Cessna AFM Performance

[Journey Man]

Hi there,

Does anyone have experience of Cessna performance under EASA? The AFM figures, with specific reference to landing performance, appear to be restrictive with additional safety factors. Cessna have Operational Dispatch Planning figures for FAA usage (via Supplement 16 IIRC - sorry AFM not at hand). The figures are closer to what I'd expect for a similar model.

Anyone operating an XLS+ have any experience of this?

[Journey Man]

XLS explains all. XLS+... not so much. Unless you know differently dotticom?

[Journey Man]

No, it's not the same for the Plus. We operate an XLS also.

[Oelknarre]

Hello,

for the XLS+ we use Supplement 16 (Operational Dispatch Planning Performance) for planning which contains 1.67 and you can do 1.15 in addition for wet.
That is approx. 500 ft shorter than AFM Chapter 4 multiplied by 1.67.
Thats the shortest legal way for commercial operators we figured out :)
XLS the Supplement 30 (CFR and JAR Operation Landing Field Lengths) was basically doing the same thing.

Good flights

Oelknarre

[Pull Up Whoop Whoop]

XL has supplement 49 and XLS supplement 30. These are both calculated using a 3.5 degree gs, rather than 3, for use by JAR/CFR operators which is why the figures don't compare to the FAA x 1.67. All have a dispatch planning supplement that uses the 3.5 degree approach angle however the start of these supplements it states that it must not be used for actual landing performance. Cessna no longer produce the additional supplements, so the XLS+ uses standard FAA x 1.67, and has a much more restrictive landing performance than the other variants.

[Journey Man]

Supplement 16 for planning, then in the air the AFM figures are used, which are a lot less restrictive than the operational dispatch planning.

Applying the factor of 1.67 to the AFM figures was doubling the margin of errors built in to the AFM performance. A careful review of IR-OPS was needed and has clarified the situation.