PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - V2
Thread: V2
View Single Post
Old 6th Jan 2017, 06:53
  #105 (permalink)  
john_tullamarine
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,195
Received 110 Likes on 70 Posts
Yes, it was ----No other country had applied the requirement

All some years ago now as we get greyer and greyer ...

However, I'm wondering if you were thinking of the narrow runway operational demonstration defacto certification exercises ... ICAO came up with the recommendation and Oz was certainly the first to introduce that - I was involved with the first few aircraft to do the work.

For the ASDR two second delay, that appeared in FAR 25 A/L 25-42 (January 1978 at 25.109(a)) and CAO 101.6 A/L 62 (I probably have some old files somewhere which would note the date .. but not to hand). Recollection is that the two were near enough concurrently introduced. That change required the consideration be applied both to the OEI/AEO cases .. makes sense, really, as the concern was the high probability of overrunning the scheduled distance in the case of any delay due confusion or whatever and the AEO case looms significant in the pilot's mind .. see http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...9?OpenDocument

To the best of my recollection - that might be subject to error, of course, it wasn't made retrospective here (one of our PPRuNe number was the then CASA TP at the time and would remember better than I regarding the details).

You make specific reference to the 767. A quick look at the US TCDS suggests that the frozen design standard for that Type excluded A/L 42 ... makes sense as the presumed project start would have predated 1978.

However, as the Australian examples would have come in post A/L 62 as a FOT certification, I presume that the aircraft would have been caught by the local requirement here. If that is the case, I understand your comments.

For your further commentary ... if you can recall some specifics to verify the position, I would appreciate clarifying the point in my mind.

As to the FAR , of course, because the effect of the CASRs 21 to 35 being made law was to adopt FAR 25 as a certification standard

Not relevant as the changes referenced long predated the CASRs. ANO/CAO 101.5/6 effectively required the foreign Standard with local changes to tinker a bit ... very much the bane of the Industry in many respects. Eventually sorted out post the Ron Yates' Report although not all the players thought that was a good idea.
john_tullamarine is offline