LVO operation with a320
 

At the latest by 1000ft AAL, the actual weather reported should be CAT I or above, otherwise you need to go around.

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.

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.

thank you so much for the answers seniors :)

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.

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).

Totally depends on the operator. We are CAT I unless we can do autoland and auto-rollout.

True! More operator defined than regulatory.

The EASA world is rather clear on this, shall we?
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cdeab1c680.jpg

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 ?

Thanks FD. Low visibility ops not my strength actually.

Uhh, lather rinse repeat..

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.

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.

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.

​
​​​​

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).