Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

LVO operation with a320

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

LVO operation with a320

Old 20th Jun 2022, 15:41
  #1 (permalink)  
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 ?
Jay320 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2022, 07:05
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: France
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At the latest by 1000ft AAL, the actual weather reported should be CAT I or above, otherwise you need to go around.
Scagrams is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2022, 10:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: somewhere in the middle
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
thetimesreader84 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2022, 18:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2022, 18:50
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: India
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thank you so much for the answers seniors
Jay320 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2022, 16:28
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
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.
vilas is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2022, 16:56
  #7 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
CATII minimum Approach can be completely flown manually.
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).



Last edited by FlightDetent; 23rd Jun 2022 at 01:05.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2022, 19:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
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.
Totally depends on the operator. We are CAT I unless we can do autoland and auto-rollout.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2022, 08:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
Totally depends on the operator. We are CAT I unless we can do autoland and auto-rollout.
True! More operator defined than regulatory.
vilas is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2022, 15:02
  #10 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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


FlightDetent is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2022, 17:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ?
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2022, 18:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
The EASA world is rather clear on this, shall we?


Thanks FD. Low visibility ops not my strength actually.
vilas is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2022, 00:11
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scagrams View Post
At the latest by 1000ft AAL, the actual weather reported should be CAT I or above, otherwise you need to go around.
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.
EASAPARTACADEMY is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2022, 02:20
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EASAPARTACADEMY View Post
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.
Uhh, lather rinse repeat..

Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
Totally depends on the operator. We are CAT I unless we can do autoland and auto-rollout.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2022, 03:50
  #15 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2022, 21:03
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
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.
Don't even know.... I replied to Vilas, who totally acknowledged that, and then get literally the same quote from EPA. I'm confused.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2022, 09:56
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The bush
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
Thanks FD. Low visibility ops not my strength actually.
The information is probably correct but I would careful referencing a 29 year old document. A lot of changes in Airbus over that time.
The Banjo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2022, 10:35
  #18 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Banjo View Post
The information is probably correct but I would careful referencing a 29 year old document. A lot of changes in Airbus over that time.
Imagine that it's the date of certification and the actual document inside is valid as of today.

For PWG NEO's that stamp is 2015, specific LIM DU 2017 and my reprint late 2020 for MSN 102xx. The wording is verbatim.

FlightDetent is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2022, 10:44
  #19 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PEI_3721 View Post
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 ?
To my understanding only CAT D needs to have 350 m and nothing else. Assuming a properly designed aeroplane which does not create restrictions on the slant range / cockpit cutoff angle / visible segment.

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.


​​​​
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2022, 12:21
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
PEI_3721 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.