EU OPS Landing Performances

[gigi116]

I would like to find a simple rule to comply with eu-ops landing performance and I have understand as follows:

-DRY Runway : LDA shall be at least the Actual Landing Distance multiplied by 1.67.

-WET Runway , LDA shall be at least the higher of:
1. *Wet Landing Distance;
2. Dry distance factorized by 1.67.

-CONTAMINATED Runway , LDA shall be at least the higher of:
1. Dry Landing Distance factorized by 1,92 (=1,67 x 1,15);
2. *Contaminated Landing Distance factorized by 1.15.

(* my airplane has EASA approved data)

Note : For MEL items that effect actual landing distance, the respective malfunction factor shall be applied in addition to the above.

Is all above correct or I did some mistake ?
than you very much

:8

[pensador]

Hi! The figures are correct just remember that those rules for the preflight desision. once you airborne they can not be apply.
Con recpecto

[gigi116]

yes all at "pre-flight stage" but , as i was not a good math student :{, is it correct way to multiply 1.67 for 1.15 ?

[john_tullamarine]

LDA shall be at least the Actual Landing Distance multiplied by 1.67.

Please don't read "actual landing distance" to be the distance you will achieve in a maximum effort landing. The actual landing distance cited is that used for the AFM by agreement between the OEM and Authority.

The average line pilot has very little chance of achieving that distance on the line. A better approach is to become VERY nervous as the actual available landing distance reduces progressively below the normal AFM required figures in an emergency/abnormal situation... and conduct your management assessments accordingly.

[gigi116]

ok john .... you have right !
I will change word "actual" in "unfactorized".
Do you agree for the factors figures ?

tks

[john_tullamarine]

1.67 is the normal AFM fudge factor for a dry runway

... plus 1.15 is the old factor for a wet runway

contaminated runways get a tad more complex and the AFM/OM is your guide.

I see OS is lurking about at the moment so he might offer some comment, being a bit more up to date on such like than I am these days.

[mutt]

Pensador, you brought up a very good point that these rules need only be applied before flight, but what rules would you apply inflight?

JT has stated that these are demonstrated landing distances obtained by a test pilot who's goal was to achieve the shortest possible landing distance, so is it logical that a line pilot should attempt to replicate his achievements?

Mutt

[Pugilistic Animus]

I guess having a lead foot is an attribute in some cases:}:\

[DFC]

A few small points;


Hi! The figures are correct just remember that those rules for the preflight desision. once you airborne they can not be apply.



The requirements apply in both the case of flight planning before the flight departs and they also apply to any re-planning enroute. OPS 1.475 Refers.

If it is an emergency then you can perhaps choose between landing on a 12,000ft runway 100nm away or in a big muddy field 1nm away. That is a command decision in the circumstances and depends on many factors - 1 out on a 3 engine aircraft then the 100nm trip is probably a no brainer as may be the muddy field with a fire in the cockpit which one can not extinguish.

However, one would have to later justify one's actions or expect that an investigations would later find the actions reasonable in the circumstances.

Therefore I would suggest that unless one can justify a possible over-run I would not push the limits and try landing on a runway that merely matched the actual landing distance figures in the AFM.

But,!!!!

EU-OPS requires that (jet example) the operator ensures the aircraft can land on a dry runway from 50ft within 60% of the LDA. OPS 1.515

If you do not believe that it is possible to land in the figures published in the AFM then one can not use those figures to ensure compliance with the 60% requirement.

Example;

Aircraft A has a published LDA of 5000ft in the expected conditions are the destination.

Most people seem happy to say two things;

1. I need a runway of 5000 * 1.67 = 8350ft or more

and laso say

2. Don't expect to be able to match the book figures.

If we are to believe 2. above then we have to ask "What extra do you add above the book figure" that you know on a good day you can match?

If the response is "I would add 20%" then in order to comply with EU OPS the following would apply;

Book Figure = 5000ft

Operator figure = 5000 * 1.2 = 6000ft

Now the aircraft needs 6000 * 1.67 = 10020 ft of runway available before that operator can honestly say that they have ensured the aircraft can land within 60% of the runway available.

Remember that the requirements are not that the book figures show it can be done but that the operator ensure it can be done.

There is quite a difference in runway requirements when the operator uses fingures that it knows can be acheived rather than AFM figures that everyone says can not be acheived in normal operations.................or can they?

[john_tullamarine]

EU-OPS requires that (jet example) the operator ensures the aircraft can land on a dry runway from 50ft within 60% of the LDA. OPS 1.515

Fairytale land .. unless you pad the unfactored LDR and then figure that from the LDA. Me ? as soon as I have less than 1.67, dry, I get nervous .. and the less pad I have, the more and more nervous I get.

Keep in mind that the TP can't reproduce the unfactored AFM data every time ... the data is a tad on the optimistic side .. which is why we have the 1.67 for us ordinary folks

In the emergency/abnormal situation, I suggest that it is not a case of applying an arbitrary factor. Rather, as part of the overall planning risk assessment for the recovery, look at all the reasonably available landing options and rank them according to all and any relevant considerations .. including length. Then rank the options and make the D.

[FE Hoppy]

Is it me or have you all missed the mistake in the original post?

dry factor 1.67
wet factor extra 15% therefore 1.92

Original post has 1.92 for contaminated.

[Microburst2002]

I think the FAA requires an additional 15% to landing distances in the AFM
Anyone can confirm or add more details?

[9.G]

Microburst2002, that's correct. It's recommendation though if I recall correct. Also bear in mind the landing technique must be accounted for as well e.g auto land requires additional margins. It's all available in the relevant FCOMs. Once again the utter importance of landing performance software for daily operation can't be emphasized often enough. Whatever was the dispatch plan might not be relevant any more actual conditions etc must fully be taken into account for actual landing performance.
Cheers.:ok: