Flight Manuals

[djpil]

HarveyGee's questions
I doubt that the intention is that everybody has to calculate climb perfomance data to comply with 20.7.4. I believe that is a certification requirement, so it would be a surprise if your aircraft did not comply. In other words, if it achieves Aust certification, you can take it as read that it meets these requirements. Can anyone confirm this?
________________________

With the demise of CAO 101.22 those special Australian certification requirements have gone. They remain as operational requirements in CAO 20.7.4.
When I said that my airplane complied I meant, for example, that using the USA AFM data it could achieve 6% climb gradient in take-off configuration at take-off safety speed at all altitudes quoted in the take-off chart.
Many airplanes are weight limited on take-off if needed to comply with CAO 20.7.4 climb gradients, the Cessna 150 being a good, simple example. Test question: when can you use flaps for take-off under the new rules? Of course, we don't all have to calculate climb performance - we simply use the old Australian P charts, so what have we achieved? The issue is that these P charts are no longer in the Flight Manual (read previous posts now). And, its not just the P Charts themselves - look for references to other sections of the old flight manual which must also be provided.

In my own case I saw that the Australian P charts had a take-off safety speed of 58 kts cf the USA chart of 52 kts. (still gives more than 1.2Vs). Do I need to submit a report to CASA to show that the USA AFM complies with CAO 20.7.4? No fancy calculations, can almost do it in my head from the info in the USA AFM but its a bit beyond the normal flight performance sums expected of a pilot.

Turn the question around now. USA chart has a take-off distance of 370 m to 50 ft. The P chart gives 425 m. The 1.15 factor explains that, or does it? The USA AFM is for a sealed surface and correction to grass surface adds a bit. My quick sums suggest an extra 50 m to accelerate that extra 6 kts. Climb gradient - not much in it between 52 and 58 kts. So it beats me how CASA's predecessor came up with that P chart - 430 m from them vs 500 m or so from me. Maybe the USA AFM data is very conservative (a later story as I also have test data). As a CofR holder I'm certainly not going to provide P Charts under my own authority without substantiating data.

This example is not the only one I've got doubts about. Don't assume that the locally produced P Charts are more conservative than the manufacturer's data even with that fudge factor.