GM2 SPA.LVO.100(b) Low-visibility operations and operations with operational credits

• ED Decision 2022/012/R found in: Air Operations (No 965/2012) Part-ARO Part-ORO Part-CAT Part-SPA Part-NCC Part-NCO Part-SPO (Feb 2025)

GM2 SPA.LVO.100(b) Low-visibility operations and operations with operational credits ED Decision 2022/012/R INSTRUMENT APPROACH OPERATIONS IN LOW-VISIBILITY CONDITIONS — EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION FOR LOW-VISIBILITY APPROACH OPERATIONS OTHER THAN EFVS This GM describes the certification requirements of CS-AWO. Operators should always refer to CS‑AWO for the actual requirements. Aircraft suitable for low-visibility approach operations are certified according to the minimum usable DH which is stated in the AFM. Certification specifications (CS-AWO) allow for systems to be certified for SA CAT I, CAT II or CAT III operations. Systems certified for CAT III operations may specify: — a lowest usable DH of: — less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft; — less than 50 ft; or — no DH. Legacy systems may be described as capable of ‘CAT 3A’ or ‘CAT IIIA' operations. This implies a minimum DH of less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft. Systems described as capable of ‘CAT 3B’ or ‘CAT IIIB’ may be certified for a DH of less than 50 ft or no DH. Operations to a DH of less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft will typically require a fail-passive automatic landing system or a HUDLS or equivalent system. Operations to a DH of less than 50 ft will require a fail-operational landing system, a fail-passive go-around system, automatic thrust control and either automatic ground roll control or ground roll guidance using a HUDLS. For no DH operations, a fail-passive or fail-operational ground roll control system is required. The RVR required for SA CAT I, CAT II and SA CAT II approach operations is determined by the DH and the aircraft approach speed category. The RVR required for CAT III approach operations is determined by the DH and the capability of the ground-roll control system. Operations with fail-passive roll control systems require a greater RVR than operations with fail-operational ground control systems because the pilots would need to have sufficient visibility to maintain lateral control in the event of a system failure. GM2 SPA.LVO.100(b) Low-visibility operations and operations with operational credits ED Decision 2022/012/R INSTRUMENT APPROACH OPERATIONS IN LOW-VISIBILITY CONDITIONS — EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION FOR LOW-VISIBILITY APPROACH OPERATIONS OTHER THAN EFVS This GM describes the certification requirements of CS-AWO. Operators should always refer to CS‑AWO for the actual requirements. Aircraft suitable for low-visibility approach operations are certified according to the minimum usable DH which is stated in the AFM. Certification specifications (CS-AWO) allow for systems to be certified for SA CAT I, CAT II or CAT III operations. Systems certified for CAT III operations may specify: — a lowest usable DH of: — less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft; — less than 50 ft; or — no DH. Legacy systems may be described as capable of ‘CAT 3A’ or ‘CAT IIIA' operations. This implies a minimum DH of less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft. Systems described as capable of ‘CAT 3B’ or ‘CAT IIIB’ may be certified for a DH of less than 50 ft or no DH. Operations to a DH of less than 100 ft but not less than 50 ft will typically require a fail-passive automatic landing system or a HUDLS or equivalent system. Operations to a DH of less than 50 ft will require a fail-operational landing system, a fail-passive go-around system, automatic thrust control and either automatic ground roll control or ground roll guidance using a HUDLS. For no DH operations, a fail-passive or fail-operational ground roll control system is required. The RVR required for SA CAT I, CAT II and SA CAT II approach operations is determined by the DH and the aircraft approach speed category. The RVR required for CAT III approach operations is determined by the DH and the capability of the ground-roll control system. Operations with fail-passive roll control systems require a greater RVR than operations with fail-operational ground control systems because the pilots would need to have sufficient visibility to maintain lateral control in the event of a system failure.