Can someone from the elite Airbus brotherhood explain to me why Chimbu is using the dry conditions, pre-dispatch 1.67 factor to an airborne, contaminated runway scenario?
1.15 contaminated rwy factor incidentally.
While not claiming to be an elite of Airbus brotherhood (I hate the heap of s**t but am forced to fly it to date) in my experience many Airbus pilots believe the 1.67 factor (dry) + the .15 (wet) only applies pre-dispatch and that once dispatched only the FCOM/QRH actual landing distance figure need be applied. In Aus the factor must always be applied unless in an emergency. NOT abnormal or Company convenience but EMERGENCY. Contaminated runway landings are not allowed. While conceding that other contracting states may permit contaminated runway landings the factor for this would always be additional to Dry runway factored distance unless in an emergency.
Hence this would explain CC's use of DRY runway conditions as the starting point.
I don't fancy explaining to ATSB why I ran of the end of the runway at Hamilton Island, for example, because the flaps had seized at Flap1, the QRH said I only had to add 10% (not actual but for example) to the actual dry landing distance but I had the fuel on board to divert to Townsville.
J* pilots should Harden The F*** Up frankly. Try circling off the completion of that profile at 500' like the mugs used to make us do a decade ago.
I think you may find that world wide attitudes have changed to ten years ago. The type of approach you have described in RPT Jet transport is a sure fire recipe for CFIT and should be actively discouraged. Sadly it does seem to exist still in some circles. "I can do it" is a common phrase used in CRM courses as an alarm bell. I know if I am sitting in the back I would like to think the operating crew would utilise a runway aligned approach, with automatics, in preference to a hand flown, raw data, minimum use of any available resources, circling apprach the way Airbus and ex AN pilots advocate when there is so much more available to assist with a safe and efficient outcome.
The fact that so many relatively minor systems failures on Airbus aicraft may require Raw data, Hand Flown Approaches using manual thrust, in this day and age, compared to equivalent Boeing aircraft, is supportive of my view that the the Airbus family is an accident looking for somewhere to take place, and should never have been certified to carry fare paying members of the unsuspecting public.
You may think you are cleverer than the average Jet* pilot but I can assure you, none of us would contemplate circling in the dark at 500ft if there were any other alternative. And yes I have operated in an environment like that in the past in steam driven jets. I can do it, I just choose not to. The place to practice that kind of thing is in the simulator, in a training environment, NOT in the aircraft in normal operations, just in case some idiot check pilot wants to see it done in real life or the sim on check day.