Par 9 Page 119
(10) Procedures that ensure aircraft remain out of lower minimum status until successful corrective action has been verified for chronic and repetitive discrepancies.
(11) Procedures that ensure the aircraft system status is placarded properly and clearly documented in the aircraft log book, in coordination with maintenance control, engineering, flight operations, and dispatch, or equivalent.
(12) Procedures to ensure the downgrade of an aircraft low visibility capability status, if applicable, when maintenance has been performed by persons other than those trained, qualified, or authorized to use or approve procedures related to low visibility operations.
(13) Procedures for periodic maintenance of systems ground check, and systems flight check, as applicable.
For example, following a heavy maintenance, suitable checks may need to be performed prior to return to service.
(14) Provisions for an aircraft to remain in a specific low visibility capability status (e.g., Category II, Fail- Operational, Fail Passive) or other designated operational status used by the operator.
(15) Provision should be made for periodic operational sampling of suitable performance. Typically, at least one satisfactory approach should have been accomplished within a specified period approved for that operator, unless a satisfactory systems ground check has been accomplished. A recording procedure for both satisfactory and unsatisfactory results should be included. Fleet sampling is not typically acceptable in lieu of specific aircraft assessment. Typically at least one satisfactory low visibility system operational use, or a satisfactory systems ground check, should be accomplished within 6 months, or within a period as specified by the aircraft or avionics manufacturer for an aircraft to remain in Category II status.
NOTE: Maintenance programs meeting requirements for and approved for Category III typically are also considered acceptable for Category II. Aircraft low visibility systems status, however, must be clearly identified for pilots, maintenance, and dispatch, when combined programs are used.
9.3. Initial and Recurrent Maintenance Training.
a. Maintenance personnel should be knowledgeable regarding the information contained in this AC and 14 CFR related to any significant aspects of LLM that may pertain to maintenance. Operator and contract maintenance personnel including mechanics, maintenance controllers, avionics technicians, personnel performing maintenance inspection or quality assurance, or other engineering personnel if applicable, should receive initial and recurrent training as necessary for an effective program. The training curriculum should include specific aircraft systems and operator policies and procedures applicable to low visibility operations. Recurrent training should typically be accomplished at least annually, or when a person has not been involved in the maintenance of the specified aircraft or systems for an extended period (e.g., greater than 6 months). Training may lead to a certification or qualification
(e.g., for lower landing minima “LLM”) if the operator so designates such qualification in that operator’s approved program.
b. The training should at least include, as applicable:
(1) An initial and recurrent training program for appropriate operator and contract personnel. Personnel considered to be included are maintenance personnel, quality and reliability groups, maintenance control, and incoming inspection and stores, or equivalent organizations. Training should include both classroom and at least some “hands-on” aircraft training for those personnel who are assigned aircraft maintenance duties. Otherwise, training may be performed in a classroom, by computer based training, in simulators, in an airplane or in any other effective combination of the above consistent with the approved program, and considered acceptable to FAA.
(2) Subject areas for training should include: Operational concepts, aircraft types and systems affected, aircraft variants and differences where applicable, procedures to be used, manual or technical reference availability
Page 120 Par 9 and use, processes, tools, or test equipment to be used, quality control, methods for testing and return to service, signoffs required, proper Minimum Equipment List (MEL) application, general information about where to get technical assistance as necessary, necessary coordination with other parts of the operator’s organization (e.g., flight operations, dispatch), and any other maintenance program requirements unique to the operator or the aircraft types or variants flown (e.g., human factors considerations, problem reporting).
(3) Procedures for the use of outside vendors or vendor’s parts that ensures compatibility to program requirements and for establishing measures to control and account for parts overall quality assurance.
(4) Procedures to ensure tracking and control of components that are “swapped” between systems for trouble shooting when systems discrepancies can not be duplicated. These procedures should provide for total system testing and/or removal of aircraft from lower minimum status.
(5) Procedures to assess, track, and control the accomplishment of changes to components or systems pertinent to low visibility operations (e.g., ADs, service bulletins, engineering orders, 14 CFR requirements).
(6) Procedures to record and report lower minimum operation(s) that are discontinued/interrupted because of system(s) malfunction.
(7) Procedures to install, evaluate, control, and test system and component software changes, updates, or periodic updates.
(8) Procedures related to the minimum equipment list (MEL) remarks section use, which identify low visibility-related systems and components, specifying limitations, upgrading, and downgrading.
(9) Procedures for identifying and addressing performance assurance for any necessary low visibility-related components and systems, such as for use of “built in test” features, for required inspection items, and for providing quality assurance, whether performed in-house or by contract vendors.
9.4. Test Equipment/Calibration Standards. Test equipment may require periodic re-evaluation to ensure it has the required accuracy and reliability to return systems and components to service following maintenance. A listing of primary and secondary standards used to maintain test equipment that relate to low visibility operations should be maintained. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure these standards are adhered to by contract maintenance organizations. Traceability to a national standard or the manufacturer’s calibration standards should be maintained.
9.5. Return To Service Procedures.
a. Procedures should be included to upgrade or downgrade system status concerning low visibility operations capability. The method for controlling operational status of the aircraft should ensure that flightcrews, maintenance and inspection departments, dispatch, and other administrative personnel as necessary are appropriately aware of aircraft and system status.
b. The appropriate level of testing should be specified for each component or system. The manufacturer’s recommended maintenance program or maintenance instructions should be considered when determining the role built-in-test-equipment (BITE) should play for return to service (RTS) procedures, or for use as a method for low visibility status upgrade or downgrade.
c. Contract facilities or personnel should follow the operator’s FAA-approved maintenance program to approve an aircraft for return to service. The operator is responsible for ensuring that contract organizations and personnel are appropriately trained, qualified, and authorized.
9.6. Periodic Aircraft System Evaluations.
a. The operator should provide a method to continuously assess or periodically evaluate aircraft system performance to ensure satisfactory operation for those systems applicable to Category II. An acceptable method for assuring
Par 9 Page 121 satisfactory performance of a low visibility flight guidance system (e.g., autoland or HUD) is to periodically use the system and note satisfactory performance. A reliable record such as a logbook entry or computer ACARS record showing satisfactory performance within the previous 6 months for Category II is typically an acceptable method for assuring satisfactory system operation.
b. Periodic flight guidance system/autoland system checks should be conducted IAW procedures recommended by the airframe or avionics manufacturer, or by an alternate procedure approved by the FAA. For periodic assessment, a record should be established to show when and where the flight guidance/autoland system was satisfactorily used, and if performance was not satisfactory, to describe any remedial action taken.
c. Use of the flight guidance/automatic landing system should be encouraged to assist in maintaining its availability and reliability.
9.7. Reliability Reporting And Quality Control.
9.7.1. Reliability Reporting - Category I. No special “Reliability Reporting or Quality Control” requirements are applicable to Category I.
9.7.2. Reliability Reporting - Category II. For a period of 1 year after an applicant has been authorized for Category II, a monthly summary should be submitted to the certificate holding office. The following information should be reported:
a. The total number of approaches tracked, the number of satisfactory approaches tracked, by aircraft/system type, and visibility (RVR), if known or recorded.
b. The total number of unsatisfactory approaches, and reasons for unsatisfactory performance, if known, listed by appropriate category (e.g., poor system performance, aircraft equipment problem/failure; ground facility problem, ATS handling, lack of critical area protection, or other).
c. The total number of unscheduled removals of components of the related avionics systems.
d. Reporting after the initial period should be IAW the Operators established reliability and reporting requirements.
9.8. Configuration Control/System Modifications. The operator should ensure that any modification to systems and components approved for low visibility operations are not adversely affected when incorporating software changes, service bulletins, hardware additions, or modifications. Any changes to system components should be consistent with the aircraft manufacturer’s, avionics manufacturer’s, industry, or FAA accepted criteria or processes.
9.9. Records.
a. 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 intended for Category II operation.
b. Contract maintenance organizations should have appropriate records and instructions for coordination of records with the operator.
9.10. Part 129 Foreign Operator Maintenance Programs.
9.10.1. Maintenance of Part 129 Foreign Registered Aircraft. For part 129 Operators of Foreign registered aircraft (e.g., section 129.14 is not applicable), the cognizant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the CAA of the operator. For those situations, 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.
Page 122 Par 9 criteria, U.S. equivalent criteria (e.g., criteria such as JAA criteria), or ICAO criteria (e.g., Annex 6 and Doc 9365/AN910 “Manual of All Weather Operations”), and the cognizant CAA has authorized Category II U.S.
operations. FAA then issues the pertinent part 129 Category II OpSpec based on the other CAA’s approval for that operator. However, FAA reserves the prerogative 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 FAA has specifically addressed maintenance requirements beyond those of the manufacturer for that aircraft type (e.g., required service bulletin compliance or Airworthiness Directive compliance related to the flight guidance system).
9.10.2. 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 section 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 are not applicable or appropriate. POI Approval of Category II OpSpecs for a section 129.14 operator may implicitly be considered to also accept the maintenance program adequacy. Accordingly, coordination between the applicable POI and PMI is necessary before part 129 OpSpec authorization is completed. FAA is ultimately the cognizant CAA for the maintenance program in this instance, if the aircraft is N registered. However, FAA may accept the oversight of the operator’s CAA if that CAA is judged by FAA to have equivalent processes, criteria and procedures for oversight of maintenance programs (e.g., JAA countries). The basis for any such maintenance program should be the recommended airframe manufacturer (or avionics vendor) program, considering any adjusted MRB requirements.
Par 10 Page 123
10. APPROVAL OF U.S. OPERATORS.
a. Approval for Category I and II is through issuance of, or amendments to, OpSpecs. The authorizations, limitations, and provisions applicable to Category I and II operations are specified in Part C of the OpSpecs. Sample OpSpecs are provided in Appendix 7.
b. OpSpecs authorizing reciprocating and turbo-propeller-powered airplane Category I operations that use ICAO standard NAVAIDs and ASRs, and PARs are normally approved by the certificate holding district office without further review and concurrence, following satisfactory completion of the pertinent items below. Category I turbojet, turbofan, and prop-fan normally require regional flight standards review and concurrence before approval.
All Category II operations and operations using NAVAIDs which are not ICAO-standard NAVAIDs (e.g., Loran C, ARA, OSAP, and TLS) normally require both regional flight standards and AFS-400 review and concurrence before approval.
10.1. Operations Manuals and Procedures. Appropriate flightcrew operating manuals, aircraft flight manuals, policy manuals, aircraft checklists, quick reference checklists, maintenance manuals, training manuals or other equivalent operator documents (as necessary), must satisfactorily incorporate pertinent Category I and II provisions prior to Category I and II approval.
a. Manuals.
(1) Prior to approval, appropriate flightcrew operating manuals, flight manuals, airline policy manuals, maintenance manuals, training manuals, and related aircraft checklists, quick reference handbooks, or other equivalent operator information, must satisfactorily incorporate provisions pertinent to each category of operation.
(2) Information covered in ground training, and procedures addressed in flight training should be available to flightcrews, and to dispatchers as applicable, in an appropriate form for reference use.
b. Procedures. Prior to approval of Category I or II operations, provisions of paragraph 6 of this AC that cover procedures, duties, instructions, or any other necessary information to be used by flightcrews, or dispatchers as applicable, should be implemented by the operator.
(1) Flight crewmember duties during the approach, flare, rollout, or missed approach should be described.
Duties should at least address responsibilities, tasks of the pilot flying the aircraft and the pilot not flying the aircraft during all stages of the approach, landing, rollout, and missed approach. The duties of additional flight crewmembers, if required, should also be explicitly defined.
(2) Specification of flight crewmember duties should address any needed interaction with dispatch or maintenance (e.g., addressing resolution of aircraft discrepancies and return to Category II/III service).
(3) The applicant’s qualification program should incorporate specific procedural responsibilities, appropriate to each category of landing minima being implemented, for the pilot in command and second in command in each of the ground training subject areas listed in paragraph 7.1, and each of the flight training subject areas listed in paragraph 7.2.
10.2. Training Programs and Crew Qualification.
a. Training programs, AQP programs (if applicable), crew qualification and checking provisions and standards, differences qualification (AC 120-53) if applicable, check airmen qualification, line check, route check, and IOE programs should each satisfactorily incorporate necessary Category I and II provisions, as applicable (see paragraphs
7.1 through 7.9). An acceptable method to track pertinent flight crewmember Category I and II qualification must be established.
Page 124 Par 10
b. For manually flown Category I and II systems (HUD, FDs, etc.,) ensure that provisions are made for each flight crewmember to receive the appropriate training, qualification, and line experience before that particular flight crewmember is authorized to use the pertinent Category I and II minima.
10.3. Dispatch Planning (e.g., MEL, Alternate Airports, ETOPS). Appropriate provisions for MELs and CDLs should be made as necessary to address Category I and II operations. Dispatch procedures to ensure appropriate weather, field condition, facility status, NOTAM information, engine-out MAP performance, crew qualification, aircraft system status, and fuel planning pertinent to Category I and II should be implemented. For ETOPS operations, a satisfactory method to address item 8.10 above should be demonstrated.
10.4. Formulation of Operations Specification Requirements (e.g., RVR limits, DA(H) or MDA(H), equipment requirements, field lengths). Proposed OpSpecs should list pertinent approved airports/runways, RVR limits, required transmissometers, DA(H) use provisions, “Inner Marker based DH” provisions (if applicable), aircraft equipment provisions for “normal” and, if applicable, “engine-out” operations, landing field length provisions, and any other special requirements identified by the CHDO or AFS-400 (ETOPS Category II, etc.). The operator’s manuals, procedures, checklists, QRHs, MELs, dispatch procedures etc. must be shown to be consistent with the proposed OpSpecs.
10.5. Operational/Airworthiness Demonstrations. Appropriate “aircraft system suitability” and “operational use suitability” demonstrations must be completed as described in 10.5.1 and 10.5.2, unless otherwise specified by AFS-
400. The purpose of these operational demonstrations is to determine or validate the use and effectiveness of the applicable aircraft flight guidance systems, training, flightcrew procedures, maintenance program, and manuals applicable to the program being approved. Operators of aircraft having FAA approved AFMs referencing this AC as the criteria used as the basis for Category I or II airworthiness demonstration already are considered to meet provisions of 10.5.1, and typically need only address provisions of 10.5.2. for verification of operational use suitability.
10.5.1. Aircraft System Suitability Demonstration. FAA regulations addressing low visibility takeoff and landing requirements and Category I and II are primarily operating rules addressed by parts 61, 91, 97, 121, 125, and 135.
These provisions apply continuously, as defined at the time of a particular operation. Airworthiness rules (part 23, 25, etc.) primarily apply at the time a “certification basis” is established for TC or STC and do not necessarily reflect “present” requirements, except through issuance of ADs. Accordingly, operationally acceptable demonstrations addressing suitability of aircraft systems for Category II, as applicable, must be successfully completed initially, and acceptable system status must be maintained by an operator to reflect compliance with current operating rules, to initially operate or continue to operate to Category II minima.
a. To minimize the need for repeating initial aircraft system operational suitability demonstrations for each operator, aircraft system suitability is usually demonstrated in conjunction with airworthiness approval (TC or STC) of aircraft system components such as flight guidance systems, autoland, flight directors, HUDs, flight instrument and alerting systems, radio altimeters, inertial systems, and air data systems. This approach to determination of aircraft system suitability is taken to optimize use of analysis and flight demonstration resources for Operators, aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and FAA. Accordingly, aircraft system suitability is normally demonstrated through an initial airworthiness demonstration meeting applicable provisions of appendices to this AC (or combined airworthiness/operational evaluation for new systems or concepts, or where otherwise necessary).
b. However, if such a demonstration has not been conducted during airworthiness certification, or the AFM accordingly does not reflect completion of such a Category II demonstration, then the operator may propose and the FAA may approve an assessment and demonstration program by the operator to establish Category II capability of an aircraft or flight guidance system. In such instances, criteria of Appendix 2 may be used as a guideline to formulate the operators 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 IAW Appendix 2.
Par 10 Page 125
c. Airworthiness demonstration to an acceptable earlier version of AC 120-29, or equivalent criteria, may continue to be used for demonstration of aircraft/aircraft systems initially type certificated prior to issuance of this revision and having the earlier criteria as the type certification basis. However, previously demonstrated aircraft or aircraft systems seeking Category I or Category II credits specified only in provisions of this revised AC 120-29A
(e.g., for HUD, or GNSS credit) must meet criteria specified in this AC.
d. Acceptable results of such airworthiness evaluations are usually described in AFM Section 3 (Normal and Non-Normal Procedures) of the FAA approved AFM or AFM Supplement.
e. For ILS approaches, basic type certification of an aircraft for “IFR” is considered to satisfactorily demonstrate Category I. For other systems or sensors, (HUD, GNSS etc.), other demonstrations per the appendices of AC 120-29A may be requested for Category I. CHDOs should ensure that aircraft proposed for Category II have completed an appropriate aircraft system operational suitability demonstration, and that result should normally be reflected in the approved AFM or AFM Supplement, unless operationally demonstrated as described above, or as otherwise specified by AFS-400.
f. For aircraft certified by FAA through section 21.29, certain Non-U.S. manufactured aircraft, any AFM provisions applicable to Category I may be assessed for suitability for an operators’ programs by AFM or equivalent Flight Operations Manual review. Assessment of provisions for Category II may vary and may require coordination between the CMO and AFS-400. In certain instances, AFM provisions may not be consistent with U.S. policy (Order 8400.10 or rules (Op-Specs)) applicable to Category II. In such instances, CHDO coordination with AFS-400 is appropriate to provide appropriate guidance to Operators regarding applicability of various AFM provisions (e.g., DH and RVR limitations, acceptable NAVAID use, alerting system use, required versus recommended crew procedures). As a general guideline, AFMs meeting airworthiness standards recognized by or harmonized with the FAA (e.g., JAA, Canada - DOT etc.) may typically be accepted without further demonstration.
g. In the event of consideration of 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 IAW criteria in this AC, or equivalent criteria, may be necessary. In such instances, the applicable AEG or AFS-400 should be consulted. If necessary, AFS-400 may specify suitable criteria to apply.
10.5.2. “Operator Use Suitability” Demonstration. For Category I, unless a CHDO otherwise specifies that approach demonstrations are necessary due to unusual circumstances or special situations, or as noted in 10.5.3 below for special systems such as “Autoland,” Operators may conduct Category I operations without need for special demonstrations, if the aircraft type AFM does not preclude the intended operation.
a. For Category II, at least one hundred (100) successful landings should be accomplished in line operations using the Category II or Category III system installed in each aircraft type, unless fewer approaches are determined to be appropriate by the CHDO. Examples of situations where fewer approaches than 100 may be authorized by the CHDO include credit for an operator also experienced in Category II or III operations, addition of a different or new aircraft type for an operator when that aircraft type already has successful Category II or III experience with a similar operator, or where the CHDO has consulted with AFS-400 and AFS-400 has determined that fewer approaches may apply (e.g., certain long range aircraft using Category III procedures and training, but with interim limitations to use Category II minima).
b. Regardless of credit permitted by the CHDO, if an operator is not aware of current Category II 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 Category II or III system to each runway intended for Category II operations in weather better than that requiring use of Category II minima. Such demonstrations may be conducted in line operations, during training flights, or during aircraft type or route proving runs.
Page 126 Par 10
c. If an excessive number of failures (e.g., unsatisfactory landings, system disconnects) occur during the landing demonstration program, 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, system modifications).
d. The system should demonstrate reliability and performance in line operations consistent with the operational concepts specified in paragraph 4. In unique situations where the completion of 100 successful landings could take an unreasonably long period of time due to factors such as a small number of aircraft in the fleet, limited opportunity to use runways having appropriate procedures, and equivalent reliability assurance can be achieved, a reduction in the required number of landings may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Reduction of the number of landings to be demonstrated requires a justification for the reduction, and prior approval fromAFS-400.
e. Landing demonstrations should be accomplished on U.S. facilities or international facilities acceptable to FAA. However, at the operator’s option, demonstrations may be made on other runways and facilities if sufficient information is collected to determine the cause of any unsatisfactory performance (e.g., critical area was not protected). No more than 50 percent of the demonstrations may be made on such facilities.
f. If an operator has different models of the same type of aircraft utilizing the same basic flight control and display systems, or different basic flight control and display systems on the same type of aircraft, the operator should show that the various models have satisfactory performance, but the operator need not conduct a full operational demonstration for each model or variant.
10.5.2.1. Data Collection For Airborne System Demonstrations. Each applicant should develop a data collection method to record approach and landing performance (e.g., a form to be used by flightcrew). The resulting data and a summary of the demonstration data should be made available to the CHDO for evaluation. The data should, at a minimum, include the following information:
a. Information regarding the inability to initiate an approach or identify deficiencies related to airborne equipment.
b. 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.
c. Information regarding any system abnormalities which required manual intervention by the pilot to ensure a safe touchdown or touchdown and rollout, as appropriate.
10.5.2.2. Data Analysis. Unsatisfactory approaches using facilities approved for Category II or Category III where landing system signal protection was provided should be fully documented. The following factors should be considered:
a. 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/point for adequate localizer and glide slope capture, lack of protection of ILS critical areas, or ATS requests for the flight to discontinue the approach.
b. Faulty NAVAID Signals. NAVAID (e.g., ILS localizer) 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.
c. Other Factors. Any other specific factors affecting the success of Category II operations that are clearly discernible to the flightcrew should be reported. An evaluation of reports discussed in subparagraphs 10.5.2.1(1),
(2), and (3) will be made to determine system suitability for further Category II operations.
10.5.3. Use of Autoland or Head up Guidance at U.S. Type I Facilities or Equivalent (e.g., Type I ILS). For Category I, unless a CHDO otherwise specifies that autoland or HGS may not be used due to unusual circumstances or special situations, systems such as “Autoland” or “HGS” may typically be used at runways with facilities other
Par 10 Page 127 than those with published Category II or III Instrument approach procedures. This is to aid pilots in achieving stabilized approaches and reliable touchdown performance to improve landing safety in adverse weather; for Category II or III training; to exercise the airborne system to ensure suitable performance; for maintenance checks;
or for other such reasons. Use of this capability may be particularly important for: pilot workload relief in stressful conditions of fatigue after long international flights; night approaches; cross winds or turbulence; when there may be other aircraft non-normal conditions being addressed; or to aid safe landing performance in otherwise adverse weather, restricted visibility, or with cluttered runways. This is true even though reported visibility may be well above minima (e.g., heavy rain distorting view out the windshield, snow covered runways where markings are not easily visible).
a. Operators may conduct autoland or HGS operations at such facilities without need for special demonstrations, if the aircraft type AFM does not preclude the intended operation, and if for “Autoland” systems, Operations Specification Paragraph C061 is issued. Precautions to be taken for such operations include the following:
(1) The runway and associated instrument procedure should have no outstanding NOTAMs or other applicable “Notes” concerning the procedure precluding the use of the autoland or HGS system (e.g., it should not have notes such as “Localizer unusable inside the threshold,” or “Glide Slope unusable below xxx ft.”),
(2) Suitable ILS “Critical Area protection” (or equivalent) should be requested from ATS, if applicable.
Similar to precautions for a Category II or III procedure, the crew should remain alert to detect any evidence of unsuitable system performance, whether or not critical protection is being provided,
(3) The published ILS glide slope threshold crossing height (or equivalent) should be at least equal to or greater than that required for the aircraft type, and
(4) The particular runway or procedure should not be precluded for “Autoland or HGS operations” by the operator due to known performance anomalies (e.g., not on a list of runways ineligible for or precluded from autoland or HGS operations as determined by that operator).
b. For minima credit for “Category II on Type I facilities,” airborne systems including autoland or HGS are assessed for each particular aircraft type and specific runway, IAW 10.5.2 above.
10.6. Eligible Airports and Runways. For Category I, Airports and Runways are eligible as specified in part 97 SIAPs, ICAO accepted international procedures at foreign airports, or special procedures in OpSpecs. For Category II, an assessment of eligible airports, runways, and aircraft systems must be made in order to list appropriate runways on OpSpecs. For Category II, runways authorized for particular aircraft IAW existing operations listed on the AFS-400 Category II status checklist may be directly incorporated in OpSpecs, or incorporated by reference if published part 97 SIAPS are available. Aircraft type/runway combinations not shown should be verified by aircraft system use in line operations at Category I or better minima, prior to authorization for Category II. Airports/aircraft types restricted due to special conditions (e.g., irregular underlying terrain) must be evaluated IAW Appendix 8, prior to OpSpec authorization.
a. If applicable, the operator should identify any necessary provisions for periodic demonstration of the aircraft system on runways other than those having Category II or III procedures (e.g., periodic autoland performance verification, using runways served only by a Category I procedure).
b. A status checklist for facilities that have special Category I and II provisions and published Category II or III procedures can be viewed on the Internet using the following address:
FAA Category II/ III Status List -- http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/
c. To access this list, scroll down to the Organizations/Other Links menu and select AFS-410, Flight Operations Branch, then scroll down to the Category II/III Status List.
Page 128 Par 10
10.7. Irregular Pre-Threshold Terrain and Other Restricted Runways. Airports/runways with irregular prethreshold terrain, or runways restricted due to NAVAID or facility characteristics (see FAA Category II/Category III Status Checklist in Paragraph 10.6) may require special evaluation, or limitations. CHDOs of Operators desiring operations on these runways should contact AFS-400 to identify pertinent criteria and evaluation requirements.
Various procedures used by FAA to assess irregular pre-threshold terrain are described in Appendix 8.
10.8. Category II Engine-Inoperative Operations and ETOPS or EROPS Alternates based on Category II.
a. Low visibility landing minima are typically based on normal operations. For non-normal operations, flightcrews and aircraft dispatchers are expected to take the safest course of action to resolve the non-normal condition. The low weather minima capability of the aircraft must be known and available to the flightcrew and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher.
b. In certain instances, sufficient airborne system redundancy may be included in the aircraft design to permit use of an alternate configuration such as “engine inoperative capability” for alternate planning or initiation of a Category II approach. Use of an engine inoperative configuration is based on the premise that the engine nonnormal condition is an engine failure that has not adversely affected other airborne systems. Systems that should be considered include systems such as hydraulic systems, electrical systems, or other relevant systems for Category II that are necessary to establish the appropriate flight guidance configuration.
c. An alternate engine inoperative configuration is also based on the premise that catastrophic engine failure has not occurred which may have caused uncertain, or unsafe collateral damage to the airframe or aerodynamic configuration.
d. In instances when AFM or operational criteria are not met, and a Category II approach is necessary because it is the safest course of action, (e.g., in-flight fire), the flightcrew may use emergency authority. The flightcrew should determine to the extent necessary the state of the aircraft and other diversion options to ensure that an approach in weather conditions less than Category I is the safest course of action.
e. Four cases are useful in considering engine inoperative Category II capability, and engine inoperative approach authorization:
(1) Flight planning (e.g., dispatch consideration of takeoff, destination, or ETOPS or EROPS alternates) is based on aircraft configuration, reliability, and capability for “engine inoperative Category II” (see Paragraph
10.8.2).
(2) An engine fails en route, but prior to final approach (see Paragraph 10.8.3).
(3) An engine fails during the approach after passing the final approach fix, but prior to reaching the Decision Altitude (Height) (see Paragraph 10.8.4).
(4) An engine fails during approach after passing the Decision Altitude(Height) (see Paragraph 10.8.5).
f. Paragraph 5.17 provides criteria for demonstration of Category II engine out capability for the aircraft.
Paragraphs 10.8.1 through 10.8.5 below address criteria for use of an aircraft with “engine inoperative Category II” capability.
10.8.1. General Criteria for Engine-Inoperative Category II Authorization. Aircraft capability for “engineinoperative Category II” should be approved IAW the provisions of paragraph 5.17, and if applicable, Appendix 2.
a. Regardless of whether an operator is or is not operationally authorized for “engine inoperative Category II,” it must be clear that having this aircraft capability should not be interpreted as requiring a Category II landing at the “nearest suitable” airport in time (e.g., does not require landing at the nearest suitable Category II qualified airport - 14 CFR section 121.565).
Par 10 Page 129
b. POIs should ensure that the following conditions are met:
(1) Operations must be IAW the “engine inoperative Category II” AFM provisions (e.g., within demonstrated wind limits, using appropriate crew procedures), or within operationally determined equivalent provisions and procedures, if not specified in the AFM.
(2) Demonstrated/acceptable configurations must be used (e.g., AFDS modes, flap settings, electrical power sources, MEL provisions).
(3) Engine-inoperative missed approach obstacle clearance from the TDZ must be ensured. Suitable information should be readily available for flight planning (e.g., to the pilot or aircraft dispatcher, if applicable).
(4) Appropriate training program provisions for the Category II engine inoperative approaches must be provided (see paragraph 7.2.6).
(5) Pilots must be aware that they are expected to take the safest course of action, in their judgment, in the event that unforeseen circumstances or unusual conditions occur that are not addressed by the “engine-inoperative” Category II demonstrated configuration (e.g., uncertain aircraft damage, possible fire, weather deterioration).
(6) OpSpecs should identify the type of “engine-inoperative” Category II operations authorized. Types of operations are described in paragraphs 10.8.2 through 10.8.5 below.
10.8.2. Category II Engine Inoperative “Flight Planning.”
a. The operator (e.g., pilot or if applicable, aircraft dispatcher) may consider “engine inoperative Category II” capability in planning flights for a takeoff alternate, en route (ETOPS or EROPS) alternate, re-dispatch alternate, destination, or destination alternate only if each of the following conditions are met:
(1) The operator (e.g., pilot or aircraft dispatcher, if applicable) has determined that the aircraft is capable of engine inoperative Category II.
(2) Appropriate procedures, performance, and obstacle clearance information must be provided to the crew to be able to safely accomplish an engine inoperative missed approach at any point in the approach. If applicable, similar information must also be readily available to the aircraft dispatcher.
(3) Appropriate operational weather constraints must be considered and specified as necessary regarding cross wind, head wind, tail wind limits considering the demonstrated capability specified in the AFM, or equivalent operationally demonstrated or specified provisions.
(4) Weather reports or forecast must indicate that specified alternate minimums or landing minimums will be available for the runway equipped with appropriate NAVAID and lighting systems and Category II procedures.
The Operators use of engine inoperative capability credit should consider both the availability and reliability of meteorological reports and forecasts, the time factors involved in potential forecast accuracy, the potential for variability in the weather at each pertinent airport, and the ability for the crew and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher to obtain timely weather reports and forecast updates during the time the flight is en route. Flight planning considerations must account for any expected ATS delays that might be experienced during arrival due to weather, snow removal, or other factors.
(5) Notices to airmen or equivalent information for airport and facility status should be reviewed to ensure that they do not preclude the accomplishment of a safe engine inoperative approach on the designated runway using approved Category II procedures (e.g., temporary obstructions). Any change in NOTAM status of facilities related to use of landing minima or alternate minima must be provided to the crew in a timely manner while en route.
Page 130 Par 10
(6) If the engine inoperative configuration is different than a normal landing configuration, a means to determine that a safe landing distance is achievable should be addressed, considering the pertinent engine inoperative aircraft configuration. This assessment is to ensure that sufficient runway is available consistent with the expected flap setting(s), speeds, and reverse thrust available configuration, or other factors that could pertain to an inoperative engine landing (e.g., reduced flap settings may be necessary for an engine inoperative approach).
(7) The expectation for runway surface condition based on pilot and operator (e.g., aircraft dispatcher) interpretation of the available weather reports, field conditions, and forecasts is that the applicable runway is likely to be free from standing water, snow, slush, ice, or other contaminants at the time of landing. The flightcrew must be advised of any adverse change in this expectation while en route.
(8) Criteria otherwise applicable to “all engine” Category II, such as flightcrew or dispatcher training, crew qualification, and availability of suitable procedures must also be addressed for the engine inoperative landing case, if they are not the same as for the “all engine” case.
(9) The operator is approved for operations based on engine inoperative Category II capability. In addition, operator responsibilities for engine inoperative credit should be equivalent to that of current normal operations when an en route landing system failure causes degraded landing capability. If an in-flight failure causes further degradation of engine inoperative landing capability, the flightcrew (if applicable, in conjunction with the aircraft dispatcher) should determine an acceptable alternative course of action (e.g., specification of different en route diversion options, revised fuel reserves plan, or revised flight plan routing).
(10) When engine inoperative Category II provisions are applied to identification of any destination or destination alternate, more than one qualifying destination alternate is required. This is to provide for the possibility of adverse area wide weather phenomena, or unexpected loss of landing capability at the first designated alternate airport.
(11) An appropriate ceiling and visibility increment is added to the lowest authorized minimums when credit for an alternate airport or airports is sought (e.g., 200 ft. DA(H) additive and appropriate RVR additive; see Appendix 7, Standard Operations Specification).
(12) The airborne system should be shown through “in-service” performance that from takeoff to 500 ft.
HAT on approach, system availability is at least 95%.
b. It should be noted that even if the aircraft, flightcrews, and operator are authorized for engine inoperative Category II, flightcrews are not required to use Category II approach minima to satisfy requirements of section
121.565 regarding in-flight diversions. Not withstanding section 121.565, pilots may elect to take a safe course of action by landing at a more distant airport than one at which a Category II approach may be available. Conversely, pilots may elect to conduct the Category II approach as a safe or the safest course of action.
10.8.3. Category II Engine Inoperative En Route. For engine failure en route, a pilot may initiate an “engine inoperative” Category II approach under the following conditions:
a. The airplane flight manual normal or non-normal sections, or an equivalent provision of an Operators manual specifies that engine inoperative approach capability has been demonstrated and procedures are available.
b. The pilot and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher have taken into account the landing runway length needed for the inoperative engine configuration and corresponding approach speeds, and obstacle clearance can be maintained in the event of a missed approach.
c. The pilot and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher have determined that the approach can be conducted within the wind, weather, configuration, or other relevant constraints demonstrated for the configuration.
d. The pilot and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher have determined from interpretation of the best available information that the runway is expected to be free from standing water, snow, slush, ice, or other contaminants.