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.

Cessna AFM Performance

Old 11th Dec 2014, 18:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 362
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cessna AFM Performance

Hi there,

Does anyone have experience of Cessna performance under EASA? The AFM figures, with specific reference to landing performance, appear to be restrictive with additional safety factors. Cessna have Operational Dispatch Planning figures for FAA usage (via Supplement 16 IIRC - sorry AFM not at hand). The figures are closer to what I'd expect for a similar model.

Anyone operating an XLS+ have any experience of this?
Journey Man is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 22:31
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 362
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
XLS explains all. XLS+... not so much. Unless you know differently dotticom?
Journey Man is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2014, 15:16
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 362
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, it's not the same for the Plus. We operate an XLS also.
Journey Man is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2014, 21:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello,

for the XLS+ we use Supplement 16 (Operational Dispatch Planning Performance) for planning which contains 1.67 and you can do 1.15 in addition for wet.
That is approx. 500 ft shorter than AFM Chapter 4 multiplied by 1.67.
Thats the shortest legal way for commercial operators we figured out
XLS the Supplement 30 (CFR and JAR Operation Landing Field Lengths) was basically doing the same thing.

Good flights

Oelknarre
Oelknarre is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 15:32
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cessna AFM Performance

XL has supplement 49 and XLS supplement 30. These are both calculated using a 3.5 degree gs, rather than 3, for use by JAR/CFR operators which is why the figures don't compare to the FAA x 1.67. All have a dispatch planning supplement that uses the 3.5 degree approach angle however the start of these supplements it states that it must not be used for actual landing performance. Cessna no longer produce the additional supplements, so the XLS+ uses standard FAA x 1.67, and has a much more restrictive landing performance than the other variants.
Pull Up Whoop Whoop is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 22:39
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 362
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Got to the bottom of it.

Supplement 16 for planning, then in the air the AFM figures are used, which are a lot less restrictive than the operational dispatch planning.

Applying the factor of 1.67 to the AFM figures was doubling the margin of errors built in to the AFM performance. A careful review of IR-OPS was needed and has clarified the situation.
Journey Man is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.