The slide @ #5 suggests that the performance improvement comes from a reduced distance in achieving the screen height (35 ft).
Assuming that the physical aircraft / engines are unchanged, then this difference is between manual and automatic flight.
A further assumption is that the idealised flightpath was achieved in testing, validating theory; thus the published performance (manual flight) would involve a certification margin over the ideal - for consistency in manual fight - for 'all' pilots and circumstance.
What is, where does this margin appear in certification requirements?
What is the basis for performance benefit from automatic flight. (N.B. autoland distances are longer than for manual flight)
The sales-speak refers to difficult airports. If the performance limit is due to near obstacles vice screen height, then again how can automation claim a benefit over manual flight - height over obstacle etc.
There is performance benefit for automatic approaches, reduced obstacle free zones, e.g. all weather ops, or en-route navigation, but none AFAIR for takeoff (excepting claims for autobrake performance - reaction time and consistency).
Last edited by safetypee; 25th July 2024 at 08:33.