Mutt,
The charts I have are prepared by Jepp not Airbus, it was one of the things Airbus was snotty about when Boeing bought Jepp, they now have all the performance models for all the current airbus aircraft.
As for slope, it is calculated for each runway direction, eg Rwys 36 & 18 have different slopes at the same airport, one say 36/0.01 and 18/ 0.00.
Aircraft that I know conform to the new FAR 25 standards for takeoff performance are the Airbus A318, A319, A319CJ, A321, A330 and A340; and the Boeing 737-600, 737-700 and 737-800. I don’t know if the BBJ, 777 or 764 are it might cost them too much fuel.
The changes with FAR 25 were not retroactive, but they did change the operational regulations FAR 91, 121, and 135. To my knowledge the FAA has issued an AD for all aircraft above 75000lb/33750kg be capable of absorbing the energy from a maximum-kinetic-energy RTO, even when the brakes are worn to limits that require overhaul.
JAR 25 was retroactive for wet runway performance. The JARs also take into account the distance the aircraft use to line up, the FAR don’t. Every one is snotty about this and not making the rules retroactive, as at the end of the day it gives an economic benefit to FAA registered aircraft, but a safety benefit to others.
The FAA has said the new rules, if implemented, give you an average extra 150 ft for worn brakes, 150 ft for pilot reaction time, and 220 ft for wet runways (they did not specify aircraft type).
One the topic of brakes ….brake wear with carbon brakes and _some_ modern steel brakes (ie read newish a/c Airbus, 744, 777, STC brakes) are designed to give almost consistent braking throughout the life of the item (to the overhaul limit), they can actually be at their worst when brand new. Brake temp is not an issue with carbon brakes, F1 cars run around with red hot carbon brakes, but it is an issue with the thermal plugs.
The new standards also require that wheel brakes with not more than 10 percent of their allowable brake-wear range remaining be used during the certification flight test demonstration of a maximum-kinetic-energy RTO, which is actually not the worst time for carbon brakes.
For wet runways the numbers are crunched for max tire pressure and 2 mm of tread, lower pressure is better in the wet, tires new are at about 12 mm, replaced at about 1.2 mm. The screen height to the go was lowered from 35 down to 15 ft to give pilots to option to go from a lower speed.
The testing for wet runways are done on a fairly slick runway, not the type D or E runways that are at most airports (groves and runways with a rough fiction course added).
I have never operated into Bombay, if its as bad as you describe a half decent lawyer would get up there and put other pilots on the stand to generate a picture that it was common knowledge that it was in poor condition when wet, along with the number of times and spacing of your visits should have lead you and your company to use due caution. They are using similar lines of reasoning for a certain 744 incident taking off on a very lumpy/bumpy wet runway.
GotTheTshirt,
I hear what you are saying, the accident is the test flightwith passengers … the DC-10 you mentioned was a pure design **** up, and in my view criminal. 8 of the 10 brakes failed at only 36% of the original design requirement. Ref National Transportation Safety Board. Special Investigation Report: Brake Performance of the McDonnellDouglas DC-10-30/40 During High Speed, High EnergyRejected Takeoffs, NTSB/SIR-90/01. February 1990., FSF Digest Oct 1988