Air carrier flight crew reported conducting a Category II approach to a runway that was not 5G AMOC approved. The pilots reported fatigue as a probable cause for the error.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported conducting a Category II approach to a runway that was not 5G AMOC approved. The pilots reported fatigue as a probable cause for the error.
Narrative
While working Aircraft X ZZZ1 to ZZZ; we conducted a CAT II approach to [Runway] XXR in ZZZ and failed to realize that runway is not AMOC (Alternate Methods of Compliance) approved. There is a 5G NOTAM for ZZZ.Initially; we briefed and set up for ILS CAT I for Runway XXR. I was Pilot Flying. Upon check in with ZZZ Approach; we were assigned ILS XXL. We set up and briefed the approach for the ILS CAT I XXL. Upon check in with ZZZ Tower; we were told RVR was 5;000 [ft.] touchdown and greater than 6;000 rollout. However we did not have any runway environment in sight at minimums. We conducted a Go-Around.Upon checking in again with ZZZ Approach; we were now assigned ILS XXR. The Captain and I discussed our current fuel and determined we were well above Bingo and good for another approach. We then discussed doing a CAT II considering that we could not get the airport environment in sight at CAT I mins. We agreed that a CAT II sounded like a good idea and there was a CAT II approach for XXR. We sent for appropriate landing data but failed to notice the ACARS message about the runway AMOC status. Also; we had briefed the Release prior to the flight but failed to remember which runways were AMOC approved. We did run the 'CAT II APPROACH' briefing items but the bullet point 'Review NOTAMs for inoperative ground components' also failed to prompt me to remember the 5G NOTAM. We conducted the CAT II approach to Runway XXR and landed. There were no radio altimeter anomalies. The Captain had the runway environment in sight at 200 feet indicated. The approach and landing were stabilized and uneventful. This error was caused by my failure to verify the AMOC/5G status of the runways at ZZZ on the release and failure to notice the AMOC ACARS message. Contributing factors were the high workload experienced throughout the day which included delays; a return to gate; and a missed approach. In retrospect; I recognize the effects that a long and challenging day can have on state of mind and attentiveness to small details such as reviewing NOTAMs and AMOC status.The addition of 5G procedures in recent months presents another threat and opportunity to commit errors. To prevent this error in the future; I will include a review of the Remarks in addition to the NOTAMs section of the release in my preparation for a CAT II or RNP AR approach. I would also recommend the company add a bullet point to the company document CAT II and RNP AR approaches: 'verify runway is AMOC approved or that no 5G NOTAM [exists] for the airport.'I would recommend a new revision of the company document that adds a bullet point to the CAT II and RNP AR approach sections saying: 'Verify runway is AMOC approved or that no 5G NOTAM exists for the airport/runway.' I will also more carefully review the remarks and NOTAMs section of the release during my preparation for a CAT II or RNP approach.
Second reporter narrative
WX reporting minimums for CAT I at ZZZ. Issued [Runway] XXL ILS approach; ending with a go around due to no visual cues for the runway. ATC brought us around for XXR and we discussed to do a CAT II. Shot the CAT II seeing the runway lights at 200 ft. Issued standard SOP CAT II procedure; although the following day the First Officer brought to my attention ZZZ was not 5G AMOC (Alternate Method of Compliance) approved. In the moment; ending the day with 15 hour duty; with 8.9 hours of flight time; it didn't even cross my mind. Add a bullet point to the company document to check for 5G AMOC
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.