All Weather Operations

John FRANKLIN • 7 March 2024
in community Air Operations

Updated version on 7 March 2024 with the latest All Weather Ops Guidelines - download at the bottom of the page.

This is produced by EUSPA in collaboration with ESSP aim to promote and provide high level material to facilitate the implementation of EFVS operations based on SBAS technology, which will greatly contribute to the increased availability of suitable destination and alternate aerodromes during periods of reduced visibility. 

The objective of this publication is ensuring harmonised solutions and a common approach in accordance with Single European Sky (SES) Regulation. In this context, this document is mainly intended for aircraft operators but also includes relevant information for other affected stakeholders, such as aerodrome operators, Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and aircraft manufacturers / design organisations.”

Updated version of the EASA All Weather Ops Implementation Manual (version 1.2) published with effect from 7 August 2023 - download at the bottom of the page. 

Air operations need to happen safely in all weather conditions. EASA Rulemaking Task RMT.0379 has recently been completed to introduce a more performance-based and technology neutral approach to enabling all weather operations.

More specifically RMT.0379 has introduced the ICAO concept of operational credits meaning that with an advanced aircraft (having enhanced capabilities) you can either:

  • Reduce your approach minima at airports having standard ground and navigation infrastructure while the ‘basic aircraft’ maintains the standard minima or
  • Maintain the standard approach minima at airports having reduce airport infrastructure while the ‘basic aircraft’, must use higher minima.

The new regulatory framework makes it easier to enable CAT II and CAT III approaches by reducing the operational demonstration needed by the operator, for some cases the operational demonstration can be removed. There are also new rules on Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) that reduces approach possibilities to 200ft without prior approval, then also to 100ft and even 0ft depending on the equipment available on the aircraft and at the aerodrome.

The material available to help you with implementation

In addition to this article, there is lots of information to support you with the implementation. The main things are:

Overview of All Weather Operations

So let’s go back to the very beginning. All weather operations is the ability of aircraft to take off and land in an airport under low visibility conditions, this means below 550m Runway Visual Range (RVR). In these circumstances, technology can really help to enable safe operations in situations that would otherwise be impossible or pose considerable safety challenges.

AWO Overview

The challenge of all-weather operations is a great example of the different parts of our aviation system coming together to achieve something amazing. It also highlights how the 6 parts of the Safety Map of the World will help you to understand this topic in more detail. <Mindset, People, Resources, Compliance, Risks and Learning>

  • The start of the story – Compliance. The rules are obviously new so we are firmly in the compliance box. The main purpose of this article, the implementation guide and the different webinars is to help you to understand and comply with these new rules.
  • Mindset. Everything in aviation requires the right mindset and culture in your organisation. Considering safety as a key part of every aspect of what you do is vital. This is particularly important when operating in difficult weather conditions. Ask yourself important questions about where your risks lie and encourage everyone in the organisation to talk openly about safety. 
  • People. The new rules have a particular focus on the competencies of your people. To operate in low visibility requires specific proficiency checks that are covered in the Air Ops Rules. 
  • Resources. A key part of operating in low visibility are the technical capabilities onboard the aircraft and then also those available at the aerodrome. Knowing these are vital to implementation of the new rules.
  • Risks. The purpose of the new rules is clearly to help manage risks around operating in poor weather conditions. However, like any change in your operation it can also create new risks that you need to understand and manage.
  • Learning. The end of the story of all weather operations is really that you never stop learning. Continually monitor your implementation and seek to identify new risks and mitigate them effectively. Share experiences with other organisations and with your staff so they can learn from each other.

A total system approach with 4 aspects impacted 4 different EASA Rules

The new EASA rules follow a total system approach, which splits things into 4 parts:

  1. Your operation: Aircraft operators are impacted by changes to operational requirements – you will find these in Regulation (EU) 965/2012 on Air Operations. This includes any new approvals that you need as an organisation and linked to this is the specific training for the flight crew.
  2. Pilots and their training: As we mentioned already, the training for pilots is changing with regards to all weather operations. While the rules for training are laid down in Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 on Flight Crew Licencing the big change in the new rules is that the requirements for training on Low Visibility Operations (LVO) are moved into the Air Ops rules to ensure a clear link to the different operational activities being performed. This approach is not new, back in the JAR-OPS time and EU-OPS LVO training was in the OPS domain.
  3. The aerodrome: It also impacts Aerodrome operations and infrastructure in Regulation (EU) 139/2014 on Aerodromes Safety.
  4. The aircraft: Finally, there are specific requirements for the equipment and capabilities of the aircraft as laid down in CS-AWO (ED Decision 2022/007/R) on Airworthiness.

This means that all weather operations assesses the combination of the aircraft’s capability, the aerodrome’s ground infrastructure and the approach minima.

Different Types of Approach and Landing under the new Rules

Before getting into the different aspects of the operation, training, aerodrome and aircraft requirements, its worth having a quick overview of the different types of approach we are talking about.

  • CAT II Approach: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height below 200ft but not less than 100ft and with a Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 300m (1000ft).
  • CAT III Approach: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height below 100ft and with a Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 200m (700ft).
  • EFVS 200 Approach: An operation in which the approach continues without reliance on the pilot’s natural vision to a height not lower than 200 ft above threshold elevation and in visibility conditions equivalent to RVR not lower than 550 m.
  • EFVS Approach (EFVS-A): An operation in which the approach continues without reliance on the pilot’s natural vision to a height above the threshold elevation not lower than 100 ft above and in visibility conditions equivalent to RVR less than 550 m but not lower than 75 m.
  • EFVS Landing (EFVS-L): An operation in which the approach continues without reliance on the pilot’s natural vision and any restriction to a height above the threshold elevation and in visibility conditions equivalent to RVR less than 550 m but not lower than 75m.

The Operation

As mentioned at the beginning, from an ops perspective the new rules introduce the ICAO concept of operational credits. This means that with an advanced aircraft (having enhanced capabilities) you can either reduce your minima provided that the ground infrastructure at the airport is the same or that you can maintain the minima where the infrastructure is reduced.

Removing the need for an operational demonstration

This makes it easier to enable CAT II and CAT III approaches by reducing the operational demonstration needed by the operator. It also reduces the operational demonstration requirements needed for CAT II and CAT III approaches. The new rules remove the need for each aircraft type and runway end to have an operational demonstration. This has lots of benefits. It increases the availability of alternate aerodromes, which in turn reduces the environmental impact. In these tough economic times is helps to save money for operators and provides more flexibility for the route network.

Currently 90% of runways are within the certification assumptions for both CS-AWO Issue 1 and Issue 2. For the remaining 10% you can use any previous operational data you have, data from another operator or use of data for other models from the same aircraft manufacturer, provided they provide a supporting statement. It’s also possible to use computer/ full flight simulations from the manufacturer. If none of the above works a traditional operational demonstration is required.

The challenge of course is how to know if a particular aircraft/ aerodrome combination is in the 90% that are already covered. To to this, you will need to compare the AFM data and certification assumptions with the airport data. If they are within the certification assumption and AFM data, you can operate without any operational demonstration.

If it is not within the assumptions/AFM data, then you have to use previous data or undertake a traditional operational demonstration.

It is worth noting that with CS-AWO issue 2 there are new requirements to provide certification assumptions and to be more transparent with the AFM data. Additionally, the new Aerodrome rules increase the requirements in the AIP to provide more airport data. This tries to make sure that the AFM data and airport data comparison can be done.

In terms of special authorisations, you need to apply for specific authorisations or approvals from your National Aviation Authority for:

  • CAT II and CAT III
  • EFVS-A or EFVS-L

Pilot Training

When it comes to flight crew training and all-weather operations, there have been some clarifications and improvements on route and aerodrome knowledge requirements, a great link to Evidence Based Training (EBT) and alignment of validity periods to the end of the month.

When it comes to the operators conversation course (OCC) there is increased flexibility for new AOCs, new aircraft type or other operational circumstances.

The biggest change is that the specific requirements for LVO training are now linked into the Ops rules for the operator.

Aerodromes and Their Equipment

When it comes to the aerodrome, the updates in Regulation (EU) 2022/208 help the implementation of all weather operations by ensuring the availability of the appropriate visual and non-visual aids, the availability of the required information of the operator to have access to for their decision making and then the implementation of the appropriate procedures for this type of activity.

More specifically this includes the provision of traditional aids such as ILS and then also the procedures needed to enable GPS/ GNSS approaches that make many smaller aerodromes accessible in poor conditions.

The Aircraft

Finally from an aircraft perspective, the publication of CS-AWO Issue 2 has a number of building blocks including high altitude landing system performance, head-up guidance landing systems, structural limit loads and lateral touchdown performance, autobrake – these were laid out in a number of AWO NPAs.

There were also a number of Certification Review Items (CRIs) covering automatic landing distance, GBAS landing system for Cat 1 operations, extrapolation of wind limits for Autoland demonstration and landing distances using HUDs.

You can find out more about the structure and new elements of the CS-AWO in the powerpoint and 1st EASA Webinar on all weather operations. However, you can see some examples below of new design HuDs, EFVS and Synthetic Vision Guidance Systems (SVGS). 

AWO Technology


So that gives you a basic overview of the key parts of the new EASA all weather ops rules. Check out the PPTs from the Webinars, the Webinar recordings themselves and the draft EASA Guide on All Weather Ops for more information.



Comments (13)

Theo Hankers

Good morning everyone,

could you please clarify the requirement for LVP at airports for LVTO in the RVR range of 550m - 400m:

According to this manual LVPs are required at the airport (ref. top of page 17).

According e.g. AMC2 SPA.LVO.105(c)(b)(7) LVPs are only required for LVTO with RVR <400m.

Thank you.

Theo Hankers
Volkswagen AirService GmbH


Sorry for the delay in replying to you. There is a requirement in the Aerodromes rules to implement LVP at the airport for all operations below 550 meters at European Airports. However, Air OPS (SPA.LVO.105) only requires them for LVTO below 400 meters, as the European airlines may fly to other ICAO countries.


Hello, we are now updating the AWO manual to Version 0.2. This version will have a new table explaining the different requirements. Please check this table and let us know if we need to be more clear.
In the new regulatory system an LVTO is a take-off below 550 meters. The aerodrome regulation requires the aerodrome to have LVP for such kind of operation (below 550m RVR). However, there is no requirement that pilots/operators check this matter. Pilots and operators just trust the system.
For LVTO below 400 meters, the Operator/pilot must ensure that that LVP are in force. Regards Francisco.

Ednei Amaral

Hi EASA colleagues,
I'm trying to understand the relationship between "aerodrome operating minima", "operational credits" and "obstacle clearance" (usually, expressed as obstacle clearance altitude/height (OCA/H)).

According to CAT.OP.MPA.110, the aerodrome operating minima shall be determined by a method that considers the OCA/H. Specifically, AMC3 and 4 for CAT.OP.MPA.110 requires that decision altitude/height (DA/H) or minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) be, at least, equal to OCA/H.
I understand that this avoids flights below OCA/H without visual references, since, according to new CAT.OP.MPA.305(c) and (d), if the required visual references are not acquired and maintained at DA/H/MDA/H and below, then a missed approach/go-around shall be executed.

My doubt is when there is "operational credit". From its definition, I understand that it enables a lower operating minima, that may include a lower decision altitude/height (DA/H) or lower minimun descent altitude/height (MDA/H).
An example, in GM2 SPA.LVO.100(c), is SA CAT I, that allows the DH to be reduced from 200 to 150 ft. And AMC1 SPA.LVO.100(c) also requires that the DH shall be, at least, OCH.

Is there any situation where operational credit would allow the DH to be reduced to less than OCH?

gianni guiducci

On October 14, 2022, I had posted a writing that has now disappeared.
Today 21 October 2022 I insert it again.
Good morning everyone.
I just signed up to be able to share my thoughts with you.
In March 2016 I published a manual "Handling the Circling", made up of over 400 pages where I exhibited all the rules, systems, procedures and limits for all categories of planes.
Since then I have argued that, for example, for category C the 2400 m of visibility, in my opinion, it are insufficient.
The "Draft Provisional Awo Implementation" was therefore interested in it, which tries to increase 3400 m the vis.
I brought all the parameters on graphic computer, from where I noticed that the 3400 m would be considered insufficient.
This arises from the fact that having maintained the continuation after ABM for 5 sec, you remain within 3400 m from the RWY, but the Final is 729 m to the THR and 1020 m to the TDP with a time of only 14.5 sec of flight.
I would also like to emphasize that with a 3° slope, 729 m for the THR, the plane will find itself with the wings leveled at 175 ft = 53 m in height.
It seems to me to be too low a height value and too short time to be able to, if necessary (not aligned for a possible cross wind, Bank inaccurate, etc.), adjast properly and respect the concept of Stabilized Approach.
I would like to remember that:
-FAA AIM-Fig. 5.4.22-Page 5-4-46; FAA AC-120-71 ° Appendix 2-Page 1; ICAO DOC 8168 Vol 1-Chap. 3 3.3b-Page III-4-3-1, indicate a Stabilized Approach Point of 500 ft = 152.4 m
- Flight Safety Foundation Alar Breafing Note - 7.1 Point 8, suggests 300 ft.
I hope that these indications influence to further increase to at least 4000 - 4500 m VIS, in order to contain the plane within the visibility area and be able to carry out an adequate Stabilized Approach.
Thanks for the attention.
Gianni Guiducci
Retired Senior Cpt


Dear Gianni, thank you for your comment. The minimum visibility for a circling under ED Decision 2022/012/R depends on several factors, mainly those in Table 15 AMC7 CAT.OP.MPA.110 (e.g. CAT D 700ft/3600 m, CAT C 600ft/2400m); however, the operator must consider other factors (See the 14 points in CAT.OP.MPA.110. Therefore, table 15 is the minimum visibility, this does not mean it is the visibility they should fly. It will be great to know more about your concerns, and if you have contacts in ICAO maybe you could explain this issue and bring it forward, so they can discuss the topic. At the moment, our regulation is aligned with ICAO. Thanks for your comment. Regards


As per the new EASA AWO regulation coming into effect on October 30th: quote -

A non-precision approach (NPA) procedure flown as CDFA with vertical path guidance calculated by on-board equipment is considered to be a 3D instrument approach operation. Depending on the limitations of the equipment and information sources used to generate vertical guidance, it may be necessary for the pilot to cross-check this guidance against other navigational sources during the approach and to ensure that the minimum altitude/height over published step-down fixes is observed. CDFAs with manual calculation of the required rate of descent are considered 2D operations. - unquote (source: ED Decision 2022/012/R).

Just wondering how Type Rating Examiners and operators comply with the mandatory 2D instrument approach operation as stated in the EASA Part-FCL flight test schedule. In other words which flight modes are allowed to be used when flying an approach according 2D approach operation. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Davide Baroffio

Hi Marco,
we ask to perform an "old style" VOR RAW data, where the vertical profile is not displayed and using HDG SEL and V/S.... No much sense anyway in 2022.
Looking for other feedbacks...

gianni guiducci

Dear Francisco, I would like to deepen the topic with you and Marco; I am very interested in.
Sorry for my english, I work better with the numbers ;-)
In order to proceed quickly, clear limits and rules must be placed.
In other words: it is true that the operator must decide which minimum he wants (he can / must) indicate to his crews, but to continue between us it is necessary to decide the meaning of "minimum" regarding the 2400 meters of the FAA EASA FAA tables that appear normally on the approach / landing charts (jeppesen, lido, etc.).
1 - Do you want to be just a "legal" number to allow anyone to carry out a circling?
2 - The lowest limit that can be used 2400 m refers to a cat C aircraft capable of maintaining the lowest VREF 1.3% stall speed (ICAO IAS 115 KTS)?
3 - The lowest limit that can be used 2400 m refers to a cat C aircraft at maximum Vref (ICAO IAS VREF 160 KTS) at the Maximum Landing Weight?
Everything changes according to your choice. By creating a scale design (as in the Awo Draft), minimal visibility changes considerably; As you may have noticed in the Draft Awo, 3400 meters are needed with these parameters.
I await your answers with pleasure. Ciao

Gokhan Cifci

Good evening everyone,

I would like understand the difference between CAT II — auto-coupled to below DH with manual landing and Cat II Autoland.
Is this difference about aircraft equipment or operation to be conducted.

To be more clear , if we plan conduct both manual landing and autoland (just in case) in Cat II conditions with an autoland capable aircraft do we have train pilots in both ways during recurrent.


Anthony Helleu

Good morning everyone,

We’ve locally been working with the airport on implementing / correcting LVPs and the easy access rules for aerodromes and air operations are quite detailed but we’re lacking info on the EASA regulations regarding the ANSP side of things :

What EASA document will give us up-to-date rules on :
- the management of sensitive areas
- spacing applicable between arrivals / departures on a single runway airport
- what is to be included in the LVP preparation phase

We have found ICAO documents (european guidance material on management of critical and sensitive areas, but ICAO regulations are only considered as recommendations), outdated (2008) french documents that are still applicable (CHEA).
We thought we were going to find something in the IR ATM-ANS but no luck.

All roughly say the same thing and have proven safe over the years but, as we’re trying to update everything, we might as well do it using the right documentation.

Thanks in advance for your help !


Andreas Lipp

Hello everyone,
while the newly published "Guidelines on the use of EFVS in SBAS operations" are very complete on the EFVS aspects, one might want to bear in mind that EFVS has no continuity requirement and EGNOS currently still has limitations as regards full compliance with the ICAO CAT I continuity requirements. Using this system combination during LVO conditions should be analysed as to the effect of a potentially increased number of missed approaches on the aerodrome environment and capacity.
Regards, Andreas

You are not allowed to comment on content in a group you are not member of.

View group