AWO.B.CATIII.113 CS AWO.B.CATIII.113 Installed equipment

- (a) The list of items of equipment required to be installed for certification to the DHs specified is based on experience with conventional medium and large transport jet aeroplanes, and it is recognised that changes may be appropriate for significantly different applications. - (b) xLS airborne equipment standards Acceptable standards for airborne receiver equipment include the following: - (1) Localiser receivers with centring accuracy for automatic landing that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-46B or later revision, or an equivalent standard, and glide path receivers that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-47A or RTCA DO-192 or later revision.

SUBPART B -APPROACH AND LANDING SECTION 4 -AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION OF AEROPLANES FOR OPERATIONS WITH DECISION HEIGHTS (DHs) BELOW 30 M (100 FT) OR NO DECISION HEIGHT (DH) -CATEGORY III (CAT III) OPERATIONS

Note: The aforementioned localiser specifications are in accordance with the FM Broadcast Interference Immunity requirements of ICAO Annex 10, Volume 1, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.4.

- (2) MLS receivers that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-36A or later revision, or an equivalent standard, and DME/P transceivers that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-54 or RTCA DO-189. - (3) Combined ILS/MLS receivers that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-74 or equivalent standard. - (4) Combined ILS/MLS/GPS receivers that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-88 or equivalent standard. - (5) Combined ILS/MLS/GPS/GLS receivers, or combined ILS/GPS/GLS receivers, that comply with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-88, RTCA DO-246E, and RTCA DO-253D, or equivalent standards.

(c)Radio altimeter equipment standards

The airborne equipment used to provide height above terrain may be a radio altimeter that complies with the minimum performance standards of EUROCAE ED-30 or RTCA DO-155. Alternatively, another device capable of providing equivalent performance and integrity level may be used.

- (d) Anti-skid braking systems

An anti-skid braking system may not be required depending on the braking characteristics of the aeroplane, its susceptibility to tyre failure during heavy braking, and susceptibility to tyre failure during operations with reduced runway surface friction.

- (e) Means to determine, assess or manage stopping performance

In showing compliance with CS AWO.B.CATIII.113(a)(8), at least one of the following means should be used:

- (1) An automatic braking system together with information for the flight crew about appropriate automatic brake settings to be used for landing or which provides landing distance information for use by the flight crew to determine which automatic brake setting may or may not be appropriate. - (2) A ground speed indicating system together with acceptable procedures for its use. Knowledge of the aircraft position on the runway is assumed. - (3) A display that shows the adequacy of aircraft deceleration for stopping within the confines (e.g. width and length) of the available runway. - (4) A display that shows the length of remaining runway after touchdown. - (5) A procedural means, acceptable to the regulatory authority, to ensure that a safe stop can be made (without the assistance of an aircraft system). However, a procedural means is not appropriate for minima less than 300 ft RVR (100 m). For an RVR less than 100 m, consideration should be given to the availability of auto-roll-out and anti-skid and whether manual braking can be accepted with a contingency procedure (e.g. max braking).

[Issue: CS-AWO/2]

AMC AWO.B.CATIII.113(b)(2) Suitability of aircraft for fail-passive operations with a decision height of 50 ft or greater

ED Decision 2022/007/R

Operations in accordance with CS AWO.B.CATIII.113(b)(2) may not be suitable for all aircraft types. When assessing the suitability of an aircraft type in respect of size and approach speed, the following should be taken into account:

- (a) landing gear track; - (b) wingspan; - (c) pilot's eye-to-wheel height (EWH); - (d) distance from the cockpit to the main wheels; and - (e) approach speed at maximum landing weight.

The following provides additional guidance in order to assist in the determination of whether an aircraft is suitable for super fail-passive operations:

- (a) Landing gear track, wingspan and distance from cockpit to the main wheels

The landing gear track, wingspan and distance from the cockpit to the main wheels should be considered in relation to the safety of the go-around which is likely to be conducted from a height where ground contact is likely. If the results of the simulator tests show potential for wing tip strikes or runway excursions during go-around, then it is unlikely that the aircraft can be approved for super fail-passive operations.

- (b) Pilot's eye -to-wheel height (EWH)

The pilot's EWH has a direct bearing on the height of the pilot's eyes above the runway at the DH. This, along with the angle of vision cutoff of the pilot's downward view, determines the visual segment available in low visibility.

The visual segment and number of visible approach lights required are explained in AMC4 SPA.LVO.105(c). It is likely that the size of the visual segment will be determined by the pilot's need to see at least one barrette of the TDZ lighting in order to have a suitable roll reference in the event of having to perform a manual go-around due to autopilot failure. Since the TDZ lighting is spaced at a maximum of 60-m intervals on Category III runways, a visual segment of 60 m must always be available at and below the DH for super fail-passive operations.

The EWH is affected not only by aeroplane size and geometry, but also by the pitch attitude during approach (which itself, is weight-, centre-of-gravity- and configuration-dependent). Typical EWH values for narrow-body turbojets lie between 4 and 5 metres. Aeroplanes with significantly higher values may not be suitable for super fail-passive operations since the visual segment might be insufficient.

It is important to ensure that any pitch attitude changes, which may occur as a result of the automatic landing flare, are taken into account when determining the EWH. See also CS AWO.B.CATIII.110.

Easy Access Rules for All-Weather Operations (CS-AWO)

- (c) Approach speed at maximum landing weight

The approach speed should be sufficiently low such that the limited visual references used to verify the aircraft flight path at and below the DH, during continued approach or go-around, can be easily interpreted by the pilot.

Experience has shown that super fail-passive operations may be safely conducted on some aircraft types up to a maximum approach speed of 140 kt. This value equates to the upper limit of Category C aeroplanes as defined by CAT.OP.MPA.320(b) Table 1, and may be used as a general guide but it may not be limiting.

- (d) Other aeroplane characteristics

The requirement for the aircraft to be easily manoeuvrable relates mainly to the ability of the pilot to safely perform a manual go-around close to the ground, with limited external cues following an autopilot failure below the DH. The assumption is that the more manoeuvrable the aircraft is, the safer the go-around is likely to be.

Areas to consider when assessing the manoeuvrability of the aircraft with respect to the manual go-around manoeuvre should include engine spool-up characteristics and trim changes due to thrust (directional and in pitch), trim changes due to flap and gear, and the ability to control airspeed.

The aeroplane should also be assessed from the point of view of being able to be safely controlled along the runway from the point at which the automatic landing system is normally disengaged, down to a safe taxi speed in the minimum RVR proposed.

[Issue: CS-AWO/2]