Oh yes.
116/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.
Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
118/13 These directions apply to Airbus aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the in-flight landing distance determination. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.
Airbus has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Airbus has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
205/13 These directions apply to Boeing aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.
Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
213/13 These directions apply to Boeing 787-8 aircraft operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Limited (the operator). They apply a new system for determining the landing distance applicable to particular aircraft at a given weight, referred to as the En-route Landing Performance. It is a system not dealt with in CAO 20.7.1B, in particular subsection 11 which deals with the calculation of landing distance required.
Boeing has changed the way failures affecting landing performance are taken into account. Instead of using the historical factoring method to increase a base figure, as is done in subsection 11, Boeing has produced an actual distance figure for all failure conditions affecting landing performance.
I have only cherry picked the above from the Sarcs list because of their similarity and ease of reference. Here we have Tiger, Qantas and Jetstar all needing an 'instrument' approving operations, as writ. Now Airbus and Boeing did not wake up one morning and jointly decide to change the method of complying with the Australian CAO, make the changes by lunch time, work out the new data and have it published and distributed by afternoon tea, before retiring for the day to the pub, for a well earned pint or two. Did they now?
I'd risk a choccy frog and bet that the cast and crew at all the above air operators knew that changes were imminent and were all prepared, well in advance. Training, scheduling, TEM and etc. i.e. all facets analysed well in advance of change over day. I'd even hazard a further choccy frog that the CASA FOI were equally ahead of the game, being informed of and probably involved in the step by step process. Change was coming and everyone was prepared – except the regulator's rules.
The primary effect of this instrument is to allow use of a new method of determining that distance based on criteria provided by the aircraft manufacturer.
Why, oh why do we persist with this expensive, counterproductive approach when by simply accepting that the manufacturer and grown up regulators may just know a thing or two and adjust our regulation, once, in advance to accommodate the facts of life. Would that not save a world of time, effort, trouble and money?.
Perhaps the WLR panel, if they could manage it, over tea and cream buns, spare a second or two just to consider exactly how deep mud actually is. Yes minister, we may need a bit more than a teaspoon to dig our way out of the legislative mire.