Par 7-8 Page 68
7-8. CONFIGURATION CONTROL/SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS. The operator should ensure that any modification to systems and components approved for AWO operations are not adversely affected when incorporating software changes, SBs, hardware additions, or modifications. Any changes to system components should be consistent with the aircraft manufacturer, avionics manufacturer, industry, or FAA-accepted criteria or processes.
7-9. RECORDS.
a. Operator Requirements. The operator should keep suitable records (e.g., both the operator’s own records and access to records of any applicable contract maintenance organization). This is to ensure that both the operator and FAA can determine the appropriate airworthiness configuration and status of each aircraft.
b. Contract Maintenance Organization Requirements. Contract maintenance organizations should have appropriate records and instructions for coordination of records with the operator.
7-10. PART 129 FOREIGN OPERATOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.
a. Maintenance of Part 129 Foreign Registered Aircraft. For part 129 operators of foreign registered aircraft (e.g., § 129.14 is not applicable), the cognizant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the CAA of the operator. For those situations, the FAA may implicitly accept that the maintenance program is considered to be acceptable if the cognizant CAA has approved it, and if the operator or CAA indicates that the program meets U.S. criteria, U.S.
equivalent criteria (e.g., criteria such as European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) criteria), or International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) criteria (e.g., Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, and ICAO Doc 9365-AN/910, Manual of All Weather Operations), and the cognizant CAA has authorized CAT II/III U.S. operations. The FAA then issues the pertinent part 129 CAT II/III operations specification (OpSpec) based on the other CAA’s approval for that operator.
However, the FAA reserves the authority to ensure competence of both the operator and authorizing and supervising CAA, depending on whether the CAA or operator are considered to be from a category 1, 2, or 3 country (safety classification, not a low visibility landing classification), and if there have been any reported problems with the operator or CAA. Evidence of the operator satisfying or being consistent with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program should serve as evidence of an acceptable maintenance program, regardless of the capability of the CAA or the operator, unless the FAA has specifically addressed maintenance requirements beyond those of the manufacturer for that aircraft type (e.g., required SB compliance or AD compliance related to the FGS).
b. Maintenance of Part 129 Foreign Operated U.S. N-Registered Aircraft. Foreign operators of U.S. N-registered aircraft (e.g., those operators to which § 129.14 is applicable) should have maintenance programs equivalent to that required for a U.S. part 121 operator. Use of the part 91 provisions for general aviation is not applicable or appropriate. Principal operations inspector (POI) approval of CAT II/III OpSpecs for a § 129.14 operator may implicitly be considered to also accept the maintenance program adequacy. Accordingly, coordination between the applicable POI and principal avionics inspector (PAI) is necessary before part 129 OpSpec authorization is completed. The FAA is ultimately the cognizant CAA
Par 7-10 Page 69 (and 70) for the maintenance program in this instance, if the aircraft is N-registered. However, the FAA may accept oversight of the operator’s CAA if that CAA is judged by the FAA to have equivalent processes, criteria and procedures for oversight of maintenance programs (e.g., EASA countries). The basis for any such maintenance program should be the recommended airframe manufacturer (or avionics vendor) program, considering any adjusted MRB requirements.
Par 8-1 Page 71 CHAPTER 8. APPROVAL OF U.S. OPERATORS
8-1. GENERAL. Other than part 91 standard CAT I operations, all AWO operations covered by this AC require authorization via operations specification (OpSpec), MSpec, or letter of authorization (LOA). Application packages should be completed in coordination with the responsible Flight Standards office and should detail compliance with the applicable provisions of this AC and the requested authorization.
8-2. OPERATIONS MANUALS AND PROCEDURES.
a. Manuals.
(1) Prior to CAT I/II/III approval, appropriate flightcrew operating manuals, flight manuals, airline policy manuals, maintenance manuals, training manuals, and related aircraft checklists, quick reference handbooks (QRH) or other equivalent operator information should incorporate pertinent CAT I/II/III provisions in accordance with applicable operating rule
(e.g., part 91 Appendix A).
(2) Information covered in ground training and procedures addressed in flight training should be available to flightcrews and dispatchers in an appropriate form for reference use.
b. Procedures. Prior to approval for AWO operations, provisions of Chapter 5 of this AC should be implemented by the operator. Flightcrew member duties during the takeoff, approach, and landing phases should be described. Duties should address pilot flying (PF) and pilot monitoring (PM) responsibilities and tasks during all stages of the takeoff, approach, landing, rollout, and missed approach appropriate to each category of minima being implemented. The duties of any additional crewmembers should also be explicitly defined and incorporated into the applicant’s qualification program.
8-3. TRAINING PROGRAMS AND CREW QUALIFICATION. Training programs, Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), crew qualification, and checking provisions and standards, differences qualification, check pilot qualification, line check, route check, and Operating Experience (OE) programs should each satisfactorily incorporate necessary AWO provisions (see Chapter 5 for details). An acceptable method to track pertinent crewmember AWO qualification must be established (see paragraph 5-17).
8-4. DISPATCH PLANNING. Appropriate provisions for minimum equipment lists (MEL) and Configuration Deviation Lists (CDL) should be made as necessary to address AWO operations. Dispatch procedures to ensure appropriate weather, field conditions, facility status, Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information, alternate airport designation, engine-inoperative missed approach performance, crew qualification, aircraft system status, and fuel planning should be implemented.
8-5. OPSPECS. Authorizations, limitations, and provisions applicable to AWO operations are specified in part C of the OpSpecs. An example of an appropriate OpSpec is provided in Appendix 3.
Par 8-5 Page 72
a. OpSpec Contents. Proposed OpSpecs should list pertinent approved airports/runways, Runway Visual Range (RVR) limits, required RVR sensors, minimum descent altitude (MDA), decision altitude (DA)/decision height (DH), and Alert Height (AH) use provisions, aircraft equipment provisions for normal and engine-out operations, landing field length provisions, and any other special requirements identified by the responsible Flight Standards office or the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division. The operator’s manuals, procedures, checklists, QRHs, MELs, dispatch procedures, etc. must be shown to be consistent with the proposed OpSpecs.
b. OpSpec Maintenance. The operator is responsible for maintaining current OpSpecs reflecting current approvals authorized by the FAA. Once the FAA has authorized a change for aircraft systems, new runways, or other authorizations, appropriate and timely amendments to affected OpSpecs should be issued.
c. OpSpec Amendments. Issuance of amendments to guidance or procedures in other related material such as the Flight Operations Manual or Training Program may also be required.
When updated standard OpSpecs provisions are adopted by the FAA, provisions of those updated OpSpecs should be applied to each operator’s program as directed by the accompanying notice or other FAA direction.
8-6. OPERATIONAL DEMONSTRATIONS. Unless otherwise specified by the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, appropriate “airborne system suitability” and “operational use suitability” demonstrations must be completed as described in subparagraphs a and b below. The purpose of these operational demonstrations is to determine or validate the use and effectiveness of the aircraft flight guidance systems (FGS), training, flightcrew procedures, maintenance program, and manuals for the program being approved. Operators of aircraft having FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) referencing AC 20-191, AC 120-28, or AC 120- 29 as the criteria used as the basis for CAT II or III airworthiness demonstration already are considered to meet provisions of subparagraph a below. These operators typically need only address provisions of subparagraph b below for verification of operational use suitability.
a. Aircraft System Suitability Demonstration. FAA operating rules and regulations addressing AWO requirements are addressed by standard OpSpecs and parts 61, 91, 97, 121, 125, and 135. These provisions apply continuously, as defined at the time of a particular operation. Conversely, airworthiness rules (parts 23, 25, etc.,) primarily apply at the time a "certification basis" is established for type certificate (TC) or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) and do not necessarily reflect "present" requirements, except through issuance of ADs updated with an amended TC or new STC application. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure compliance with current operating rules.
(1) To minimize the need for repeating initial airborne system operational suitability demonstrations for each operator, airborne system suitability is usually demonstrated in conjunction with airworthiness approval (TC or STC) of airborne systems and components. This approach optimizes the use of analysis and flight demonstration. Aircraft system suitability is normally demonstrated through an initial airworthiness demonstration meeting applicable provisions of this AC and/or AC 20-191 (or combined airworthiness/operational evaluation for new systems or concepts).
Par 8-6 Page 73
(2) If such a demonstration has not been conducted during airworthiness certification, or the AFM does not reflect completion of such a demonstration, then the operator may propose and the FAA may approve an assessment and demonstration program. This provision typically applies to operators seeking to establish CAT II/III capability of an aircraft or FGS. In such instances, criteria of AC 20-191 may be used as a guideline to formulate the operator’s assessment and demonstration program. For such a program, the numbers of approaches conducted by the operator and the data collected to establish suitable performance and reliability should be equivalent to that which otherwise would be provided by an airworthiness demonstration in accordance with AC 20-191.
(3) Airworthiness demonstration to an acceptable earlier version of AC 120-29 or AC 120-28, or equivalent criteria, remains valid for aircraft/aircraft systems initially TC’d prior to issuance of AC 20-191 and having the earlier criteria as the type certification basis. However, previously demonstrated aircraft or aircraft systems seeking operational credit specified only in provisions of this AC (e.g., for Head-Up Display (HUD), Hybrid Autoland/Head-Up Display (HUD) credit) must meet criteria specified in this AC and AC 20-191.
(4) Acceptable results of such airworthiness evaluations are usually described in Section 3 (Normal and Non-Normal Procedures) of the FAA-approved AFM or AFM Supplement. Unless otherwise specified by the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, the responsible Flight Standards office should ensure that aircraft proposed for CAT II/III have completed an appropriate airborne system operational suitability demonstration, and that result should normally be reflected in the approved AFM or AFM Supplement.
(5) For aircraft certified by the FAA through 14 CFR part 21, § 21.29 (certain non-U.S.
manufactured aircraft), AFM provisions may vary. In certain instances, AFM provisions may not be consistent with U.S. policy or rules. In such instances, prior coordination by the responsible Flight Standards office with the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division is appropriate to provide guidance to operators regarding applicability of various AFM provisions (e.g., AH, DH, and RVR limitations, acceptable NAVAID use, alerting system use, and required versus recommended crew procedures). As a general guideline, AFMs meeting airworthiness standards recognized by or harmonized with the FAA (e.g., European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Transport Canada, etc.) may be accepted without further demonstration.
(6) While considering an AFM of an aircraft certificated by a non-U.S. airworthiness authority other than as described above, or for additional credit for existing systems based on uncertain foreign AFM provisions, operational assessments in accordance with criteria in this AC, or equivalent criteria, may be necessary. In such instances, the applicable Aircraft Evaluation Division or the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division should be consulted. If necessary, the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division may specify suitable criteria to apply.
b. Operator Use Suitability Demonstration (OUSD).
(1) The OUSD is to demonstrate and validate the reliability and performance of lower minimum programs in line operations consistent with the operational concepts specified in this AC for each make, model, and series of a fleet.
Par 8-6 Page 74
(a) For CAT I, unless a responsible Flight Standards office specifies approach demonstrations are necessary due to unusual circumstances or special situations, or for special systems such as “Autoland,” operators may conduct CAT I operations without need for special demonstrations, if the aircraft type AFM does not preclude the intended operation.
(b) An OUSD application is required for CAT II/III approvals for each make, model, and series of a fleet. Demonstration requirements are established considering any applicable FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) criteria, previous operator service experience, experience with a specific aircraft type by other operators, experience of crews of that operator, and other such factors. The demonstration period is typically 6 months long for each phase (CAT II and III) of a progression to CAT II or CAT III landing minima. This permits the FAA to evaluate the ability of the operator to maintain and operate its proposed lower minima program.
(2) The OUSD consists of two phases:
(a) The first phase is referred to as the OUSD landing phase. During this phase, the operator conducts the required number of landings using the CAT II or III systems approved in the submitted OUSD plan. Typically, a specified number of successful landings should be accomplished in line operations using the specified weather minima for demonstration requirements. See Table 8-1 Operator Use Suitability Demonstration Requirements, for specific requirements.
1. A success rate of 90 percent is required. During the demonstration period, at least 10 percent of the required number of landings should be observed by an appropriately qualified FAA operations inspector.
2. If an excessive number of failures (e.g., unsatisfactory landings or system disconnects) occur during the landing demonstration phase, a determination should be made for the need for additional demonstration landings, or for consideration of other remedial action
(e.g., procedures adjustment, wind constraints, or system modifications).
(b) The second phase, the OUSD validation phase, begins after completion of the OUSD landing phase. The OUSD validation phase is typically 6 months for a new operator. The purpose of the OUSD validation phase is to validate that the operator’s proposed maintenance and operational procedures are suitable to CAT II/III operations. Due to the importance of this maintenance tracking during the OUSD validation phase, special emphasis should be placed on Chapter 7 maintenance reporting and procedures. A second OUSD validation phase may be required to reach the lowest CAT III minima.
(3) Regardless of credit permitted by the responsible Flight Standards office, if an operator is not aware of current CAT II/III operations at a particular runway by some other operator and similar aircraft type, it is a good practice for the operator to have conducted at least one approach using the CAT II or III system to each runway intended for CAT II/III operations in weather better than that requiring use of CAT II/III minima. Such demonstrations may be conducted in line operations, during training flights, or during aircraft type or route proving runs.
Par 8-6 Page 75
(4) The system should demonstrate reliability and performance in line operations consistent with the operational concepts specified in Chapter 3. In situations where the completion of the required number of landings may be disproportionate to the probable level of operations and make this requirement onerous, a reduction in the required number of landings may be considered if equivalent reliability can be assured. Reduction of the number of landings to be demonstrated requires a justification for the reduction, and prior approval from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division.
(5) U.S. air carriers are approved to conduct CAT II and/or CAT III landing demonstrations on U.S. facilities that have published part 97 CAT II or CAT III instrument approach procedures (IAP), approved foreign facilities listed on the Flight Operations Branch website at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/cat_ ils_info/, or U.S. Type I facilities (see subparagraph 8-6c below for details). If using CAT I facilities for demonstration, there is a greater chance to end in an unsuccessful landing which could prolong the OUSD process. Sufficient information must be collected and investigated to determine the cause of any unsatisfactory performance (e.g., critical area was not protected, etc.).
(6) If an operator has different models of the same aircraft utilizing the same or slightly different basic flight control and display systems, the operator should show that the various make and model combinations have satisfactory performance, but a separate operational demonstration may not need to be completed for each make and model. The responsible Flight Standards office should coordinate such demonstration decisions with the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division prior to approving OUSD plan.
(7) OUSD Data Collection and Analysis. The successful accomplishment of the OUSD will require close coordination by the applicant and the responsible Flight Standards office(s).
(a) Data Collection for Airborne System Demonstrations. Each applicant should develop a data collection method to record approach and landing performance specific to aircraft make/model/series combinations. The resulting data and a summary of the demonstration data should be made available to the assigned Flight Standards office. An evaluation of data discussed below will be made to determine system suitability for further CAT II/III operations. The reported data should, at a minimum, include the following information:
1. Information regarding the inability to initiate an approach or identify deficiencies related to airborne equipment.
2. Information regarding abandoned approaches, stating the reasons the approach was abandoned and the altitude above the runway at which the approach was discontinued or the automatic landing system was disengaged.
3. Information regarding any system abnormalities which required manual intervention by the pilot to ensure a safe touchdown or touchdown and rollout, as appropriate.
Par 8-6 Page 76
(b) Data Analysis. Unsatisfactory approaches using facilities approved for CAT II or CAT III where landing system signal protection was provided should be fully documented.
The following factors should be considered:
1. Air Traffic Service (ATS) Factors. ATS factors that result in unsuccessful approaches should be reported. Examples include situations in which a flight is vectored too close to the final approach fix (FAF)/point for adequate course and glide path capture, lack of protection of instrument landing system (ILS) critical areas, or ATS requests the flight to discontinue the approach.
2. Faulty NAVAID Signals. NAVAID irregularities, such as those caused by other aircraft taxiing, over-flying the NAVAID (antenna), or where a pattern of such faulty performance can be established should be reported.
3. Other Factors. Any other specific factors affecting the success of CAT II/III operations that are clearly discernible to the flightcrew should be reported.
c. Use of Autoland or Head-Up Guidance at U.S. Type I Facilities or Equivalent.
(1) Operators may conduct autoland or HUD operations at runways with facilities other than those with published CAT II/III IAPs without need for special demonstrations, if the aircraft type AFM does not preclude the intended operation. For autoland system use on CAT I facilities, OpSpec C061 is issued if required. For HUD system use on CAT I facilities, OpSpec C062 is issued if required. Precautions to be taken for such operations include the following:
(a) The operator must not conduct automatic landings, or landing operations using a HUD, to any runway unless the certificate holder determines the flight control guidance and instrument approach guidance systems being used permit safe automatically flown or HUD-guided approaches and landings to be conducted at that runway.
(b) The runway and associated instrument procedure must have no outstanding NOTAMs or chart notes that would preclude the use of the autoland or HUD system
(e.g., “Localizer unusable inside the threshold,” or “Glideslope unusable below xxx feet”).
(c) Suitable ILS Critical Area protection should be requested from ATS. The crew must remain alert to any unsuitable system performance, whether or not critical protection is being provided.
(d) The published threshold crossing height (TCH) should be equal to or greater than that required for the aircraft type. Operators should also consider potential issues with irregular pre-threshold terrain at airports when determining suitability to exercise autoland systems.
(e) For additional information on the ILS/Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) Landing System (GLS) capabilities/limitations specific to each approach considered, operators must be familiar with, and refer to, the ILS facility performance classification code
(e.g., I/D) for that runway. These codes may be found in the current Chart Supplement (formerly referred to as Airport/Facility Directory) and further explained in the legend.
Par 8-6 Page 77
(f) Operators should maintain a list of runways eligible (or ineligible) for autoland or HUD operations due to known approach performance capabilities (or anomalies).
8-7. DETERMINING THE PROPER OUSD FOR AN OPERATOR’S REQUESTED AUTHORIZATION.
a. Table Definitions. The following definitions are provided for use with Table 8-1 below to determine the proper OUSD plan for a particular operator’s request for CAT II or III authorization.
(1) Operator Experience:
(a) CAT I. A new operator or an operator not currently meeting CAT II or CAT III experience described below.
(b) CAT II. Operator must have a current OpSpec/MSpec/LOA that has been authorized for at least 1 year for unrestricted CAT II operations to an RVR 1200 or lower minimum.
(c) CAT III. Operator must have a current OpSpec/MSpec/LOA that has been authorized for at least 1 year for CAT III operations to no more than an RVR 700 minimum.
(2) New Aircraft. An aircraft type new to an operator’s fleet (e.g., A-330 operator adding A-350). For CAT I only experienced operators, the aircraft is considered new for purposes of Table 8-1, regardless of how long it has been in the operator’s fleet.
(3) New Equipment. Newly added or replacement/upgraded flight control and display equipment (e.g., newly installed autopilot/HUD etc.) to an existing operator’s aircraft type or the addition of the same aircraft type with different flight control and/or display systems (e.g., B-767 Autoland vs. B-767 HUD or B-737-800 vs. B-737-8 MAX). Equipment for which the operator is not currently approved is considered “new equipment” irrespective of the certification date or basis.
(4) Existing. Current aircraft type and equipment in use by a CAT II experienced operator requesting CAT III authorization.
(5) OUSD Landing Phase. The initial phase during which the operator conducts the number of required landings/minima listed in Table 8-1 using the CAT II or III systems approved in the submitted OUSD plan.
(6) OUSD Validation Phase. The subsequent phase(s) during which the operator’s proposed maintenance and operational procedures are verified suitable for CAT II/III operations.
To reach the lowest CAT III minima, a second OUSD Validation Phase may be required. In some cases, portions of the OUSD Validation Phase may be conducted concurrently with the OUSD Landing Phase. Table 8-1 shows the required OUSD Validation Phase for each type of approval.
Par 8-7 Page 78 NOTE: When a new series of the same make and model is determined to require an OUSD, it may be defined as “new aircraft” or “new equipment” based upon the FSB report and differences between FGSs, landing systems, and avionics systems.
b. Table Use. To use Table 8-1, first determine the lowest minima category authorization the operator is seeking. Table 8-1 is divided in half, as the top of the chart contains an OUSD resulting in CAT II authorization while the bottom contains an OUSD resulting in CAT III authorization. Enter the table with operator’s current “Operator Experience” and use aircraft/equipment qualifiers in the second column, to further define the operator’s particular case. At this point, simply read across the corresponding line in Table 8-1 to determine the required landings and minima during the initial “OUSD Landing Phase,” followed by the “OUSD Validation Phase 1,” followed by “OUSD Validation Phase 2,” if required, arriving at the final, lowest “Authorized RVR Minima” that may be approved.
c. Minimum Landings. Upon successfully completing 90 percent of the required landings, the principal operations inspector (POI) may initiate the OUSD Validation Phase 1, by issuing the appropriate portions of OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C060 and authorizing CAT II minima.
In cases where the OUSD Landing Phase and OUSD Validation Phase 1 run concurrently, once successfully completing 90 percent of the required landings and the 3-month OUSD Validation Phase 1, the POI may authorize Validation Phase 2.
d. New Flight Control Equipment OUSD. In cases where an existing CAT II operator is seeking CAT II or III minima with new flight control equipment, all landings for OUSD credit must use the new flight control equipment, and must be conducted at CAT I weather minima or greater. At the POI’s discretion, the operator may continue to use CAT II minima for other landings provided the new flight control equipment is not depended upon for the operation and the requirements of the current authorization continue to be met. If CAT II operations cannot be conducted safely using the current authorization due to differences in crew procedures, training, etc., the operator’s CAT II authorization should be de-authorized until the OUSD Landing Phase requirements are met.
e. Six-Month Validation Phase Relief. During the 6-month OUSD Validation Phase, an operator seeking CAT II authorization may request to eliminate the restriction of DH 100 and RVR 1600, based on operational credit for the use of CAT III systems to conduct CAT II operations. The appropriate portions of OpSpec/MSpec/LOA C060 must specify that all CAT II operations using DH 100 and RVR 1200 must be conducted with the airborne equipment operating to CAT III standards.
f. Small Fleet OUSD. For operators with small fleets, the POI, with concurrence from the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, may adjust the OUSD Landing Phase to a number of landings manageable for the operator, while still meeting the intent of this AC. The number of landings will depend on the operator’s prior experience with SA CAT I or CAT II/III, the number of aircraft in the operator’s fleet, and the FAA’s experience in SA CAT I or CAT II/III operations with the operator’s aircraft. Past practice has allowed a combination of approach and landings in a level C or D qualified full flight simulator (FFS) (i.e., 50 percent maximum) and the actual aircraft.
Par 8-7 Page 79 TABLE 8-1. OPERATOR USE SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS Requesting CAT II Authorization Operator Experience Aircraft Required Landings/Minima OUSD Validation Phase 1 RVR Mins/Mos OUSD Validation Phase 2 RVR Mins/Mos Authorized RVR Minimums CAT I New 100/Cat I 1600/6 or 1200/66 N/A 1200 or 10001 CAT II New 50/Cat I New Equipment Only 25/Cat I/3 1600/3 or 1200/36 CAT III New 50/Cat I 1600/6 or 1200/66 N/A Requesting Cat III Authorization Operator Experience Aircraft Required Landings/Minima OUSD Validation Phase 1 RVR Mins/Mos OUSD Validation Phase 2 RVR Mins/Mos Authorized RVR Minimums CAT I New 100/Cat I 1200/67 7003 or 600/6 400 or 3002 CAT II Existing 25/Current Cat II mins/34 7003 or 600/35 New Equipment Only 50/Cat I 10001/6 7003 or 600/6 New
CAT III New New equipment only 25/Current Cat II mins/34 7003 or 600/35 1 1000 RVR authorization requires use of Autoland or FP HUD via OpSpec/MSpec/LOA 2 300 RVR authorization via OpSpec/MSpec/LOA requires a Fail Operational Rollout System 3 700 RVR authorization based on CAT IIIa approval via AC 120-28C or earlier criteria 4 Landing phase and OUSD Validation Phase 1 may run concurrently 5 Validation Phase 2 and all reporting requirements apply even if operator is not seeking RVR 400/300 mins 6 CAT II minima of 1200 RVR may be authorized for operators seeking CAT II 1000 RVR minima in accordance with Note 1 7 CAT II minima of 1000 RVR in accordance with Note 1 may be authorized in conjunction with initial CAT III authorization after completion of OUSD Validation Phase 1
Par 8-8 Page 80
8-8. CAT II/III PROGRAM STATUS FOLLOWING OPERATOR ACQUISITIONS/MERGERS. CAT II/III operators involved in acquisitions of other operators or mergers, and their responsible Flight Standards office, must ensure compatibility of programs, procedures, aircraft systems, runways served, and any other relevant issues before amending OpSpecs, or advising the surviving or controlling operator of the status of CAT II/III OpSpecs of the acquired or merged operator. If doubt exists with the responsible Flight Standards office regarding applicability or status of CAT II/III OpSpec provisions for a resulting new, surviving, acquired, or merged carrier, the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division should be consulted.
8-9. IRREGULAR PRE-THRESHOLD TERRAIN AND OTHER RESTRICTED RUNWAYS. Airports/runways with irregular pre-threshold terrain, or runways restricted due to NAVAID or facility characteristics may require special evaluation or restrictions. Various procedures used by the FAA to assess irregular pre-threshold terrain, as described in Appendix 4, should be considered by the operator prior to OpSpecs authorization. For specific facilities affected, Refer to the FAA website for restricted/nonstandard U.S. facilities approved for CAT II and CAT III operations at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/cat_ ils_info/.
8-10. U.S. CARRIER AWO OPERATIONS AT FOREIGN AIRPORTS. An applicant having U.S. lower-than-standard takeoff minima and/or CAT I/II/III approval may be authorized to use those minima at foreign airports in accordance with its OpSpecs. Information on the approval process for all Foreign Terminal Instrument Procedures (FTIP) is located in AC 120-105.
a. Post-Approval Requirements. Once approved, the operator must comply with both FAA and local requirements. The operator must also ensure current status information for NOTAMs are available and advise its responsible Flight Standards office of incompatible requirements (e.g., use of Obstacle Clearance Altitude (OCA (H)) etc.) for resolution by the responsible Flight Standards office or the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division.
b. Consistency with U.S. Standards. Although it is recognized that the systems at foreign airports may not be exactly in accordance with U.S. standards, it is important that any foreign facilities used provide the necessary information or functions consistent with the intent of the U.S. standards. Carriers desiring CAT II/III approvals at foreign airports or runways not on the FAA-approved list should submit such requests through its FAA POI to the Flight Technologies and Procedures Division. Refer to the website for foreign facilities approved for CAT II/III operations at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/cat_ ils_info/.
8-11. EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY AND/OR OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS.
a. New Technology Demonstration (NTD) Process. As used in this AC, NTD is a demonstration in an environment and conditions necessary to show concept validity in terms of