PDA

View Full Version : Runway analysis manual.


kuobin
14th May 2006, 03:36
Hi:
Most of jet aircrafts are now FMC qeuipped,so Is runway analysis manual still a required document for operation ,in case of disagree,which one count?Thanks:rolleyes:

mutt
14th May 2006, 06:40
Most, if not all FMC's are NOT capable of calculating runway analysis, therefore you still need a specific runway analysis.

Mutt

Old Smokey
14th May 2006, 23:34
kuobin,

Perhaps you've confused the FMC with the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) which will have the Airport Analysis incorporated. To the best of my knowledge, the EFB does not carry out the calculation, but simply stores electronically the AA data generated from another external source.

Current generation FMCs will give you little more than Balanced Field V Speeds for the weight and environmental conditions entered.

There's absolutely no reason why the FMC or EFB could not be programmed to carry out exacting Airport Analysis, it's only a software problem. If my PC at home can do it, then the squillion dollar FMCs and EFBs can also. Let's hope that future versions of the EFB will address this problem.

Regards,

Old Smokey

john_tullamarine
15th May 2006, 02:38
.. except that your desktop's architecture is a bit further advanced than the average TSO'd unit's. All a case of the computers of the world being caught up in a galloping technology explosion with which the certification animal has no way of keeping pace ..

Old Smokey
15th May 2006, 07:00
kuobin,

Did you notice how 3 guys making a living (at least partially) from Airport Analysis jumped in so quickly to answer this one?

We don't mind if they take years................... :E

Regards,

Old Smokey

OzExpat
15th May 2006, 11:52
We don't mind if they take years................... :E
For the life of me, I can't understand why! :} :p

O\ZON
15th May 2006, 20:35
modern Biz Jets can mostly calculate their own performance independent of a RTOW chart. Yet, such FMCs?, do not have the available obstacle data for the airport. so the info can only be taken with a grain of salt. Picture an airport in a middle of a valley

Most biz jet operators are not as serious about their performance as commerical airline operators, therefore, it is a whole lot a better than nothing. Yet, given an RTOW chart, and an FMC calculation. I would go with the RTOW chart.

rgds
O/z

popay
15th May 2006, 21:10
Hey guys, what about the LPC or the glamorous lap top with performance calculation? Absolutely gorgeous tool.
Old Smokey, totally agree. I think it'd be the best to incorporate the whole thing into FMC and basta. However as mentioned by OZON the data doesn't contain the amendments published in the NOTAM. I recall last departure out of LGW in the eastern direction where protruding obstacles, such as planes tails parked at northern apron:eek: something like up to 237 ft at 0,8 NM from the apron (not sure about the figure) were stated in the NOTAM, ergo the only way to consider that one is to insert it into the obstacle data. Not sure, if chart would have done it especially while RWY just changed during taxi. Consequently after changing the RWY data (obstacles added) the FLEX changed from F54 to F50 and flaps 1+F of course. The whole calculation took about 2 min. Anyone had similar experience?
Cheers.

john_tullamarine
15th May 2006, 23:52
Yet, such FMCs?, do not have the available obstacle data for the airport. so the info can only be taken with a grain of salt

... without the obstacle data, what use is the calculation ? .. unless you are taking off out over a flat desert or ocean ? I wouldn't even waste my salt on the numbers ...

Most biz jet operators are not as serious about their performance as commerical airline operators

.. then, are they as serious about the consequences of CFIT ?

what about the LPC or the glamorous lap top with performance calculation

.. the computer is not the problem .. any fool can put a set of AFM performance calculations into a software engine of one sort or another .. the problem is the boundary data for the day .. especially obstacle data ... GIGO never was truer than here ...