View Full Version : FAR 121 Landing legality?
I'm in a battle with my POI regarding the length of the runway required (if any) for landing.
There is no question that for takeoff, you must have "Landing Field Length", including the full 40% buffer. FAR 121.195 states that no person may "takeoff" without that.
Once you are airborne, I contend that requirement is behind you, and all you need is enough concrete to get the a/c stopped on the runway.
He holds that the "Landing Field Length" is required for landing.
I feel he's incorrect in his interpretation of that being an in-flight requirement.
Can anyone point me to a reference, or General Counsel's opinion that would support either point of view?
What's your airline's position on this subject?
------------------
Your POI is correct. Also, it is not wise to "argue" with the Feds.
411a-
I appreciate your answer, but can you offer some proof (in writing) that he is correct?
On what do you base your opinion?
I was in contact with the ATA representative this morning, and American, United and TWA (among others) are not bound by that restriction.
------------------
static
29th Nov 2000, 14:46
According to my company manuals, there is no legal requirement concerning landing distance, while inflight. Just in the planning phase, we use dispatch landing charts. There are company rules, though. We are provided with socalled Calculated Landing Distance tables, with which we can determine the actual landing distance pretty accurately. We have to maintain a margin of 200m over this calculated value.
But in my opinion, there is no inflight legal requirement.
411Ayou are wrong! There is no legal in-flight requirement i.e. 60/40.
Have a look in numerous AFM's you will find a landing field length for dispatch and an actual landing field length, the actual landing field length can be used when in-flight.
Also have a look in FAR121, there is no requirement listed.
PS, POI's aren't GODS, they should be open to discussion.
We had an ETOPS restriction placed on us by our POI, we discussed it with Boeing, JAA and researched the FARs, AC's etc. This restriction was unheard of. Another visit to our POI proved that it was his interpretation and wasn't a legal requirement! Needless to say, it is no longer a restriction.
Mutt
For dispatch one needs the 1.4(or distance by x.67) if wet wx below 300'+ 15%(total=1.92 of actual).With the advent of the A320,with any problem,only consider'actual'distance for runway required.
MUTT:
You are correct only if you land offroute or divert to an unplanned alternate. Should you overrun (even a little bit) the feds will have you by the b...s, even if no damage. Still not a good idea to argue, discuss yes, not argue.
I should have softened the word "argue". It's still a friendly argument (at this point). But.....it has the potential for getting nasty.
411A-
>>You are correct only if you land offroute or divert to an unplanned alternate<<
Once again, can you give an official reference for that (those) statements? Until you can, it's just your opinion, and I'm going to need more than that to PROVE either point of view.
------------------
QUID:
Check your Ops Specs very carefully as many times there are restrictions that may apply. If you flight plan to any destination, takeoff, enroute or destination alternate, then the restriction applies.
Please check FAR 121-195,if does not answer the question let me know
"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no
person operating a turbine engine powered transport category airplane may
take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal
consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing
distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of
landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport
within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from
a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and
the runway.
static
2nd Dec 2000, 01:17
Royan, you`re right, but this is all still planning phase. The question was, whether this still applies when you`re airborne.
These rules do not apply when inflight.
Inflight the only rule is: The captain should be convinced a normal safe landing can be made.
If you start replanning in flight, say 4 hours out and picking another alternate due wx, then ofcourse the planning rules apply. (although this is always the focal point of discussion)
QUID-
An airline that I worked for many years ago planned flights to an airport where the restriction complied, only to divert EVERYTIME to the "ultimate intended destination" where the runway did not comply. When the FAA found out they were NOT ammused. Now, you would not be thinking of doing the same, would you?
Static, The regulation are for required landing distance .Dry R/W ,actual ldg distance divided by .6 . Wet 115% of that for a dry surface .(there is regulations for contaminated surface for JAR -OPS . And also for auto land ). Before dispatch the pilot must check that the R/W length at destination for the forecasted ldg wt is at least equal to the req dist . in case of departure with a sys failure affecting ldg dist known before dispatch the req ldg dist without failure multiplied by the coefficient given in the MMEL is what the pilot needs .Coming to your point with failures in flight affecting the ldg performance the R/W length to be considered is the actual ldg dist without failure multiplied by the coefficient given in the QRH . I hope this clarifies the subject .
Prof2MDA
2nd Dec 2000, 08:36
The requirement is only that you are able to stop within the available runway. It is an Ops Specs requirement, I don't think you'll find a regulation for it. Many airlines handle this by having a chart that shows the heaviest weight that will work for a particular runway, although that doesn't tell you a lot. If you are under the weight limit (applying the various corrections) you still don't know how much of that runway you'll need or how much brakes you might require (max brakes are acceptable...).
My company approaches it a bit differently with our performance laptop, the crew enters in the data for the runway (playing it as conservative as we want to as *we* control the inputs), and it outputs the landing runway required (including 1500' of air run distance) and compares that to the runway available.
This gives us a lot more info for planning purposes, for example, can we make taxiway xyz with min braking and flaps 35, etc.
411A-
I'm quite familiar with our Ops Specs, but just in case, I re-read every word today, but can't find anything that applies here. What specific paragraphs are you talking about? (Of course, our Ops Specs may be different than yours.)
As far as "planned diversions",... no way. That would involve hundreds of diversions each day, and each would require use of Capt's emergency authority. If it was planned, then we'd need an ammended release, and the ammendment would have to be in accordance with 121.195, so nothing would be gained.
royan-
121.195 states that "no person may takeoff.." It does NOT state that no person may takeoff 0R LAND...
I offer as support of my opinion a section from the 8400.10 (Air Carrier Inspector's Handbook) the following quote-
>> E. Application of Flight Handbook Performance Limits. Many of the requirements of Subparts I of Part 121 and Part 135 apply only until the aircraft takes off from the departure point. Other requirements from these Subparts apply at all times as do the AFM limitations. For example, FAR 121.195 and FAR 135.385 prohibit a large, turbine airplane from takeoff unless, allowing for enroute fuel burn, the airplane will be capable of landing on 60% of the available runway at the planned destination. The regulations do not, however, prohibit the airplane from landing at the destination when, upon arrival, conditions have changed and more than 60% of the runway is required. In this case, the airplane must only be able to land on the effective runway length as shown in the flight manual performance data. <<
What would be the reason for that paragraph, if not to clarify that 121.195 applies only to the "takeoff" requirement?
Quid, what more do you need? 121.195 doesn't apply in-flight. It's time for you to go have a nice quiet chat with your POI.
Prof2mda, how is Hurleys laptop working out?
Mutt
Prof2MDA
3rd Dec 2000, 01:37
Appears to me that the 8400.10 nails the answer right there, no reason to look farther.
I don't have a copy of our ops specs as the portions we use are incorporated into our FOM.
Prof2MDA
3rd Dec 2000, 01:47
We've had the laptops since 91 now, they're great. We are not swapping them out with something we're calling the Pilot Access Terminal, PAT. It has not only the performance features (which are really impressive and allow us a lot more fine tuning and pilot control than other systems) but also a maintenance function where you point and click on the cockpit display and enter possible problems directly for direct download (soon to be paperless maint log), and some have the aviation weather access, full access to weather maps etc in real time. That's experimental, but hope to see it fleetwide at some point.
When I gave him a hard copy of the quoted section of the 8400.10, his answer was "It's full of errors and needs to be revised." <shrug>
Don't get me wrong, 90% of the time he's great to work with, but this time he's dug his heels in. We've scheduled another meeting on Tuesday afternoon, so we'll see.
Now i get it, Quid, you must be based in Florida, your POI is trying to work our the "intent" of 8400.10
OK put it this way, you are flying along and you get a cabin fire, the runway below you is exactly 6000' long (Required landing distance.) The next 10000' foot runway is over an hour away, what are you going to do? Answers on a postcard to the Florida Supreme Court....... (Sorry guys, i just couldnt resist.)
Prof2mda, we looked at the laptop in 93 or so, have you actually got them attached and powered from the aircraft, or are they supplied to the crews?
Thanks.
Mutt
Prof2MDA
3rd Dec 2000, 09:30
The laptop is in the airplane. Currently we are transitioning from a real battery powered laptop to one that is plugged in for datalink and recharging, but the functionality is the same for the performance module.
It is kept in a "case" on the f/o side, and when it's placed there is attaches its databus and charging receptacles.
Mutt , the case you put is very clear now , nobody can question your decesion to land at that R/W , refer to my answers above .It is all for safety.you have to plan well , and then cope with changes AND EMERGENCIES WHEN THEY ARISE, every airline will have an ops spec where they mention the procedures and the suitable approved R/W's , and even that you can deviate from in an emergency .
For those who care:
I received a decision today from FAA headquarters. It states that the "policy and procedures in place at (my airline) are in compliance with the applicable regulations." "If the Captain elects to land on another runway that is shorter, (the weight listed on the landing chart is less than the actual weight) the aircraft is legal to land."
In a nutshell, FAR 121.195 governs dispatch and takeoff only. It is NOT limiting for landing operations.
Quid
Thanks for letting us know.
Mutt
Royan
22nd Dec 2000, 18:48
Aviation Rules and regulation should not in any way be confusing or misunderstood, any confusion should be clarified and not left to individual differences or trying to find ways to break them.
[This message has been edited by Royan (edited 22 December 2000).]
4dogs
27th Dec 2000, 09:43
Quid,
I found this one very interesting, both from a legal and a philosophical perspective. I have not researched FAR 121 as I am far from home and can only get limited access.
For your interest, the Australian rule for equivalent operations specifically requires that normal landings be conducted on runways with buffers intact, ie 1.67 for destination and 1.43 for alternates. The only time the pilot of an Australian registered aircraft can land without buffers is in an emergency.
Although the original Australian rules were based on the then CAR 4 (I think) rules, there are a number of differences documented where the Australian regulators did not agree that safety was preserved. I am not sure if this particular rule was one of those differences, but I could fully understand that it would have been.
My philosophical interest was aroused simply because I cannot understand why anyone would either permit or wish to land a perfectly serviceable aircraft during normal operations on a runway that matches the demonstrated landing distance only, ie without buffers.
My understanding is that the 1.67/1.43 buffers are there to ensure an acceptable level of safety for normal commercial operations, ie recognising that we avoid crashing the aeroplane on and using autobrake 10 so that some of the people who pay our wages might want to come back and do it again. The unfactored distances are achieved by test pilots whose motivation is to minimise the landing distance in order to maximise the commercial value of the aircraft - any consideration to the comfort of the occupants being mere lipservice. I would have thought that reducing the normal buffers would have been well recognised as a risk-increasing philosophy that would be unwise to leave solely to the discretion of the operator.
Given some of the chest beating that goes on in these fora from some of our colleagues, particularly in regard to "if you can't do this or that, you should hand in your licence", despite some of the poor handling one observes in simulators and aircraft alike, I can only presume that your interest was an academic one in protecting your licence against the Feds.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
IMHO, the above is right on target. The bare-chested Tarzan types would no doubt disagree, I suppose, and end up looking like Hawaiian in Tahiti.
No, chest beating, etc. is not a player here. And, I'd NEVER suggest that a pilot go for the actual landing distance (60% of Landing Field Length) unless he has NO other choice.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.
No, chest beating, etc. is not a player here. And, I'd NEVER suggest that a pilot go for the actual landing distance (60% of Landing Field Length) unless he has NO other choice.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.