truckflyer
4th Jun 2012, 10:05
I have been looking into this to get a clear picture of the correct figures.
First All engines operating CS25.119 - states climb gradient should be 3.2%.
( I seem to have read somewhere 3.3%, however only ones I find now is 3.2 so i assume this is correct)
However there are 2 others for discontinued approach climb, one engine inoperative. CS25.121 - which states climb gradient not less than 2.1% and than you have
Discontinued Approach Instrument Climb (JAR OPS 1.510) stating for instrument approaches with DH below 200 ft, a gradient of at least 2.5%
So is this Instrument climb gradient the limiting one with regarding the landing mass? Of course compared to structural mass and field length limit mass?
A Cat 1 will normally have a DH of minimum 200 ft, the JAR Ops say below 200 ft, so will it be required 2.1% for a CAT 1 landing? As the minimum will not be below 200 ft!
First All engines operating CS25.119 - states climb gradient should be 3.2%.
( I seem to have read somewhere 3.3%, however only ones I find now is 3.2 so i assume this is correct)
However there are 2 others for discontinued approach climb, one engine inoperative. CS25.121 - which states climb gradient not less than 2.1% and than you have
Discontinued Approach Instrument Climb (JAR OPS 1.510) stating for instrument approaches with DH below 200 ft, a gradient of at least 2.5%
So is this Instrument climb gradient the limiting one with regarding the landing mass? Of course compared to structural mass and field length limit mass?
A Cat 1 will normally have a DH of minimum 200 ft, the JAR Ops say below 200 ft, so will it be required 2.1% for a CAT 1 landing? As the minimum will not be below 200 ft!