Dispatch V inflight

[LeadSled]

Safetypee,
I am not confusing anything, perhaps I could have expressed it more clearly, so I will try again. Also read what I said on the original thread.

The LEGAL minimum landing field length, whether for planning or inflight purposes, is the AFM figure, until such time as the certification standard changes.

That AFM figure is the "demonstrated length" factored by 1.67, or as more commonly expressed ( to the evident confusion of many) the demonstrated length is 60% of the AFM length.

There has been much discussion about the new certification standards, but they are a long way from FAR 25 just yet, and EASA had stated it will follow FAA, see the Trans Atlantic Mutual Co-op. Agreement.

Airbus in particular has published lots of "good stuff" that approximates how the "new" system (actually not new at all, but a refinement /development of the 1960s BCARs) will work.

As far as I can determine, Australia is the only country that has revised some regulations to "apparently" authorise the "new" way of doing business.

However, looks like there is a serious shortcoming there in legal terms,( not surprising, we do great job of screwing up new regulations) the AFM landing filed lengths have not changed, because the AFM certification has not changed, and Australian C.of As ( and hence AFM) must conform to the state of origin C.of A. Indeed, our CAR 138 required compliance with manufacturer's AFM.

In a practical sense, if not a legal sense, what Australia is doing is not an operational problem, because the "new way" (in fact using Airbus ADVISORY information) never throws up a figure less than the present AFM number, and often it is (wisely) much greater, depending on the degree of and type of contamination expected.

So, if you have some kind of dispatch system, or Operations Manual, that comes up with figures less than the AFM, that system/manual is wrong.

It seems reasonably clear that there is also much confusion in EASA Land, it looks to me like the bureaucrats have confused themselves, because the various document you quote are NOT certification documents, and the AFM figures have not changed, and there is clearly (to me) a legal conflict. Again, in the real world, the numbers you come up with will not be less than the current AFM figures.

However, I would not like to defend my use of the "new" system, in the event of a serious incident or accident (even if the cause for the inquiry is not related to the above issues), particularly any inquiry in Greece, Italy, Spain or France.

Tootle pip!!