Landing distance acc. to EASA Part-NCC

[Yogibaboo]

Hi,

I am browsing EASA Part-NCC regulations wondering how can they affect operations from short runway airports. I have found that:

NCC.POL.135 Landing — aeroplanes
The pilot-in-command shall ensure that at any aerodrome or operating site, after clearing all obstacles in the approach path by a safe margin, the aeroplane shall be able to land and stop, or a seaplane to come to a satisfactorily low speed, within the landing distance available. Allowance shall be made for expected variations in the approach and landing techniques, if such allowance has not been made in the scheduling of performance data.

Last sentence (in bold) is crucial. Colleague of mine suggested that means I should use the same landing distance factor as published in EASA Part-CAT:

CAT.POL.A.230 Landing — dry runways
(a) The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.105(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and at any alternate aerodrome shall allow a full stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold:
(1) for turbo-jet powered aeroplanes, within 60 % of the landing distance available (LDA); and
(2) for turbo-propeller powered aeroplanes, within 70 % of the LDA.

What is your opinion?

Rgds, Yogi

[His dudeness]

Nope. CAT is CAT.

First check how the landing data have been obtained. Secondly, if the LDR is without any margins, then you are to make an allowance. Says nothing that the allowance must be 1,67 or 1,43 as required for the underachieving commercial pilots (I´m KIDDING!!!).

We already use 1,25 for dry and 1,44 for wet runways. Suits us fine.

Don´t look for regs where there are none.

[Stratocaster]

Totally agree with that reasoning. CAT is CAT. NCC is a different animal, even if it is a sibling from EC 965/2012.

[Yogibaboo]

Thanx guys,

I am thinking the same way as both of you, but colleague made me feeling doubt and I wanted to check if I am right. That means that hypothetically in extreme case I can put to my company OM even 1,01 factor, it is all up-to-me.

I checked take-off criteria as well and didn't find any factors or allowances required apart from that included in ICAO Annex 6, Part I. Anybody is able to confirm that?

Rgds, Yogi

[His dudeness]

NCC.POL.125 Take-off — aeroplanes
(a) When determining the maximum take-off mass, the pilot-in-command shall take the following into account:
(1) the calculated take-off distance shall not exceed the take-off distance available with a clearway distance not exceeding half of the take-off run available;
(2) the calculated take-off run shall not exceed the take-off run available;
(3) a single value of V1 shall be used for the rejected and continued take-off, where a V1 is specified in the AFM; and
(4) on a wet or contaminated runway, the take-off mass shall not exceed that permitted for a take-off on a dry runway under the same conditions.
(b) In the event of an engine failure during take-off, the pilot-in-command shall ensure that:
(1) for the aeroplane where a V1 is specified in the AFM, the aeroplane shall be able to discontinue the take-off and stop within the accelerate-stop distance available; and
(2) for the aeroplane where a net take-off flight path is specified in the AFM, the aeroplane shall be able to continue the take-off and clear all obstacles along the flight path by an adequate margin until the aeroplane is in a position to comply with NCC.POL.130.

NCC.POL.130 En-route — one engine inoperative — aeroplanes


GM2 NCC.POL.125 Take-off — aeroplanes
ADEQUATE MARGIN
‘An adequate margin’ is illustrated by the appropriate examples included in Attachment C to ICAO Annex 6, Part I.

Thats out of EU-VO 800 and the AMC/GMs for NCC.

As I fly a FAR/JAR 25 airplane, I´ll just use the figures in my AFM, as we do already...

I´m looking forward to see how the different authorities are going about these things...