The FAA 121.195 only mentions "prior to takeoff" in respect of landing distance it never mentions landing distance requirements inflight.
C100driver,
Because the required pre-flight planning is required to cover, in this case, what happens in flight, as well.
The issue that surprised me, is that FAA and EASA have not yet legislated to recognise the "proposed" system, and EASA is waiting for FAA to move.
As to a CAO (or, for that matter, a regulation) being used to "over-ride" a provision of the Act., or a CAO over-riding a provision of a regulation, in Australia, that has a long and inglorious history, it quite contrary to any known legal principle, in the first instance, as for CAR/CASR versus CAO or other legal instrument, what a mess --- the is no legal certainty.
At least, under the Legislative Instruments Act, each and every case requires a Legal Instrument, that LI can be rejected by the Parliament, to that extent the "whatever" has been passed by Parliament, it is not a decision by a public servant.
Hence the expression:"inadvertent criminals", or "pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet".
There is reasonable legal certainty with what Qantas is doing with the A380, as certain as is possible in the legal shambles we live and work under in AU.
Tootle pip!!