WET (with DRY check)
Thread Starter
WET (with DRY check)
I have come across Airbus field performance data, that details performance for a dry runway and a "wet (with DRY check)". Can anyone shed any light on what Airbus means with that?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On wet and contaminated runways the screen height is reduced to 15Feet from 35Feet for dry RW. That can give higher TOW in wet conditions instead of restricting it. So regulations do not permit TOW to increase beyond dry TO weight. This is known as dry check.
It seems that it is based purely statistics and the balance of risks. But that of course disregards climates which are equally likely to be wet as dry.
A 15' screen height is ludicrous, in my opinion. At my base there is a sea container showroom across the road from the clearway, with containers stacked up to 79' . How would a 15' screen height work there I wonder?
A 15' screen height is ludicrous, in my opinion. At my base there is a sea container showroom across the road from the clearway, with containers stacked up to 79' . How would a 15' screen height work there I wonder?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 15' screen height is ludicrous, in my opinion. At my base there is a sea container showroom across the road from the clearway, with containers stacked up to 79' . How would a 15' screen height work there I wonder?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Age: 47
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During certification , use of reverse is mandatory on a wet runway and not a dry one. This might give a higher MTOW on a wet , due to actual lower accelerate stop distance.
However Accelerate stop distance on a wet runway is the higher of : ASD dry , ASDwet , ASD wet(N-1)
Although Actual accelerate stop distance on a wet would be lower than a dry due to the use of reversers ( lower distance means higher MTOW), DRY accelerate stop distance would be retained if higher .
Therefore all speed calculations , optimum and balanced V1 would be calculated to comply with the dry if more limiting.
However Accelerate stop distance on a wet runway is the higher of : ASD dry , ASDwet , ASD wet(N-1)
Although Actual accelerate stop distance on a wet would be lower than a dry due to the use of reversers ( lower distance means higher MTOW), DRY accelerate stop distance would be retained if higher .
Therefore all speed calculations , optimum and balanced V1 would be calculated to comply with the dry if more limiting.
Moderator
with containers stacked up to 79'
As observed earlier, treated either as a first or second segment obstacle and would be quite limiting I suggest.
Net take off flight path starts at 35' but the aircraft may only be at 15'.
One should read the NFP as starting at the end of the TOD. The head height and NFP obstacle clearance height is then built into the analysis. Agree that it does read strangely, though.
As observed earlier, treated either as a first or second segment obstacle and would be quite limiting I suggest.
Net take off flight path starts at 35' but the aircraft may only be at 15'.
One should read the NFP as starting at the end of the TOD. The head height and NFP obstacle clearance height is then built into the analysis. Agree that it does read strangely, though.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same for the ATR where numbered codes were given for what was actually causing the takeoff limitation.
"Limitation Codes
0 – Dry Check: The wet/contaminated performance may be better than the
dry performance due to the definition of takeoff distance for
wet/contaminated runways having a screen height of 15 ft instead of 35 ft. In this case, dry performance must be used (regulation) and are therefore
automatically displayed on the wet/contaminated chart with the limitation
code 0"
"Limitation Codes
0 – Dry Check: The wet/contaminated performance may be better than the
dry performance due to the definition of takeoff distance for
wet/contaminated runways having a screen height of 15 ft instead of 35 ft. In this case, dry performance must be used (regulation) and are therefore
automatically displayed on the wet/contaminated chart with the limitation
code 0"
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 39
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this straight: the 35ft and 15ft are based on a really tight takeoff , zero stop margin and full thrust and no more space right? In all other cases we will cross the obstacle much higher right?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our Canadian cousins produced a nice document about this topic.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents...vs/700-016.pdf
Page 34 for wet.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents...vs/700-016.pdf
Page 34 for wet.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this straight: the 35ft and 15ft are based on a really tight takeoff , zero stop margin and full thrust and no more space right? In all other cases we will cross the obstacle much higher right?
Moderator
Let me get this straight: the 35ft and 15ft are based on a really tight takeoff , zero stop margin and full thrust and no more space right? In all other cases we will cross the obstacle much higher right?
The situation is not quite that pessimistic ...
If there is no engine failure and the aircraft is operated sensibly, heights will exceed the OEI analysis by a significant margin .. ie the normal situation.
For the OEI case, the takeoff analysis looks at a bunch of cases which are calculated ... one of these will be critical and determine the limiting weight .. noting that the AEO case with its factor can be the limiting case.
If OEI TODR case is limiting then the aircraft flight path may approximate the 35'/15' screen height at the end of the TODR (which will be less than or equal to the TODA) .. otherwise, the aircraft can be expected to be somewhat higher.
From this point, the net flight path as calculated has to clear the actual obstacle profile by 35'. The OEI flight path, actually achieved, will exceed the net profile by (at least) the delta between net and gross.
As the takeoff progresses, this delta provides an increasing pad for actual obstacle clearance.
The situation is not quite that pessimistic ...
If there is no engine failure and the aircraft is operated sensibly, heights will exceed the OEI analysis by a significant margin .. ie the normal situation.
For the OEI case, the takeoff analysis looks at a bunch of cases which are calculated ... one of these will be critical and determine the limiting weight .. noting that the AEO case with its factor can be the limiting case.
If OEI TODR case is limiting then the aircraft flight path may approximate the 35'/15' screen height at the end of the TODR (which will be less than or equal to the TODA) .. otherwise, the aircraft can be expected to be somewhat higher.
From this point, the net flight path as calculated has to clear the actual obstacle profile by 35'. The OEI flight path, actually achieved, will exceed the net profile by (at least) the delta between net and gross.
As the takeoff progresses, this delta provides an increasing pad for actual obstacle clearance.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One does wonder how much clearance there would really be in a worst legal case scenario when heavy takeoffs in some aircraft a few years back seemed quite low at runway end with all systems operating.
Moderator
One does wonder how much clearance
The typical sort of heavy departure with a significant V1/Vr split using maximum clearway can raise the eyebrows for onlookers ...
One can't see the runway here http://www.strangemilitary.com/image...ent/167533.JPG but, presuming it to be in frame, you get the idea ...
All fine and according to Hoyle. Providing that the conditions reasonably replicate the certification testing the takeoff is sensibly repeatable. From this point, the obstacle clearance gets progressively better away from the runway due to the better gross compared to net gradients. Indeed, fleet data will provide a small additional benefit.
The need is for the ops engineers to know their business, do it accurately and well .. and for the crew to fly iaw the book.
For very close in obstacles (first segment or early second segment) the clearance can be minimal and approach 35ft ... from there on it gets better.
The typical sort of heavy departure with a significant V1/Vr split using maximum clearway can raise the eyebrows for onlookers ...
One can't see the runway here http://www.strangemilitary.com/image...ent/167533.JPG but, presuming it to be in frame, you get the idea ...
All fine and according to Hoyle. Providing that the conditions reasonably replicate the certification testing the takeoff is sensibly repeatable. From this point, the obstacle clearance gets progressively better away from the runway due to the better gross compared to net gradients. Indeed, fleet data will provide a small additional benefit.
The need is for the ops engineers to know their business, do it accurately and well .. and for the crew to fly iaw the book.
For very close in obstacles (first segment or early second segment) the clearance can be minimal and approach 35ft ... from there on it gets better.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal, But...
Disclaimer: to be clear, I do NOT fly jets in the Airbus/Being class. That said, a lot of this discussion appears to emphasize all engines operating and one engine out (or lost at a critical moment) that pushes performance to the absolute limits of 'legal.' I also appreciate that many, if not most performance parameters include a significant fudge factor.
All considered, virtually all of my training repeatedly emphasized the concept that "Legal is not necessarily smart, safe flying." Again folks, I do not fly these birds and or in their usually tight flight schedules. In my environment, the pilots make the final call. I've never pushed those numbers to the absolute limits and to my knowledge, nor have my colleagues.
Perhaps the original inquiry was only an academic inquiry, yet some of the responses suggest that AB and B pilots routinely push these numbers to the hilt. And perhaps I've missed something. In any case, I won't fly that close to the edge of the performance envelope. If I've missed something, please remind me. Flame if you must and PM is also welcome.
All considered, virtually all of my training repeatedly emphasized the concept that "Legal is not necessarily smart, safe flying." Again folks, I do not fly these birds and or in their usually tight flight schedules. In my environment, the pilots make the final call. I've never pushed those numbers to the absolute limits and to my knowledge, nor have my colleagues.
Perhaps the original inquiry was only an academic inquiry, yet some of the responses suggest that AB and B pilots routinely push these numbers to the hilt. And perhaps I've missed something. In any case, I won't fly that close to the edge of the performance envelope. If I've missed something, please remind me. Flame if you must and PM is also welcome.
Moderator
Ah .. the distinction between commercial and private operations .. in the latter one can impose whatever level of conservatism might be seen as desirable .. in the former, the aim is to make a buck and the pilot needs to have a sensible reason for imposing "extra" levels of conservatism.
Realistically, although the "low over the end of the runway" scenario looks impressive, the exercise is quite repeatable and not necessarily high risk.
Realistically, although the "low over the end of the runway" scenario looks impressive, the exercise is quite repeatable and not necessarily high risk.
NFZ,
I'd guess you don't fly in and out of Aspen, then. Or, any field length limiting runways like TEB. or any number of short, country airports. Truth is, if I'm guessing right, loads of business jet class planes are operated like the EVA Air departure, they just don't realize what OEI ops look like. And quad take-offs always look more "spectacular" because they are quads and the engine loss is only 25% of total thrust.
I just did recurrent and a WAT-limited take-off from KTEB can be eye opening.
I'd guess you don't fly in and out of Aspen, then. Or, any field length limiting runways like TEB. or any number of short, country airports. Truth is, if I'm guessing right, loads of business jet class planes are operated like the EVA Air departure, they just don't realize what OEI ops look like. And quad take-offs always look more "spectacular" because they are quads and the engine loss is only 25% of total thrust.
I just did recurrent and a WAT-limited take-off from KTEB can be eye opening.
