LVO operation with a320
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2022
Location: India
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LVO operation with a320
Let's say we are Cat 2 rated and shooting an approach with cat 2 weather condition. During the approach around (2000ft) , aircraft downgraded to Cat 1 single on PFD. can we continue the approach ?
From the (our) FCOM (PRO NOR SOP Management of degraded guidance)
"...the approach may be continued only if the following is completed prior to 1000 ft AAL:
ECAM completed
Approach procedure & minima briefed
Approach capability correct for new category of Approach
RVR acceptable for new Approach
New DH Entered
Decision to downgrade is made"
So if the RVR is below below minima, you're going around.
If below 1000 ft AAL, a downgrade (click click click...) is a go around unless you have & can maintain visual reference.
"...the approach may be continued only if the following is completed prior to 1000 ft AAL:
ECAM completed
Approach procedure & minima briefed
Approach capability correct for new category of Approach
RVR acceptable for new Approach
New DH Entered
Decision to downgrade is made"
So if the RVR is below below minima, you're going around.
If below 1000 ft AAL, a downgrade (click click click...) is a go around unless you have & can maintain visual reference.
You can continue if you are visual and can maintain that, simple as that. If you are not visual then you need to go around. If it happened earlier in the flight (prior to 1000) you could downgrade to Cat 1 and continue.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CATII minimum Approach can be completely flown manually. CAT1 single is aircraft landing capability, which doesn't affect CATll landing as manual landing is permitted upto actual CATll visibility.
Only half a speed-brake
There's a lot of 'provided that' attached.
In my jurisdiction definitely not avail with CAT 1 displayed.
Another one being it needs to be flown coupled to FD and AP, manual landing would be permitted if trained to do so (which we are not).
In my jurisdiction definitely not avail with CAT 1 displayed.
Another one being it needs to be flown coupled to FD and AP, manual landing would be permitted if trained to do so (which we are not).
Last edited by FlightDetent; 23rd Jun 2022 at 00:05.
Totally depends on the operator. We are CAT I unless we can do autoland and auto-rollout.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only half a speed-brake
The EASA world is rather clear on this, shall we?
Originally Posted by AFM LIM-22-FGS-00009243.0005001
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
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
FD, for interest what difference is there in RVR minima between auto and manual landing Cat 2 for EASA operators.
EASA (ops) low vis minima recently updated; or under review ?
EASA (ops) low vis minima recently updated; or under review ?
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only half a speed-brake
hans brinker Did you just quote from nick "EASA PART ACADEMY" that verbatim on all points claims the opposite of recently linked genuine Airbus EASA AFM?
Perhaps it's a false flag to trash Canadian reputation, IDK.
Perhaps it's a false flag to trash Canadian reputation, IDK.
hans brinker Did you just quote from nick "EASA PART ACADEMY" that verbatim on all points claims the opposite of recently linked genuine Airbus EASA AFM?
Perhaps it's a false flag to trash Canadian reputation, IDK.
Perhaps it's a false flag to trash Canadian reputation, IDK.
Only half a speed-brake
For PWG NEO's that stamp is 2015, specific LIM DU 2017 and my reprint late 2020 for MSN 102xx. The wording is verbatim.
Only half a speed-brake
On the second point I am not sure to understand the question. If you mean Amendment (New) to OPS 1.430 that is history over a decade ago.
But I may not be briefed on the latest since about 5 years.
Additional point where I beg to differ markedly is the 'each operator does diffefently'. The airplane has certified performance and any operator placing additional restrictions is losing money wasted on the inferior training coverage. Mean to say, eventually everyone does the same to reach the full potential as defined by manufacturer within the maximum extent available from the NAA.
Individual pilots being exposed to wide range of training materials and creative teaching guidelines notwithstanding.
AWO is far from being a new thing, the NAAs know well how to approve.
FD, Thanks
Initial paras understood - agree.
If no change, then EASA update still under review.
Although EASA provides overall policy and requirement, is there scope for local NAA interpretation. Or are differences in operations between operators with same aircraft type due to different authorities for certification / operational approval; e.g. EASA vs FAA (AWO poorly harmonised).
Initial paras understood - agree.
If no change, then EASA update still under review.
Although EASA provides overall policy and requirement, is there scope for local NAA interpretation. Or are differences in operations between operators with same aircraft type due to different authorities for certification / operational approval; e.g. EASA vs FAA (AWO poorly harmonised).
