Par 10 Page 131
e. The pilot is confident that the aircraft has not experienced damage related to the engine failure that would make an engine inoperative Category II approach unsuccessful or unsafe.
f. The operator is approved and the pilot is qualified to conduct a Category II engine inoperative approach.
g. The pilot and, if applicable, aircraft dispatcher consider that conducting a Category II approach is a safe and appropriate course of action.
10.8.4. Category II Engine Failure During Approach, Prior to Decision Altitude (Height) (DA(H)).
a. If the aircraft, operator, and crew meet paragraphs 5.17 for the aircraft and paragraphs 10.8.2 or 10.8.3 for operational use, a Category II approach may be continued if an engine failure is experienced after passing the final approach fix.
b. In the event that an aircraft has not been demonstrated for engine inoperative Category II approach capability, or the operator or crew have not been authorized for Category II engine inoperative approaches, then, regardless of flight phase, continuation of an approach in the event of an engine failure is permitted only IAW the emergency authority of the pilot to select the safest course of action.
NOTE: For some aircraft configurations, it may be necessary to discontinue the approach after passing the final approach fix or final approach point, re-trim the aircraft for an inoperative engine, and then re-initiate the approach in order to be able to appropriately complete a satisfactory Category II approach and landing.
10.8.5. Category II Engine Failure After Passing Decision Altitude (Height) (DA(H)). If an engine fails after passing the DA(H), the procedure specified in the airplane flight manual or a procedure specified by the operator in the operator's manual for normal or non-normal operations should be followed. Any Category II approval must consider the case of engine failure at, or after, DA(H). Standard OpSpecs are considered to address this case.
“Engine inoperative Category II capability” is not specifically a factor in determining response to this situation.
10.8.6. Operators using Combined Category II and Category III Engine-Inoperative Approach Provisions.
Unless otherwise specified by FAA, Category II and Category III engine inoperative authorizations and procedures may combined when the operator meets the more stringent criteria of AC120-28D for Category III. Separate demonstrations for AC 120-29A and AC 120-28D is not necessary beyond any inherent differences between Category II and III operations (e.g., application of a DA(H) for Category II versus an Alert Height for certain Category III operations). Operational suitability demonstration programs, qualification programs, and operational provisions may be simultaneously established and used as long as procedures and systems applicable to the respective Category II and Category III capability and minima are appropriately applied. Eligible minima for any particular engine-inoperative operation should be no lower than the highest applicable authorized minima for the aircraft, crew, airport, procedure, or applicable OpSpecs limitation.
10.9. New Category II Operators.
a. New Operators should follow demonstration period provisions of 10.5.2. Additionally, typical acceptable minima step down provisions approvable by FAA are as follows:
(1) Starting from “limited Category I” (e.g., 300 ft. DA(H) and 3/4 mile visibility) to lowest Category I minima (e.g., 200 ft. DA(H) and RVR 1800): First 250 ft. DA(H) and RVR3000, and then DA(H) 200 ft. and RVR 1800.
(2) Starting from Category I to Category II: First DH 100/RVR1600, then DH 100 and RVR 1200.
Page 132 Par 10
(3) Starting from Category I for Category III: See AC120-28D.
b. Each runway/procedure not already being used by any operator of a similar type aircraft should be successfully demonstrated by a line service or an evaluation approach using the Category II system and procedures, in Category I or better conditions, for each applicable aircraft/system type (e.g., B767, L1011). In addition, the operator must address special airports/runways as noted in the FAA Category II/III Status List.
10.10. Experienced Category II or Category III Operators for New Category II Authorizations.
a. Experienced operators are considered to be those operators having successfully completed their initial 6 month / 100 Category II or III approach or landing demonstration period, and have current OpSpecs authorizing use of lowest applicable or intended Category II minima.
b. Paragraphs 10.10.1 through 10.10.3 below address examples of program changes where “experienced operator” credit may apply.
c. Operators authorized for Category II using one class of system (e.g., autopilot) but who are introducing a significantly different class of system as the basis for a Category II authorization (e.g., manually flown Category II approaches using a HUD) are typically considered to be “New Operators” for the purposes of demonstration period provisions and acceptable minima “step down” provisions for that class of system (see paragraph 10.9).
10.10.1 Category I or II at New Airports/Runways. For ILS or MLS, Category I or II operations may be conducted at facilities with a published part 97 SIAP, or equivalent, or with a “Special” instrument approach procedure typically without additional demonstration. For GLS, Category I operations may be conducted at facilities with a published part 97 SIAP, or with a “Special” instrument approach procedure or equivalent for the particular operator(s) authorized to use the “special” procedure typically without additional demonstration. For other NAVAID systems or operator combinations (e.g., initial GLS Category II, other Operators desiring to use a special instrument procedure developed by a different operator, TLS) demonstration of capability at new airport/runway is typically appropriate as determined by the CHDO. However, standard or special procedures for Category II other than those based on ILS or MLS may be added to an experienced Category II operator’s OpSpecs for a similar procedure without further demonstration if the same or equivalent aircraft/aircraft system and procedure for the approach is already used by that operator or is shown on the FAA’s Category II status checklist as being conducted at that facility by another operator with similar aircraft or airborne system (e.g., acceptable HUD, GNSS operations).
Otherwise, the operator may be requested by the CHDO to accomplish one or more line service landings at Category I or better minima to ensure satisfactory performance before authorizing Category II minima. Special runways on the FAA Category II status checklist (e.g., Irregular Terrain runways) typically require special evaluation for each aircraft or system type (See Paragraph 10.7).
10.10.2. Category II With New Aircraft Systems. Unless otherwise specified by AFS-400, experienced Category II Operators may initially use new or upgraded aircraft system capabilities/components to the lowest authorized minima established for those systems or components, or use reduced length demonstration periods, consistent with the new aircraft systems to be used, FAA FSB requirements, and NAVAIDs, runways, and procedures to be used
(e.g., New Category II HUD installations on B737-300s previously authorized for Category II for that operator based on autoland)
10.10.3. Adding a New Category II Aircraft Type. Experienced Category II Operators may operate new or upgraded aircraft types/systems, or derivative types, using reduced length demonstration periods (e.g., less than 6 months/100 landings) when authorized by AFS-400. Demonstration requirements are established considering any applicable FAA FSB criteria, applicability of previous operator service experience, experience with that aircraft type by other operators, experience of crews of that operator for Category II and the type of system, and other such factors, on an individual basis. Appropriate minima reduction steps may also be established for an abbreviated demonstration period, consistent with prior operator experience, NAVAIDs, and runways used, and procedures to be used, etc. (e.g., Newly acquired B757s being added to Category II OpSpecs, in addition to an operator's currently approved Category II A300 and MD-80 fleets).
Par 10 Page 133
10.11. Category II Program Status Following Operator Acquisitions/Mergers. Category II Operators involved in acquisitions of other Operators, or mergers, and their respective CHDOs, 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 Category II OpSpecs of the acquired or merged operator. If CHDO doubt exists regarding applicability or status of Category II OpSpec provisions for a resulting new, surviving, acquired, or merged carrier, AFS-400 should be consulted.
10.12. Initiating Combined Category I and II, or Category I, II, and III Programs for New Equipment Types.
When appropriate provisions of this AC are used for Category I and II programs for a new equipment type (e.g., HUD), those programs may be initiated simultaneously for either a new Category II or Category II/III operator, or for an existing operator currently approved for Category II or III using other systems (e.g., ILS/FD).
10.13. U.S. Carrier Category I and II Operations at Foreign Airports. An applicant having U.S. Category I approval may be authorized to use that minima at foreign airports IAW its OpSpecs and Order 8260.31.
a. 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 CHDO of incompatible requirements (use of OCA (H) etc.) for resolution by CHDO or AFS-400.
b. Although it is recognized that the systems at foreign airports may not be exactly IAW U.S. standards, it is important that any foreign facilities used for Category II provide the necessary information or functions consistent with the intent of the U.S. standards. Carriers desiring Category II approvals at foreign airports or runways not on the FAA-approved list should submit such requests through its FAA principal operations inspector to AFS-400.
c. Figure 10.13-1 provides a checklist for carrier use to facilitate approval of Category II/III operations at facilities listed in the controlling states Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). It should be used to ensure suitability of the intended facility and to verify conformance or equivalence with U.S. standards at non-U.S. airports.
Completion of this checklist must reflect achieved or completed status - not planned actions. For ICAO states that do not maintain an AIP, a copy of the NOTAM, obstruction data, and/or a reliable and regular method of correspondence with the charting services used by U.S. certificate holders must be attached.
Page 134 Par 10 Figure 10.13 - 1
FACILITY CHECKLIST FOR CATEGORY II/III (FOR NON-US FACILITIES) AIRPORT (ICAO ID): ________ COUNTRY: ____________ DATE: ____________ Runway: ________ Length: _________ Width: _________ G/S Angle (deg.): ___________ Lowest Minima ________________________ (ft/m) Runway TCH _____________ (ft/m) Special Limitations (if any):
.
LIGHTING:
Approach _____ TDZ _____ Centerline ____ HIRL ____ Stopbars _____ Other (e.g., PAPI):
.
MARKINGS:
Runway_______ Taxiway_______ Other (e.g., Taxiway Position) __________ Critical Area Protection Policy (ceiling/visibility or conditions):
LOC ____________________________ G/S ________________________________ METEROLOGICAL DATA: METARs ________ TAFs ___________ TRANSMISSOMETERS:
(Locations/Lowest RVR reported /readout step increment) Touchdown _______________ Mid _________________ Rollout _______________ OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE ASSESSMENT COMPLETION DATE: __________________ Verified by: certificate holder ________, “state of the aerodrome” __________, other ___________ Irregular terrain a factor (Y/N): _______ Similar type aircraft currently operate (Y/N) __________ NOTAM SOURCE/CONTACT: _______________________________________________________ FIELD CONDITIONS SOURCE/CONTACT ___________________________________________ Attached procedure has been developed IAW:
FAA Handbook 8260.3B (TERPS) ____ ICAO PANS-OPS Doc. 8168-OPS/611, Vol-11 ____ Other Criteria Accepted by FAA ____ (indicate criteria) ______________________________ Facility reviewed IAW ICAO Manual of All Weather Operations, as revised (DOC 9365/AN910) Chapters 3, 5, and 6 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: _________________ Name:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
Attachments List:
Par 10 Page 135
10.14. Category I and II Operations on Off-Route Charters.
a. Unless otherwise specified by AFS-400, experienced Category I operations using non-traditional systems (HUD, GNSS etc.) and Category II operators may receive authorization to use Category I and II minima at U.S. offroute charter airports and runways as follows:
(1) The runway has a published part 97 SIAP, or equivalent, or
(2) The runway must be on the FAA Category II status checklist, and not require special evaluation, or
(3) The aircraft used must be the same as or equivalent to an aircraft already using the facility by other U.S.
operators (e.g., an off route charter with a B737/GNSS) could operate to runways having Category I and II operations by an other operator’s B737-300 using same or equivalent system).
b. The OpSpec must authorize off-route charter Category I or II procedures, and
c. If applicable, the CHDO must be advised of the specific airports, aircraft, crew qualifications and any special provisions to be used, prior to the intended operation.
10.15. Approval of Category I and II Minima.
a. Applicants should submit documentation requesting approval to the FAA CHDO or FSDO responsible for that operator’s certificate. The application should demonstrate compliance with the appropriate provisions of applicable paragraphs of this AC, particularly Paragraphs 7 through 12. Proposed OpSpecs provisions should be included with the application.
b. Following FAA concurrence, as described in paragraph 10 above, OpSpecs authorizing Category I or II minima may be issued (see Appendix 7 for sample OpSpecs).
c. During the period following the issuance of new or revised OpSpecs for Category II (typically 6 months), the operator must successfully complete a suitable operations demonstration and data collection program in “line service” for each type aircraft, as the final part of the approval process.
d. The approval process is considered to be completed following a successful demonstration period. This is to ensure appropriate performance and reliability of the operator’s aircraft, procedures, maintenance, airports, and NAVAIDs. This process must be completed before operations down to lowest requested minima are authorized.
Paragraph 10.5 addresses appropriate demonstration process criteria.
e. When the data from the operational demonstration has been analyzed and found acceptable, an applicant may be authorized for the lowest requested minima consistent with this AC and applicable standard OpSpecs. Examples of minima step down provisions acceptable to FAA are provided at paragraphs 10.9 and 10.10.
10.16. Operations Specification Amendments. The operator is responsible for maintaining current OpSpecs reflecting current approvals authorized by FAA. Once FAA has authorized a change for aircraft systems, new runways, or other authorizations, appropriate and timely amendments to affected OpSpecs should be issued.
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 FAA, provisions of those updated OpSpecs should normally be applied to each operator’s program in a timely manner.
10.17. Use of Special Obstacle Clearance Criteria (e.g., MASPS, or non-standard RNP Criteria). This paragraph addresses use of special criteria such as “Required Navigation Performance” (RNP) criteria. Pending implementation of RNP criteria for public use Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS), obstacle assessments using RNP criteria will be conducted on a case-by-case basis, only authorized as an element of special procedures for RNP qualified operators, using RNP qualified aircraft. Early application of RNP for special
Page 136 Par 10 procedures is typically intended to apply to instrument procedure segments classified as a transition to a final approach segment, or to facilitate definition of suitable missed approach segments. Use of special obstacle clearance criteria or non-standard RNP criteria must be approved by AFS-400.
10.18. Proof-of-Concept Requirements for New Systems/Methods.
a. Proof-of-Concept demonstration [PoC] as used in this AC is defined as a generic demonstration in a full operational environment of facilities, weather, crew complement, aircraft systems and any other relevant parameters necessary to show concept validity in terms of performance, system reliability, repeatability, and typical pilot response to failures as well as to demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety is provided.
b. Proof-of-Concept may be established by a combination of analysis, simulation and/or flight demonstrations in an operational environment. PoC is typically a combined effort of FAA airworthiness and operational organizations with the applicant, with input from any associated or interested organizations.
c. A typical PoC program consists of the following elements:
(1) Applicant submits a request to either FAA Aircraft Certification or Flight Standards.
(2) Meetings are arranged to include all disciplines involved: Aircraft certification; Flight Standards;
National Resource Specialists; the applicant; and supporting personnel as necessary (e.g., Air Traffic).
(3) A test plan is established which includes input from applicable FAA organizations, the applicant, and as applicable, industry user groups.
(4) The test plan should include as a minimum: system definition, operations procedures, qualification, training, weather and environment definition, normal, rare-normal, and non-normal conditions to be assessed, flightcrew, test subject, and test crew requirements, test procedures, test safety constraints as applicable, assessment criteria, and analysis, simulator and test aircraft requirements.
(5) PoC is conducted using agreed subject pilots, as appropriate.
(6) PoC data is collected in a real-time simulator environment and validated in a realistic airplane environment.
(7) FAA is responsible for assessing the PoC data that is typically provided to FAA as agreed by FAA and the applicant. FAA reports relevant findings to the applicant and if applicable, interested industry representatives.
(8) FAA operations and airworthiness organizations use the data to develop criteria for approval of type designs, certification processes and procedures, operating concepts, facilities, flightcrew and maintenance qualification, OpSpecs, operations procedures, manuals, AFMs, maintenance procedures, and any criteria necessary.
(9) FAA AC criteria for airworthiness and operational approval typically is a product of PoC assessment.
d. This process is presented pictorially in the following figure:
Par 10 Page 137 Figure 10.18-1
T ECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
LETTER AND
APPLICATION TO ACO
APPLICANT
ACO INITIATES
PROJECT ACO
LETTER OF
INTENT TO
FAA-AFS
OPERATOR
DEVELOP
TECHNOLOGY TEAM
ACO, AFS
DETERMINE
APPLICATIONS
AND CONSTRAINTS
IN THE NATIONAL
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM AFS HQ Note 2)
DEVELOP PROOF OF
CONCEPT (POC)
TEST REQUIREMENTS
ACO, AFS
CONDUCT POC
ACO, AFS
REPORT TEST
RESULTS
ACO, AFS
DEVELOP TYPE
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
- C ertification
- O peration
- M aintenance
ACO, TSS, AFS
DEVELOP USER
REQUIREMENTS -O peration -M aintenance
- T raining Wash AFS, POIs Handbook
DESIGN CONCEPT INDUSTRY Note 1)
ACO TYPE DESIGN
CERTIFICATION ACO ACO
AIRPLANE
FLIGHT MANUAL
DRAFT ADVISORY
CIRCULAR (AC)
ACO, TSS, AFS
POI AFS
OPS APPROVAL
OPS SPECIFICATIONS
FCOM-FLIGHT CREW
OPERATING MANUAL Note: 1) Futher modifications to the applicant's original Type Design may require additional technology revisions and/or follow on Proof of Concept testing.
2) The AFS group has the responsibility to coordinate with all Industry technology groups (ALPA, APA, ATA, Industry, manufactures, vendors, DOD, NASA, etc.)
3) Both the FAA ACO and FAA AFS should be contacted to provide certification and operational data to the respective offices.
Index: ACO - Aircraft Certification Office (Including Aircraft Evaluation Group) AFS - Washington Flight Standards Policy Office TSS - Transport Standards Staff RRD7/19/94 Note 3)
Page 138 Par 10
10.19. RNP Qualification and Authorization.
a. Operators may be authorized for RNP operations based on use of aircraft with an approved AFM specifying RNP capability. For such operations, in addition to AFM provisions, any provisions or constraints associated with that capability should be considered or applied (e.g., Aircraft or avionics manufacturer’s guidance material, FCOM, or use assumptions made in associated documentation provided by the manufacturer to the operator or authority).
b. RNP authorizations for RNP-capable aircraft as specified through an AFM may be generic and related directly to use of the provisions of the AFM (e.g., authorization to use RNP addresses any applicable AFM RNP levels and flightcrew procedures).
c. Operators may be authorized for RNP operations based on “fleet qualification” specifying appropriate RNP capability. For such RNP operations, in addition to any necessary operator-specific aircraft type provisions, NAVAID use constraints, area, route, or procedure constraints, should be applied, as necessary.
d. RNP authorizations for fleet qualified RNP aircraft typically should address authorized RNP levels, types of procedures, any necessary NAVAID use provisions, or other conditions or constraints as appropriate.
e. Authorization for use of RNP is through OpSpecs.
f. For associated applicable provisions, also see AC paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5.
Par 11 Page 139
11. FOREIGN AIR CARRIER CATEGORY I WITH SYSTEMS OTHER THAN ILS OR CATEGORY II AT U.S. AIRPORTS (PART 129 OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS).
11.1. Use of ICAO or FAA Criteria. International operators requesting or authorized for Category II at U.S.
airports should meet criteria of 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 below.
11.1.1. Acceptable Criteria.
a. Criteria acceptable for use for assessment of international operator’s applications for Category II at U.S.
airports includes this AC, equivalent JAA criteria, or the ICAO Manual of All Weather Operations DOC 9365/AN910.
b. International operators previously approved by FAA IAW earlier criteria may continue to apply that earlier criteria. International operators seeking credit for operations addressed only by this revision of AC 120-29A (e.g., Category II HUD operations) must meet criteria of this AC, or equivalent criteria acceptable to FAA, for those applicable provisions.
11.1.2. Foreign Operator AFM Provisions. Unless otherwise authorized by FAA, aircraft used by international operators for Category II within the United States should have AFM provisions reflecting an appropriate level of Category II capability as demonstrated to or authorized by FAA, or demonstrated to or authorized by an authority recognized by FAA as having acceptable equivalent Category II airworthiness criteria (e.g., European JAA, Canada MOT, UK CAA).
11.1.3. Foreign Operator Category II Demonstrations.
a. International (foreign) air carriers meeting FAA criteria, or criteria acceptable to FAA (e.g., European JAA, ICAO criteria including Doc 9365/AN910), and having more than six months experience in use of Category II operations with the applicable aircraft type may be approved for Category II IAW provisions of their own regulatory authority, or IAW standard provisions of part 129 OpSpecs, which ever is the more restrictive.
b. For international (foreign) operators not having the above experience, FAA will confer with the authority of the state of the operator and with the operator to jointly determine suitable provisions for a U.S. Category II authorization for that operator. International (foreign) air carriers not meeting above provisions may be subject to the demonstration requirements of 10.5.2 and 10.9 equivalent to those necessary for U.S. operators, as determined applicable by FAA.
11.2. Issuance of Part 129 Operations Specifications. International (foreign) air carriers operating to U.S.
airports that meet applicable provisions above are approved for Category II through issuance of part 129 OpSpecs (see Appendix 7). Operators intending Category II operations at U.S.-designated irregular terrain airports, or airports otherwise requiring special assessments, must successfully complete those assessments prior to use of those facilities.
11.3. Use of Certain Restricted U.S. Facilities.
a. Foreign Operator Category I and II operations may be conducted at facilities not having published Category I and II SIAPS, or may be conducted to minima lower than published on part 97 Category I and II SIAPS if they meet criteria equivalent to that required of a U.S. part 121 carrier, and they are approved by FAA, and the operations are acceptable to the authority of the state of the operator. Similarly, operations may be authorized at other special facilities identified on the FAA Category II/III Status List.
b. For such authorizations the following applies:
(1) The foreign operator and the pertinent authority of the state of that operator must be advised of facility status,
Page 140 Par 11
(2) Operator must be approved by the state of the operator’s Authority, and
(3) FAA must have evidence from that authority that the operator is specifically authorized at that U.S.
facility. Foreign operators typically use Category II procedures in the United States which are available as unrestricted public use procedures. However, FAA may also authorize certain restricted public use procedures and special Category II approach procedures for non-U.S. Operators. Typically, these procedures require special airborne equipment capability, special training, or non-standard facility and obstacle assessments. These special procedures are identified on the Category II/III Status List and are not usually published as a part-97 Category II SIAP.
c. Foreign Operators may be eligible to use certain of these procedures if they meet the same special criteria as would apply to a U.S. operator and if they are approved by their own authority specifically for the use of the procedure. Some procedures may not be eligible for foreign use because of other applicable restrictions such as a restriction placed on private facility use. Special or restricted procedures require both FAA authorization and specific authorization from the state of the operator’s controlling authority for each procedure. This is to ensure that both the operator and foreign authority are aware of the special provisions needed, and to ensure equivalent safety in the use of standard ICAO criteria.
d. Each foreign operator seeking Category II procedure authorization at a facility not published as a standard and unrestricted Category II SIAP, or at any other facilities identified as special or restricted on the FAA Category II/III Status List, and that operator’s controlling authority must:
(1) Be aware of the restrictions applicable to the procedure (e.g., facility status),
(2) Provide evidence to FAA of the controlling authority’s approval of the operator for each special procedure requested, and
(3) Must have the applicable limitations and conditions included in that operator’s part 129 OpSpecs for each procedure to be used.
e. Foreign Operators shall not normally be authorized for special Category II operations to minima lower than those specified in part 97 Category II SIAPS consistent with ICAO criteria.
Par 12 Page 141
12. OPERATOR REPORTING, AND TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
12.1. Operator Reporting. The reporting of satisfactory and unsatisfactory Category II aircraft performance is a useful tool in establishing and maintaining effective maintenance and operating policy and procedures. Additionally, when maintained over longer periods of time, the report data substantiates a successful program and can identify trends or recurring problems that may not be related to aircraft performance. Information obtained from reporting data and its analysis is useful in recommending and issuing appropriate corrective action(s).
a. Accordingly, for a period of at least 1 year after an applicant has been advised that its aircraft and program meet Category II requirements, and reduced minima are authorized, the operator is to provide a monthly summary to the FAA of the following information:
(1) The total number of approaches where the equipment constituting the airborne portion of the Category II system was used to make satisfactory (actual or simulated) approaches to the applicable Category II minima (by aircraft type).
(2) The total number of unsatisfactory approaches by airport and aircraft registration number with explanations in the following categories - airborne equipment faults, ground facility difficulties, aborts of approaches because of ATS instructions, or other reasons.
b. The operator should also notify the certificate-holding office as soon as possible of any system failures or abnormalities that require flightcrew intervention after passing 100 ft. during operations in weather conditions below Category I minima.
c. Upon request, the CHDO will make this information available to AFS-400 for overall Category II program management, or to assist in assessment of program or facility effectiveness.
NOTE: The reporting burden contained in this AC does not require office of management and budget approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, according to Section 3502(4)(a).
12.2. Operator Corrective Actions.
a. All Programs.
(1) Operators are expected to take appropriate corrective actions when they determine that aircraft, NAVAID, or airport difficulties require program or minima adjustment.
(2) At least the following factors should be considered: NAVAID status or performance problems, NOTAMs, airport facility status, air traffic procedure adjustments, lighting or marking system status, airport construction, adverse weather (snow banks, snow removal, icy runways or taxiways, deep snow in glide slope critical areas at non-U.S. airports, etc.), appropriate limitations or restrictions to minima necessary to ensure safe operations.
b. Category II.
(1) In addition to the corrective actions discussed above, for Category II the operations and maintenance manuals should address any corrections needed. Operators are expected to take appropriate corrective actions when they determine that conditions exist which could adversely affect safe Category II operations. Examples of situations for which an operator may need to take action restricting, limiting, or discontinuing Category II operations include:
repeated aircraft system difficulties, repeated maintenance write-ups, chronic pilot reports of unacceptable landing performance, applicable service bulletin issuance, ADs, NAVAID status or performance problems, applicable NOTAMs, airport facility status change, air traffic procedure adjustment, lighting, marking, or standby power system status outages, airport construction, obstacle construction, temporary obstacles, natural disasters, adverse weather,
Page 142 Par 12 snow banks, snow removal, icy runways or taxiways, deep snow in glide slope critical areas, inability to confirm appropriate critical area protection at non-U.S. airports, and other such conditions.
(2) Examples of appropriate corrective action could be an adjustment of Category II programs, procedures, training, modification to aircraft, restriction of minima, limitations on winds, restriction of NAVAID facility use, adjustment of payload, service bulletin incorporation, or other such measures necessary to ensure safe operation