Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.
Hello All, I'm starting this thread in order to bring up a discussion about an important safety issue. After flying for Airlines for more than 10 years, I made a change into GA to fly a long range bizjet for an operator and (JAR OPS) AOC holder in a JAA member state. One of the most noticeable differences to all airlines I had worked with in the past is the lack of Take Off and Landing Runway Analyses Tables, Charts or Software programs to determine the max T/O or landing weights for the respective airports/runways operated under various ambient conditions, including Engine Out Contingency Routes. I am surprised to see that the operator does not give this any consideration. With the usually short notifications before flights, it is virtually impossible for a flight crew to make correct and safe performance calculations with no other reference than the AFM, especially with respect to obstacle clearance. According to JAR OPS 1, Subpart G, the operator of performance class 'A' airplanes is responsible for establishing procedures to determine maximum operating masses for all conditions, and to ensure that obstacle clearance criteria are met in case of engine failure. This requirement is clearly not complied with by that operator, and as I learned also by other commercial GA operators in that same JAA member state.
If you could share if and how Performance is calculated in your GA operation it would be greatly appreciated!
Last edited by Kerosene : 6th March 2007 at 10:19.
I fly a Global which has the ABACUS performance-software installed on the aircraft laptop. Doing the mass and balance as well as the performance calculations is a doddle, even on short notice, as you say. The given sectors' pilot flying will run the numbers as a part of the cockpit-setup, and print them out on board, in duplicate. One set of papers stays behind with the handling-agent. As a backup I've installed the same software on my personal laptop. This means that I can come up with 'can we go or not' answers without being on the airplane.
I doubt you'll find many operators spending the required money on runway analysis in the bizzjet world, seeing as everything is unscheduled. All the more reason to read every last nuance on the jepp-plates and to do the calculations.
Hi there, As a freelance guy I fly for quite a few different operators (private and commercial) under different regulatory regimes, and they fall into 3 categories. About 5% have full runway analyses done either by third parties or with a laptop tool with a worldwide database. 80% work on the principle that if you can make the SID gradient even with an engine out (3.3%/200ft/nm unless more stated on plate) then you are OK. There are some times when this can be restrictive, but it seems to work. Around 15% ignore the problem and hope it will go away.... Needless to say, I always work on the second if the first is not available - even if the rest of the crew aren't. And I try to educate them, but sadly if they are not aware of the problem it often seems to be because they really don't understand and IMHO shouldn't be flying around outside an airline ops structure.
Netjets Europe is using Flygprestanda runway analysis and contingency routes, for ALL airports, ALL airplanes, EVERY flights. No having them is a no go. So bad that you can not accept an interception take off if the chart is not at hand (ie in the cockpit). Brace from the S interception in FRA or Y in GVA. or A4 in CPH...among other. Fly safe and stay out of the trees !
Very good to hear that Netjets is using a professional company to support them. Of course, we all know not being allowed to accept intersection S in FRA without the appropriate chart might seem a bit 'over the top', but trust me, better like this than the other way around, i.e. operating to Innsbruck without any training or calculations.
As far as I know Abacus gives you a balanced field calculation for DRY and WET runways only, and a climb gradient, but no engine out escape routes. The W&B has a nice graphical interface, tailored to the seating configuration of the individual tailnumber. On an aircraft as the Global, you might be able to match or exceed the SID gradient in most cases, but for an aircraft not as powerful this can quickly become very limiting (such as many Citations, Legacies,...). The lateral requirements for a SID are far greater than for an engine out flight path, therefore the SID has to account for obstacles that are much further away, resulting in high gradient requirements. However, I'd already be happy to have this, better than nothing. Happy Landings, Kero
Last edited by Kerosene : 5th March 2007 at 14:30.
We certainly fall into the majority camp described by BizJetJock - if you can make the SID gradient OEI, you are good to go. And despite Kerosene's comments, even the humble Citation is not often limited by that strategy.
And if you can't make the gradient? Buy less fuel and plan on a tech stop!
The group I'm with (corporate) has begun using APG out of Colorado for runway analysis. Very nice, online or on Blackberry!, flexible and does OEI routes in a format that can be loaded as a secondary flight plan for instant use. Very good and highly recommended.
Similar Threads 
GA Operators Performance Calculation Methods? 
Linear Mode
