Inflight re-planning and application of regulatory factors
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inflight re-planning and application of regulatory factors
Hi
My question relates to the following scenario:
Dispatch has planned for a destination that is forecast to be dry (i.e. with a regulatory factor of 1.67 for jets).
On arrival there is rain and runway is wet.
After recalculating the landing distance, is there an in-flight requirement to apply the wet regulatory factor of 1.92
Though primarily these regulatory factors are a dispatch requirement but according to some, as long as it is not an emergency (land ASAP) situation these factors needs to be applied even in flight.
I am trying to find the ruling about this issue according to FAA and JAR/EUOPS.
Is there something in black and white?
Regards
My question relates to the following scenario:
Dispatch has planned for a destination that is forecast to be dry (i.e. with a regulatory factor of 1.67 for jets).
On arrival there is rain and runway is wet.
After recalculating the landing distance, is there an in-flight requirement to apply the wet regulatory factor of 1.92
Though primarily these regulatory factors are a dispatch requirement but according to some, as long as it is not an emergency (land ASAP) situation these factors needs to be applied even in flight.
I am trying to find the ruling about this issue according to FAA and JAR/EUOPS.
Is there something in black and white?
Regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Fullblast
I searched for the reference you provided through google, it does'nt really mention anything specific about the factors:
JAR-OPS 1.400 Approach and landing conditions (See IEM OPS 1.400)
Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself that, according to the information available to him, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual.
IEM OPS 1.400 Approach and Landing Conditions (See JAR-OPS 1.400)
The in-flight determination of the landing distance should be based on the latest available report, preferably not more than 30 minutes before the expected landing time.
Do you have some other reference?
regards
I searched for the reference you provided through google, it does'nt really mention anything specific about the factors:
JAR-OPS 1.400 Approach and landing conditions (See IEM OPS 1.400)
Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself that, according to the information available to him, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual.
IEM OPS 1.400 Approach and Landing Conditions (See JAR-OPS 1.400)
The in-flight determination of the landing distance should be based on the latest available report, preferably not more than 30 minutes before the expected landing time.
Do you have some other reference?
regards
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual
do you have an Ops manual, haroon and what does it say? Does the Ops manual have any part that is carried on an aircraft detailing LDR for different conditions?
It has the LDR for different conditions. It also states that the distances are actual and unfactored.
Which a/c type are you asking about?
The logic of applying the factors is that we need some safety margins, since a normal flight by an average pilot is not flown the same way as a test flight by a test pilot.
The logic seems to be valid whether one is on the ground or in the air. For departure the rules state clearly that it is mandatory. However for inflight re-planning under normal conditions (i.e. no emergency and land ASAP condition) I was interested to see what the rules say.
thanks
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haroon - my understanding (based on UK ops under EUOPS) is that for 'normal' landings, crews must apply the same 15% factor to any 'unfactored' manufacturer (eg QRP/PIFS figures). The only time this is not needed is in an emergency or 'non-normal'.
Two items to view
the CAA information document :
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120...tedRunways.pdf
and a recent thread here on the topic
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/47135...ent-exist.html
Two items to view
the CAA information document :
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120...tedRunways.pdf
and a recent thread here on the topic
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/47135...ent-exist.html
Haroon, there is no specific factor recommended for in-flight assessment. The issue revolves around safety, which as discussed in previous threads places the responsibility with the Commander.
Thus, the judgement of safety (acceptable risk) could involve arguing why a 1.92 factor was deemed safe before takeoff, but not necessary before landing. And as you indicate, it’s better to consider that in-flight rather than off-the-end of a runway.
Use of in-flight data depends on a good understanding of the basis of that data and the assumptions in it. Many manufacturers are revising their ops-manual data; see the threads relating to OLD.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/50302...-distance.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/49803...ns-airbus.html
Even with improved data, a Commander will still have to consider additional factors; a good guide to these is in AC 91-71 Runway Overrun Prevention.
BOAC, IIRC the (UK/EU) 15% only relates to contaminated runway operations. There is mounting evidence that this factor is insufficient in the wide range of conditions / reports for this case; and that the landing data may also depend on the presumption that contaminated runway should not be used routinely (avoided) or additional mitigation taken.
Thus, the judgement of safety (acceptable risk) could involve arguing why a 1.92 factor was deemed safe before takeoff, but not necessary before landing. And as you indicate, it’s better to consider that in-flight rather than off-the-end of a runway.
Use of in-flight data depends on a good understanding of the basis of that data and the assumptions in it. Many manufacturers are revising their ops-manual data; see the threads relating to OLD.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/50302...-distance.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/49803...ns-airbus.html
Even with improved data, a Commander will still have to consider additional factors; a good guide to these is in AC 91-71 Runway Overrun Prevention.
BOAC, IIRC the (UK/EU) 15% only relates to contaminated runway operations. There is mounting evidence that this factor is insufficient in the wide range of conditions / reports for this case; and that the landing data may also depend on the presumption that contaminated runway should not be used routinely (avoided) or additional mitigation taken.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inflight replanning is still planning, ergo all factors apply, including weather minima.
A diversion is another story, though.
A diversion is another story, though.
Last edited by Microburst2002; 19th Dec 2012 at 13:39.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: -------
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haroon, as you noticed ops 1.400 doesn't mention any factor, so you don't have to apply any correction..legally. The word "legally" should not be, in my opinion, over-emphasized because it doesn't mean necessarily "safe". Actually, the regulation gives the responsibility all over the commander as Safetypee correctly says.
Microburst, I agree with you that a re-planning is a planning anyway, but this is irrelevant in this contest. Haroon used the word re-planning, but regulations doesn't, according to them you have only 2 scenarios, before dispatch and in-flight; diversion alternate follow the same rules.
FB
Microburst, I agree with you that a re-planning is a planning anyway, but this is irrelevant in this contest. Haroon used the word re-planning, but regulations doesn't, according to them you have only 2 scenarios, before dispatch and in-flight; diversion alternate follow the same rules.
FB
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inflight replanning is only applicable if you replan in such a way that you change your original plan with a new destination or new alternate. You therefore have to perform a new dispatch calculation if performing a replanning.
There is no requirement for doing a REPLAN in air if the weather conditions change after takeoff. Only operational calculations apply. No factors, unless your company require you to do so. Regulations doesn't.
Dry regulatory requirements are factored 1.67
Wet regulatory requirements are factored either 1.92 of dry data or 1.15 of wet data whichever is higher.
Contaminated regulatory requirements are either 1.92 of dry data or 1.15 of contaminated data whichever is higher.
With regard to winds you must also perform another calculation based on the most favorable runway in no wind conditions. Should you require a specific wind component to land on the runway most likely to be designated you may dispatch using two alternates satisfying the above criteria.
I could go on and write a lot more, but these are the basics. Need to go now..
Later!
There is no requirement for doing a REPLAN in air if the weather conditions change after takeoff. Only operational calculations apply. No factors, unless your company require you to do so. Regulations doesn't.
Dry regulatory requirements are factored 1.67
Wet regulatory requirements are factored either 1.92 of dry data or 1.15 of wet data whichever is higher.
Contaminated regulatory requirements are either 1.92 of dry data or 1.15 of contaminated data whichever is higher.
With regard to winds you must also perform another calculation based on the most favorable runway in no wind conditions. Should you require a specific wind component to land on the runway most likely to be designated you may dispatch using two alternates satisfying the above criteria.
I could go on and write a lot more, but these are the basics. Need to go now..
Later!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU OPS 1.515, the one mentioning the 60% rule is not, in my opinion, restricted to planning stage. It is not like the planning minima. The operator has to ensure that pilots land within 60% of the runway. And so OMs usually include such rule, even in flight, while in normal ops.
The commander, not the operator, is obligued by the more generic rule, 1400, to ensure that a safe landing can be made.
So a pilot, if there is no overriding circumstances, has to abide by his OM, that should state the 60& rule except in abnormal operation.
The commander, not the operator, is obligued by the more generic rule, 1400, to ensure that a safe landing can be made.
So a pilot, if there is no overriding circumstances, has to abide by his OM, that should state the 60& rule except in abnormal operation.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the regulators had intended a rigid application of landing distance factors in 1.400, they could have stated that intent explicitly. Since they didn't, the text the drafting committee adopted IMO leaves some discretion to national authorities such as the UK CAA to either lay down specific criteria for operations conducted under their jurisdiction, or to leave the matter to the discretion of the aircraft commander.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU OPS 1.515, the one mentioning the 60% rule is not, in my opinion, restricted to planning stage. It is not like the planning minima. The operator has to ensure that pilots land within 60% of the runway. And so OMs usually include such rule, even in flight, while in normal ops.
OPS 1.475:
(a) An operator shall ensure that the mass of the aeroplane:
1. at the start of the take-off; or, in the event of in-flight re-planning;
2. at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies, is not greater than the mass at which the
requirements of the appropriate Subpart can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken, allowing for
expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds, and for such fuel jettisoning as is provided for in the particular
requirement.
(a) An operator shall ensure that the mass of the aeroplane:
1. at the start of the take-off; or, in the event of in-flight re-planning;
2. at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies, is not greater than the mass at which the
requirements of the appropriate Subpart can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken, allowing for
expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds, and for such fuel jettisoning as is provided for in the particular
requirement.
You may be legally allowed to dispatch towards an airport although you may not necessarily be able to land there from an operational use of the same performance data because your operator may have added margins to the performance test data provided from the manufacturer of the airplane.
In my company operating the 737 the company has in it's OM a requirement to only use "Autobrake Max" values factored by 15% for operational use as a way to determine (or more correctly help the commander determine) whether a safe landing can be made.
HazelNuts39 got it right. The regulatory agency sets forth requirements for dispatch whilst the operator needs to provide an approved method of using the manufacturers performance data for operations.
That's why you need to perform a dispatch calculation before commencing a flight to satisfy regulations, whilst airborne you need to perform an operational calculation before landing to satisfy company regulations (approved by the authority)
In other words, as a Commander in flight you need to satisfy yourself, given all relevant data available to you, you are able to perform a safe landing
Definition of safe is basically up to you/OperatorJust rememberd with regard to inflight dispatch calculation as asked for in the original post. The only time you need to perform a dispatch calculation in flight is when you have used the exemption rule (Airport having a single runway, where landing depends on a specified wind component. Dispatch can be made with two alternate airports that comply with regulations) A new dispatch calculation must be made satisfactorily in flight. However during this calculation you only need to comply with requirements for the actual runway (Not the most favorable in still wind). REF: OPS 1.515 d)
Last edited by Fokker-Jock; 19th Dec 2012 at 21:44.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reading more carefully I see that 1515 is referred to 1475, which is clearly about planning.
And I don't find anything else for non planning stage than the 1400...
And I don't find anything else for non planning stage than the 1400...
Moderator
Consider -
(a) the practical rule is "don't crash".
(b) the rule following the mishap is "make sure that you have a good story for the Judge" .. as you are going to live/die in your career etc., on the basis of whatever your decision processes were on the day.
Putting whatever rules may exist and whatever your interpretation of the rules may be to one side ... this leads to
(a) if the operation is planned and has available options and alternatives, then adopting not less than the normal certification fudge factors which have stood the test of time .. just might be a good idea as a routine protocol. The AFM/POH is a useful tool in such circumstances.
(b) if time, fuel, location, and system problems dictate that you have run out of the nice options you would have preferred to have had available .. then you do the best you can in the circumstances .. endeavouring to load the dice in your favour throughout. The QRH/MEL are useful tools in such circumstances.
Of course, the question of why you, as Commander, were in that latter situation may arise subsequently .. but one is better served by being alive and having the opportunity to be able to attempt an answer to the question ..
.. as to the strategy of intentionally squandering those fudge factors in other than emergency or abnormal situations .. where one doesn't have better options ... just doesn't bear thinking about.
(a) the practical rule is "don't crash".
(b) the rule following the mishap is "make sure that you have a good story for the Judge" .. as you are going to live/die in your career etc., on the basis of whatever your decision processes were on the day.
Putting whatever rules may exist and whatever your interpretation of the rules may be to one side ... this leads to
(a) if the operation is planned and has available options and alternatives, then adopting not less than the normal certification fudge factors which have stood the test of time .. just might be a good idea as a routine protocol. The AFM/POH is a useful tool in such circumstances.
(b) if time, fuel, location, and system problems dictate that you have run out of the nice options you would have preferred to have had available .. then you do the best you can in the circumstances .. endeavouring to load the dice in your favour throughout. The QRH/MEL are useful tools in such circumstances.
Of course, the question of why you, as Commander, were in that latter situation may arise subsequently .. but one is better served by being alive and having the opportunity to be able to attempt an answer to the question ..
.. as to the strategy of intentionally squandering those fudge factors in other than emergency or abnormal situations .. where one doesn't have better options ... just doesn't bear thinking about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou everyone for your input:
If I summarise everyone's input (considering that I've understood everyone's point of view correctly), following is the picture so far:
The logic of applying the factors is that we need some safety margins, since a normal flight by an average pilot is not flown the same way as a test flight by a test pilot. If the logic seems to be valid on ground then what makes it invalid in the air?
The judgement of safety could involve arguing why a factor was deemed safe before takeoff, but not necessary before landing.
So first we have to decide whether the safety margins are required during in-flight determination of the landing distance or not. How much is another story.
To start off with JAR-OPS 1.400:
JAR-OPS 1.400 Approach and landing conditions
"Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself that, according to the information available to him, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual."
If the regulators had intended a rigid application of landing distance factors in 1.400, they could have stated that intent explicitly. Since they didn't, the text the drafting committee adopted, leaves some discretion to national authorities to either lay down specific criteria for operations conducted under their jurisdiction, or to leave the matter to the discretion of the aircraft commander.
The issue revolves around safety.
Is it unsafe to takeoff without safety margins for landing at destination?
Is it safe to land without safety margins in case the surface conditions at the time of landing are different from those planned at departure?
If JAR-OPS 1.400 is about safety then the interpretation of safety by national authorities CAA and FAA is:
1) CAA: Operations on Contaminated Runways
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120...tedRunways.pdf
2) FAA: Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival (SAFO 06012)
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../safo06012.pdf
Both authorities support in-flight application of safety margins.
In addition to above another reference that provides an indication about in-flight re-planning is:
JAR-OPS 1.475:
General
(a)An operator shall ensure that the mass of the aeroplane:
(1) at the start of the take-off; or, in the event of in-flight replanning
(2) at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies, is not greater than the mass at which the requirements of the appropriate subpart can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken, allowing for expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds, and for such fuel jettisoning as is provided for in the particular requirement.
An operator shall ensure that the approved performance data contained in the aeroplane flight manual is used to determine compliance with the requirements of the appropriate subpart, supplemented as necessary with other data acceptable to the Authority as prescribed in the relevant subpart. When applying the factors prescribed in the appro- priate subpart, account may be taken of any operational factors already incorporated in the aeroplane flight manual performance data to avoid double application of factors.
When showing compliance with the requirements of the appropriate subpart, due account shall be taken of aeroplane configuration, environmental conditions and the operation of systems which have an adverse effect on performance.
For performance purposes, a damp runway, other than a grass runway, may be considered to be dry.
An operator shall take account of charting accuracy when assessing compliance with the take-off requirements of the applicable subpart.
Landing — dry runways
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with OPS 1.475(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and at any alternate aerodrome allows a full stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold:
(1) for turbo-jet powered aeroplanes, within 60% of the landing distance available; or
(2) for turbo-propeller powered aeroplanes, within 70% of the landing distance available;
However several operators and many pilots do not interpret “or, in the event of in-flight replanning” as being applicable to planning an approach, as in requiring a reassessment of the conditions for landing. Their point of view is that ‘it only applies to diversion’.
i.e. inflight replanning is only applicable if you replan in such a way that you change your original plan with a new destination or new alternate. You therefore have to perform a new dispatch calculation if performing a replanning. Whilst airborne you need to perform an operational calculation before landing to satisfy company regulations (approved by the authority).
But over all I think everyone agrees that in an event of in-flight assessment/determination/planning or whatever the terminology is, some sort of safety margins need to applied above the actual unfactored landing distance.
If rules can specify precise factors for preflight planning then why cant they do that for inflight planning? IMO may be because inflight planning is much tighter than the preflight one (e.g. you cant offload payload, financial cost of diversions etc), so they've left it up to the national authorities who have left it up to the operators. And those operators who havent specified anything will take take advantage of the wordings in JAR-OPS1.400 "commander must satisfy himself"
So moral of the story: "make sure that you have a good story for the Judge"
If I summarise everyone's input (considering that I've understood everyone's point of view correctly), following is the picture so far:
The logic of applying the factors is that we need some safety margins, since a normal flight by an average pilot is not flown the same way as a test flight by a test pilot. If the logic seems to be valid on ground then what makes it invalid in the air?
The judgement of safety could involve arguing why a factor was deemed safe before takeoff, but not necessary before landing.
So first we have to decide whether the safety margins are required during in-flight determination of the landing distance or not. How much is another story.
To start off with JAR-OPS 1.400:
JAR-OPS 1.400 Approach and landing conditions
"Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself that, according to the information available to him, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual."
If the regulators had intended a rigid application of landing distance factors in 1.400, they could have stated that intent explicitly. Since they didn't, the text the drafting committee adopted, leaves some discretion to national authorities to either lay down specific criteria for operations conducted under their jurisdiction, or to leave the matter to the discretion of the aircraft commander.
The issue revolves around safety.
Is it unsafe to takeoff without safety margins for landing at destination?
Is it safe to land without safety margins in case the surface conditions at the time of landing are different from those planned at departure?
If JAR-OPS 1.400 is about safety then the interpretation of safety by national authorities CAA and FAA is:
1) CAA: Operations on Contaminated Runways
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/20120...tedRunways.pdf
2) FAA: Landing Performance Assessments at Time of Arrival (SAFO 06012)
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../safo06012.pdf
Both authorities support in-flight application of safety margins.
In addition to above another reference that provides an indication about in-flight re-planning is:
JAR-OPS 1.475:
General
(a)An operator shall ensure that the mass of the aeroplane:
(1) at the start of the take-off; or, in the event of in-flight replanning
(2) at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies, is not greater than the mass at which the requirements of the appropriate subpart can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken, allowing for expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds, and for such fuel jettisoning as is provided for in the particular requirement.
An operator shall ensure that the approved performance data contained in the aeroplane flight manual is used to determine compliance with the requirements of the appropriate subpart, supplemented as necessary with other data acceptable to the Authority as prescribed in the relevant subpart. When applying the factors prescribed in the appro- priate subpart, account may be taken of any operational factors already incorporated in the aeroplane flight manual performance data to avoid double application of factors.
When showing compliance with the requirements of the appropriate subpart, due account shall be taken of aeroplane configuration, environmental conditions and the operation of systems which have an adverse effect on performance.
For performance purposes, a damp runway, other than a grass runway, may be considered to be dry.
An operator shall take account of charting accuracy when assessing compliance with the take-off requirements of the applicable subpart.
Landing — dry runways
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with OPS 1.475(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and at any alternate aerodrome allows a full stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold:
(1) for turbo-jet powered aeroplanes, within 60% of the landing distance available; or
(2) for turbo-propeller powered aeroplanes, within 70% of the landing distance available;
However several operators and many pilots do not interpret “or, in the event of in-flight replanning” as being applicable to planning an approach, as in requiring a reassessment of the conditions for landing. Their point of view is that ‘it only applies to diversion’.
i.e. inflight replanning is only applicable if you replan in such a way that you change your original plan with a new destination or new alternate. You therefore have to perform a new dispatch calculation if performing a replanning. Whilst airborne you need to perform an operational calculation before landing to satisfy company regulations (approved by the authority).
But over all I think everyone agrees that in an event of in-flight assessment/determination/planning or whatever the terminology is, some sort of safety margins need to applied above the actual unfactored landing distance.
If rules can specify precise factors for preflight planning then why cant they do that for inflight planning? IMO may be because inflight planning is much tighter than the preflight one (e.g. you cant offload payload, financial cost of diversions etc), so they've left it up to the national authorities who have left it up to the operators. And those operators who havent specified anything will take take advantage of the wordings in JAR-OPS1.400 "commander must satisfy himself"
So moral of the story: "make sure that you have a good story for the Judge"
Last edited by Haroon; 20th Dec 2012 at 12:08.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haroon, making simple things complicated won't make your life easier. Airbus has introduced operational landing distances containing necessary margins and covering various runway conditions, aircraft status and failures. Make it simple: Say you're flying a long haul for 10 hours after 5 hours upon entering some FIR ATC tells you to divert to the airdrome X, with LDA 9000 ft, due to airspace being closed for whatever reasons. Now your actual landing distance with current GW, as per QRH in the flight performance table, is 7000 ft. If you apply it you can land safely if you think to re-plan then you'd need 11690 ft. No brainer there, if you ask me. 
Last edited by 9.G; 20th Dec 2012 at 12:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haroon, making simple things complicated won't make your life easier.
Airbus has introduced operational landing distances containing necessary margins
Say you're flying a long haul for 10 hours after 5 hours upon entering some FIR ATC tells you to divert to the airdrome X, with LDA 9000 ft,
If your actual landing distance as per Boeing QRH (unfactored) is 7000 ft, can you apply it and land safely?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you have to say about the CAA/FAA safety circulars?
If your actual landing distance as per Boeing QRH (unfactored) is 7000 ft, can you apply it and land safely?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe my simplistic view. Why can't you dispatch with two destination alternates as long as both of those satisfy the dispatch criteria?
Last edited by LYKA; 20th Dec 2012 at 18:22.
