Originally Posted by
tdracer
Sorry, but that is not only wrong, it's dangerously wrong. If actual OAT is 25, and ATM comes up with 75 for thrust setting, that simply means that the thrust (typically N1) for 75 can still be used safely.
If the actual OAT goes up, the aircraft performance goes down (hotter air = less lift at the same airspeed). IF you don't redo your ATM calcualation for the new OAT, you're thrust setting will be too low for that OAT. Plus, if you're talking N1 thrust setting, 100% N1 at 50 degrees creates significantly less thrust than the same physical N1 at 25 (that old "square root theta" thing - thrust is constant at corrected N1, not physical N1).
The ATM that is applied is valid, so long as the actual temperature doesn't exceed the assumed temperature. The crew are finding the limit case for the weight they are at, therefore as far as runway performance goes, they are hot to trot. However.... the V speeds should be recalculated if a significant change occurs. At least one airline gets around that by using the V speeds for the limit case... can't say I really like that concept. The company flight ops engineering or performance team can conduct a sensitivity analysis and make a determination as to when they wish the V speeds to be corrected to match actual conditions or not.
...
As to concerns that a pilot may ask for guidance on the subject, I personally am comforted that they would do so. Having an uncertainty in what is necessary is a troubling situation to find yourself in. Performance is bad enough without having some means to get a better comprehension than an airline and national licensing system may achieve. I do performance flight testing in R&D, and I end up asking questions also...
Boeing's performance manual, the Performance Engineers Manual, or Jet Transport Performance methods, should be mandatory reading for anyone with a Part 25 rating... so should the USNTPS FTM-108 Fixed Wing Performance and FAA AC 25.7D, Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes. Airbus's performance is a dark art...
JTs comment is on point, having a cognitive awareness of the situation saves a lot of heartache, like the bingle of the B742F at Halifax NS. The more we go towards a computer solution, the greater the chance of a gross error leaving bits of tin around the end of the paddock. Having a conceptual understanding of what the numbers means will assist in recognition when things are not quite as expected. Recall, that to be airworthy, the aircraft must conform to its TCDS as a part of its requirement , and the other is that it must be safe to fly, whatever that may mean. The TCDS includes the basis of certification that includes the AFM which has the legal TO performance requirements. Much performance is guidance material only and not certified, but TO performance is not subject to negotiation.