Quick observation:
your a) is overly simplified, I read the requirement differently
c) -> something probably lost in the translation, it does not add up (not a native language speaker either)
Few loose ends that stand out reading the whole thing again, happy to be corrected (and some goalposts may have moved over the time)
- AFM data are realistically achievable with equal conditions. It's not flight test data, flight test +10% springs to mind. As well flight test data is not ace-pilot data.
- under normal ops AFM data are not allowed to be used, Factored (+15% is a requirement)
- wish I never said "safely" as in the "you can land safely if ALD<LDA". I true pro should know better than to use the S word anyway, it's too amoebic and some of its inherent meanings do oppose each other. This is a realm of experts in that particular field. Proper wording should have been: "you are authorised to attempt the landing if ALD<LDA" which implies that a high degree of certainty about successful outcome exists.
- in a similar fashion to the
once in flight, as long as ALD < LDA, you may land "WHATEVER".
That's a very brave outlook on risk management.
Although not quoted in full with the original meaning of "
Having satisfied the ALD x 1,67 test at dispatch point, once in flight ..." it still was a poor choice of wording from my side. Saying "
Having satisfied the ALD x 1,67 test at dispatch point, once in flight the scope of these paragraphs places no further restrictions as long as ALD < LDA" sounds 4 years wiser.
Banana Joe note that both e.1) and e.2) must be complied with and each of them have a different alternate means of compliance offered by f) and g) respectively. This suggests that e.2 may be more restrictive than e.1 under some circumstances.