CAT3 capability - specific configuration
 

Hello,

I try to list the different aircrafts certified for CAT3 approach in a specific configuration: with autoland but without autothrottle.

Do you know aircrafts of this specific type?

Thank you for your help,

Mic

the 737 classic i fly allows you to continue an autoland if the authrottle were to fail on the approach, not too sure on what the rules are on dispatching with an authrottle u/s to an airfield where cat III likely. will have to check my ops manual.

CATIII allowed in the L-1011, without autothrottle, however DLC must be operative.

B744.

CAT 3B not allowed without autothrottle. (0 ft DH)

CAT 3A OK. (50ft DH)

Not on A300.

You need at least 1 ATS Channel for CAT III A and B.

Re-entry
 

FWIW, and for the sake of completeness, your 744 restriction must be specific to your operator and not a Boeing restriction - we ( major 744 operator) are allowed to do do CAT III No DH without Autothrottle.

- all 737 types OK for dispatch in my experience.

Wiggy,

I agree [I suspect we operate for he same UK carrier:)], autothrust not required for Cat 3B operations, the manual just says 'the thrust levers should be controlled manually to maintain approach speed. At approx 25R, gradually reduce power to reach idle on touchdown.'

Not so on the A320 family from recollection, but no big deal on the QOTS!

A320 no A/thrust = Cat 2.

(throttles are fitted to cars).

I would expect that auto throttle (or not) to be aircraft type dependent. Manual thrust can destabilise the pitch/glidepath accuracy depending on engine location and autopilot speed control system (airspeed / alpha). In this case any dispensation would have to show that the (manual) system still met the approach accuracy requirements.
However, I note that JAR-AWO 321 (b) for operations down to 50ft DH, only requires that workload be considered.
For DHs below 50ft or no DH, then autothrottle is required, i.e. no dispensation. (JAR-AWO 321 (c) & (d))

CS-AWO requirements
 

Many types in current operation will have been certificated to earlier versions of JAR AWO which required AT unless it could be shown that the required performance could be achieved without it and without excessive pilot workload. Even now the introductory paragraph still says 'The following items of equipment must be installed for certification to the decision heights specified unless it is shown that the intended level of safety is achieved with alternative equipment, or the deletion of some items:' It is presumably possible to include AT in the MEL too. Sounds like lots of wriggle room.