AMC1 SPA.LVO.110 Aerodrome-related requirements, including instrument flight procedures

CAA ORS9 Decision No. 47

Text in magenta in force from 30 October 2025

SUITABLE AERODROMES — APPROACH AND LANDING ASSESSMENT — AEROPLANES

1. The assessment of the suitability of an aerodrome, including instrument flight procedures, for the intended operations comprises the availability of:

   1. suitable navigation facilities and associated instrument flight approach procedures;

   2. suitable aerodrome operating procedures, including LVPs, and the compatibility with the intended aircraft operations; and

   3. suitable runway and runway environment characteristics and facilities.

2. The assessment of the suitability of an aerodrome, including instrument flight procedures, for the intended operations should be made by means of one or a combination of the following:

   1. An assessment of previous operational data for the particular aerodrome, runway and instrument flight procedures. This entails the verification of the availability of previous operational data, such as records of approaches flown in the same aerodrome, with the same procedures and aircraft type.

   2. A desktop assessment of the:

      1. aerodrome data;

      2. instrument flight procedures; and

      3. aircraft data and capabilities.

      This desktop assessment compares aircraft data and capabilities and the aerodrome and instrument approach characteristics. If the aircraft data is compatible with the aerodrome and instrument approach procedure characteristics, the aerodrome and runway should be considered suitable for the intended LVO;

   3. An operational assessment

      This is meant to be used if the suitability of the aerodrome for the intended operations could not be positively assessed by means of the other methods. In that case, an operational assessment becomes necessary, and actual flights should be performed. The operational assessment should consider the level of complexity of the aerodrome characteristics.

ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS OPERATIONAL DATA

3. Previous operational data refers to data from:

   1. the operator itself; or when not available

   2. the following entities:

      1. the State of the aerodrome or the competent authority issuing the operator’s LVO approval;

      2. the type certificate holder of the aircraft; or

      3. other operators.

4. Previous operational data should only be used if:

   1. it concerns the same runway and there were no relevant changes to the runway and runway environment;

   2. it is derived in accordance with Table 14 below for the intended operation; and

   3. there is no safety concern for such operation.

5. Previous operational data may be credited to an aircraft if it is from:

   1. the same aircraft make and model, unless the credit from the same aircraft make and model is restricted by any of the entities in point (c)(2); or

   2. another aircraft model, if stated in the AFM or additional data from the TC/STC holder.

Table 14

Use of previous operational data for the intended operation

Intended operation	Operation from which previous operational data was derived – subject to the conditions specified in points (c), (d) and (e)	Remark
SA CAT I – automatic landing	CAT I/II/III — automatic landing SA CAT I — automatic landing SA CAT II — automatic landing LTS CAT I — automatic landing.	Automatic landing in hybrid systems may also be used
SA CAT I — HUDLS	CAT II/III — HUDLS SA CAT I — HUDLS SA CAT II — HUDLS LTS CAT I — HUDLS	Nil
SA CAT II — automatic landing	CAT II/III — automatic landing SA CAT II — automatic landing	Automatic landing in hybrid systems may also be used
SA CAT II — HUDLS	SA CAT II — HUDLS CAT II/III — HUDLS	Nil
CAT II — HUD to below DH with manual landing	CAT II — HUD to below DH with manual landing CAT II or CAT III — automatic landing CAT II or CAT III HUDLS SA CAT II HUDLS	Data related to the LSAA should only be used in the case of HUDLS or automatic landing
CAT II — auto-coupled to below DH with manual landing	CAT II — auto-coupled to below DH with manual landing CAT II or CAT III — automatic landing SA CAT II automatic landing	None
CAT II — automatic landing	CAT II — automatic landing SA CAT II — automatic landing CAT III automatic landing	Automatic landing in hybrid systems may also be used
CAT II — HUDLS	CAT II or CAT III — HUDLS SA CAT II — HUDLS	None
CAT III — HUDLS	CAT III — HUDLS	None
CAT III— automatic landing	CAT III — automatic landing	If the hybrid system uses automatic landing, then the data may be used as any CAT III system.
CAT III — hybrid system	CAT III — hybrid system based on same components	None
EFVS operations requiring flare prompt or flare command, i.e. EFVS-L	EFVS operations requiring flare prompt or flare commands	None

Note: Previous operational data should be based on the same kind of xLS (e.g. ILS to ILS, MLS to MLS or GLS to GLS). Data related to landing system performance derived from infrastructure systems with lower performance may be used on systems with higher performance (e.g. data derived from a CAT II ILS may be used on a CAT III ILS). However, an ILS may qualify a GLS operation under the following conditions:

— The performance of the ILS installation on which the data is based can only be credited to the ILS point promulgate.

— An ILS facility performance category II installation can only be credited to an operation using GAST C.

— An ILS facility performance category III installation can only be credited to an operation using GAST C or GAST D.

DESKTOP ASSESSMENT — AERODROME DATA, INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURE AND AIRCRAFT DATA AND CAPABILITIES

6. The desktop assessment should correspond to the nature and complexity of the operation intended to be carried out and should take into account the hazards and associated risks inherent in these operations.

7. The assessment should include the AFM or additional data from the TC/STC holder, instrument flight procedures and aerodrome data. For landing systems, the runway or airport conditions should include as a minimum:

   1. the approach path slope;

   2. the runway elevation;

   3. the type of xLS navigation means intended to be used;

   4. the average slope of the LSAA; and

   5. the ground profile under the approach path (pre-threshold terrain). The distance should be calculated from the published threshold. It should be 300 metres, unless otherwise stated by the AFM or additional data from the TC/STC holder, the State of the aerodrome or AIP data, or the competent authority issuing the operator’s LVO approval.

   Note: The above points assume a CAT II or CAT III runway. For other types of runways, the operator may need to consider other factors.

8. In addition to (g), additional elements may need to be included in the assessment if stated by:

   1. the AFM, or additional data from the TC/STC holder; or

   2. the State of the aerodrome or AIP data; or

   3. the competent authority issuing the operator’s LVO approval.

9. For EFVS operations, the following applies:

   If the system used to perform an EFVS operation contains a flare cue, each aircraft type / equipment / runway combination should be verified before authorising the use of EFVS-L, on any runway with irregular pre-threshold terrain (not within the certification assumption for pre-threshold terrain), if the LSAA presents significant slope change.

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT

10. When performing an operational assessment, the operator should verify each aircraft type and runway combination by successfully completing the determined number of approaches and landings according to the process in point (l) below and the conditions determined in Table 15.

Table 15 Meteorological conditions for approaches and landings intended for operational assessment

Type of approach	RVR / VIS
CAT III	CAT II conditions if the approach was previously successfully assessed in CAT II operations
CAT II & CAT III	CAT I conditions
EFVS-A	As per instrument approach no EFVS credits
SA CAT I & SA CAT II	CAT I conditions

11. The operational assessment should validate the use and effectiveness of the aircraft flight guidance systems, and operating procedures for the intended operation applicable to a specific instrument flight procedure and runway.

12. The process to determine the number of approaches and landings should be based on identified risks and agreed with the CAA, and comprise the following steps:

    1. Identify the risks related to the landing system (based on the AFM or additional data from the TC/STC holder) which may include limitations in the conditions during the operational assessment (e.g. to perform the assessment under a non-commercial flight).

    2. Determine complexity of the runway based on:

       1. a set of criteria based on the certification assumptions identified in the AFM or additional data from the TC/STC holder;

       2. availability and quality of runway data supporting the risk assessment; and

       3. other known factors identified.

    3. Scale the number of required approaches based on complexity.

13. The operational assessment may be performed in a commercial flight.

14. If the operator has different variants of the same type of aircraft, utilising the same landing systems, the operator should show that the variants have satisfactory operational performance, but there is no need to conduct a full operational assessment for each variant/runway combination.

15. The operator may replace partially or completely the approaches and landings to a particular runway, if approved by the CAA, with:

    1. simulations made by the aircraft manufacturer or approved design organisations, if the terrain is properly modelled in the simulation; or

    2. a verification using an FSTD, if the FSTD is suitable for the operational assessment.

ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF RUNWAYS FOR EFVS OPERATIONS

16. The assessment of the suitability of the aerodrome should include whether the approach and runway lights installed (notably incandescent or LED lights) are adequate for the EFVS equipment used by the operator.

17. Additionally, the operator should assess obstacles for the following operations:

    1. NPA procedures;

    2. APV;

    3. category I PA procedures on runways where an OFZ is not provided; and

    4. approach procedures not designed in accordance with PANS-OPS or equivalent criteria.

18. The assessment in point (q) should determine whether:

    1. obstacle protection can be ensured in the visual segment from DA/H to landing, without reliance on visual identification of obstacles or in the event of a balked landing; and

    2. obstacle lights installed (notably incandescent or LED lights) are adequate for the EFVS equipment used by the operator.

19. If the assessment determines that:

    1. obstacle clearance cannot be ensured in the visual segment without reliance on visual identification of obstacles, the operator should not authorise EFVS operations to that runway or restrict the operation to the type and/or category of instrument approach operations where obstacle protection is ensured.

       Note: Obstacles of a height of less than 50 ft above the threshold may be disregarded when assessing the VSS.

    2. obstacle protection is not assured in the event of a go-around initiated at any point prior to touchdown, the operator should not authorise the operation unless procedures to mitigate the risk of inadequate obstacle protection are developed and implemented.

20. If the AFM stipulates specific requirements for approach procedures, the operational assessment should include a determination of whether these requirements can be met.