kris, #8, it is hard to believe that a light twin-engine trainer, '
under different rules', can be operated without vmcg, V1, rto, etc.
How are pilots trained re these concepts, and practice the procedures which will be required in larger aircraft.
It would be reassuring if an instructor on type will answer the conceptual and practical training aspects; then the astute question #1 might only be an issue of wording, terminology.
A further concern is the current lack of answer, and simplistic '
not required' statements without any 'because' explanation - no better than admitting I don't know.
I don't know, but would consider that a landing factor of 1.15 should be applied as airmanship for the take-off rto case:-
GM1 CAT.POL.A.335 Landing – wet and contaminated runways
LANDING ON WET GRASS RUNWAYS
…
(b) As it may not be possible for a pilot to determine accurately the degree of wetness of the grass, particularly when airborne, in cases of doubt, the use of the wet factor (1.15) is recommended.
------
P.S.
Assuming the relevant AFM is:
http://support.diamond-air.at/filead...8-complete.pdf
The text on page 5-11 (doc page 243) adds context to the question.
CAUTION
The figures in the following NOTE are typical values. On wet ground or wet soft grass covered runways the take-off roll may become significantly longer than stated below. In any case the pilot must allow for the condition of the runway to ensure a safe take-off.
NOTE
For take-off from dry, short-cut grass covered runways, the following corrections must be taken into account, compared to paved runways (typical values, see CAUTION above):
- Grass up to 5 cm (2 in) long: 10 % increase in take-off roll.
- Grass 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in) long: 15 % increase in take-off roll.
- Grass longer than 10 cm (4 in): at least 25 % increase in take-off roll.
- On grass longer than 25 cm (10 in), a take-off should not be attempted.
Although no wet 'factor' is given, which is surprising when discussed under a caution, the cautionary text might be read as covering the grass factors given as a note below. Thus there should be an increased distance on wet grass, but no factor is given.
P.P.S. Reading page 244
NOTE
For wet grass, an additional 10 % increase in take-off roll must be expected.
Back to #1, with EASA 1.15 factor or AFM 10% expectation.