 100 ft. One autopilot at least must be engaged in APPR mode and CAT 2 or CAT 3 SINGLE, or CAT 3 DUAL capability must be displayed on FMA.
Airbus saying you may do so must come in form of exceptional approval or TR to the manual. NO such TR has been issued till today.
CATEGORY II AUTOMATIC APPROACH WITHOUT AUTOMATIC LANDING
Minimum decision height: 100 ft. One autopilot at least must be engaged in APPR mode and CAT 2 or CAT 3 SINGLE or CAT 3 DUAL capability must be displayed on FMA. Minimum height for AP disconnection: 80 ft.
CATEGORY II AUTOMATIC APPROACH WITH AUTOMATIC LANDING
Minimum decision height: 100 ft. One autopilot at least must be engaged in APPR mode and CAT 2 or CAT 3 SINGLE, or CAT 3 DUAL capability must be displayed on FMA.
Airbus saying you may do so must come in form of exceptional approval or TR to the manual. NO such TR has been issued till today.
