Short-Field experience (on jet types)

[Encorebaby]

I've just completed my morning troll through Latestpilotjobs to see if my job in paradise awaits. Not quite paradise but a U.K. based job is inviting, upon closer inspection though and listed within the job 'desirables'...Short-field experience (on jet types).

I've never seen this written in a job description before especially for a jet type! From a performance point of view, surly so long as the runway length (ASDA, TODA, TODR, LDA etc) is sufficient to satisfy the particular jets requirements for given conditions (WAT) then why is it particularly necessary for short field experience? Either you can do the job safely/legally or you can't?

My EASA Ops manual does not specify any particular short field procedure, nor does my aircraft AFM detail performance figures nor procedure for this. Performance figures on jet types are effected by many things such as runway contaminants, gradients, altitude and obstacles etc but not short field!

Perhaps this is a FAR thing which I am not familiar. Is there a special procedure? :E

[CL300]

Your "brain" has a picture of what reality is. If you are used to a 10000ft runway in front of you, even if your plane needs 3000 ft to stop, you might tend to have a long landing in order to make F3 exit, which is more convenient. And on a day-to-day basis, when you arrive on this particular and legal 3000ft runway at minimum width, you will be not as "easy" as you could be , if it was your home field.

i think that what it is meant for short-field experience ( i.e. on the limit of the AFM, and the associated regulations)

[cambioso]

Spot on CL300, that is exactly what is meant.
This aircraft is non-AOC and frequently operates to airfields where the AFM figures are within the runway figures available but not to the 1.67/1.92 factor our "AOC Brethren" are used to.

[Above The Clouds]

CL300 has it exactly right, I used to operate a jet in to a 780m runway on a regular basis using FAA AFM figures, it was tight but perfectly legal for a private operation.

[dirk85]

I pretty much had the same opinion as you, why would you need particular experience, as long as you are within the numbers in your AFM?

But I changed my mind after landing in Elba on a ten tonnes jet. Yes, you are within legality, at least on a private operation, but you realize soon how close you are to the actual plane limits once you land. One foot too high, one knot too fast or any hint of flare and you are not in a nice position anymore.
Good thing is that thrust reverser are not accounted in AFM landing figures,so there you have a little margin, but still quite a different game, if you are used to the typical 10000 ft runway.

[Encorebaby]

Regardless of the size/shape of the airfield to be used we always brief exactly how we are going to cope prior to attempting it. This brief will obviously be different whether we are operating in/out of Shoreham or Heathrow. The brief should always centre on the items of interest to be expected, ie short/narrow runway etc and how we intend to get the job done safely. It's perfectly acceptable to miss the 'easy' feeling occasionally so long as you are not operating out of your limits, commercially or privately the end of the runway will treat the aircraft in the same way. All approaches are stable to touch down and perspective issues can mess with your mind but these are issues that we as professionals deal with. I suppose, in my opinion I think that instead of looking for short feild experience (which suggests all sorts of 'operating on the limit of both man and machine' issues) in the advert, perhaps simply omitting this as a pointless item and instead check out the prospective pilots log book. Most GA pilots have a rounded experience.

Personally, having ventured into both Shoreham and LA Mole with Jets I would be far happier going somewhere else simply because the law of averages means I can't guarantee a perfect approach every time.

[cambioso]

"Most GA pilots have a rounded experience."

Quite correct Encore, but most Airline/Long-term AOC pilots don't. They might have had in their dim and distant pasts, but not currently.
That is precisely why the advert mentions this preference (as well as other preferences).
The advert lays down the experience and Licencing requirements for this operation, and it's detail is an attempt to cut down on the inevitable "snowstorm" of CVs from unsuitable (but, without doubt, very able within their own environment) applicants.

Jez

[CL300]

I applied for the position , so I shall see if my GA experience on the limits of the AFM will outweigh the competition, not counting the hundreds of hours on the Falcon 2000 Easy itself.:ok: :cool:

[CL300]

encore baby :Personally, having ventured into both Shoreham and LA Mole with Jets I would be far happier going somewhere else simply because the law of averages means I can't guarantee a perfect approach every time.
hmm.. this i can guarantee...textbook from the AFM, even the braking, ( which is on short field the key of a safe roll-out)

But I would like to know, what cannot you guarantee on a daily basis ? If it is not good ,you would go-around no ? press-on-itis has no place here or am i wrong ?

I was trained , years ago, as a professional pilot to deliver what the aircraft is able to do, always. Mitigating by the experience of the crew some unfavorable conditions. But ( in private or in AOC), if you can t/O or land at 39000Lbs on this particular runway on that day, and if your weight IS 39000Lbs you are paid to do so ( unless conditions outside the scope are occurring in real time)...But the approach...especially on a F2TH EASy, in order to **** it up, you need to work at it...

[MisterT]

There are old pilots and bold pilots, but not old bold pilots!

The problem with private ops as if you have a numpty managing the aircraft you will find them saying yes to Mr Owner and as such going into all these ridiculous airports.

It's all very well saying it works in the AFM. But the last time I looked in the AFM doesn't take account of visbility, whether it's at night , very windy, how long the crew have been on duty etc all these things can make the approach tricker then say on a cavok day with nil or little wind, but if you are within limits its all legal !!

I also wouldn't be too surprised if this type of operation there SOP to land on short runway is duck below the glide - which in my opinion is gash as landing performance calculated on 50ft screen height!

[what next]

... as such going into all these ridiculous airports.Why would an airport be ridiculous just because it's runway is only 5,000 or 4,000 or 3,000 ft long? These "ridiculous airports" as you call them are the reason why quite a few among us have their job: The only reason for many companies and private owners to buy and maintain their aeroplane (instead of travelling first class on the airline for a fraction of the cost) are those small regional airports.

But the last time I looked in the AFM doesn't take account of visbility, whether it's at night , very windy, how long the crew have been on duty etc all these things can make the approach tricker then say on a cavok day with nil or little wind, but if you are within limits its all legal !!I have some colleagues who think exactly like this and are happy that for commercial operations someone gave them a big safety margin. That's perfectly OK. But this is also the reason why "short field experience required" is part of that job description and only people with that kind of experience and/or boldness to really go to the legal limits must apply.

[CL300]

@Mister T

Completely true, this is why experience is paramount, a bit like driving on snow/ice.... If you are living in northern finland, it is in your genes, put a pinch of drizzle in southern france, and it is bedlam.

So there is pilots, whom are very confident on operating in these conditions..with no sweat and no tears, and the day they go to the boss, and they say : "today we cannot do it", they are not challenged, at all.

[tommoutrie]

heads up, short field experience won't be the problem. Wet field, bloody windy field, crappy viz field etc is what you will need.. And you may need to take a jigsaw with you..

[CL300]

heads up, short field experience won't be the problem. Wet field, bloody windy field, crappy viz field etc is what you will need.. And you may need to take a jigsaw with you..



What else on the islands ? :cool:

[Encorebaby]

Double heads up...bring plenty of spare underpants with you too and a shovel just in case:D

[MisterT]

The airports are ridiculous to me because your operating the plane to the limit.

Those figures in the AFM are derived from a Test Pilot - as much as I like to think of myself as a Sky God I'm not and as such would not want to operate the aircraft to it's limitation.

I think if your operating privately then you should really be thinking about personal minimums rather then legal minimums ie the AFM says we can go, so lets go!

Anyway it's different strokes for different folks but give me safety factors, long runways and clean underpants any day of the week and you can keep your short runways :ok:

[what next]

The airports are ridiculous to me because your operating the plane to the limit.

Before JAR OPS introduced factors for landing distance every airline would operate their aircraft in and out of runways at or close to the limit. Nobody ever called that ridiculous as far as I can remember.

[CL300]

Mister T,

you do not really think that the numbers published are the best numbers achieved do you ? The numbers are crushed through a model very close to the RMS ( root mean Square), and ending up in selecting the best achievable performance, should one fly the plane like the manufacturer said it should be flown. Are you still with me ?

If now you are factoring 1.67 or 1.92 for landing and being very happy with the result, the initial number is coming from the very same test campaign, where Vapp is Vapp, Vref is something ( now 1,23 Vso), and the touchdown speed somewhere below that, but close to this specific Vso; how can you be happy with the result ? since the computation at the very first beginning implies that you are flying the plane as it should. I understand the logic behind it, a kind of firewall from fatigue stress, pilot experience , etc.. But you seem VERY happy with the take off part of the scheme, which gives you very little things in order to balance the pilot technique should an engine fail, same test pilots though, no ?

What are your thoughts ?

[tommoutrie]

Mr T
The figures are determined by a test pilot but they are figures that an average pilot should achieve on a new aircraft. The reason for using a test pilot is that they will fly accurate profiles, correct speeds, correct reference point, shut the throttles when the manual says etc. and do it in a repeatable way. The performance figures are not the very best numbers that its possible for a pilot to achieve - you or I should be able to achieve them on an average day and if that wasn't true the manufacturers would get the crap sued out of them the first time someone went off the end because the data would be deemed unrealistic.

[tommoutrie]

..my post was pointless, CL300 wrote a better one while I was waffling. I apologise for wasting everyones time and shall go down to the pool and possibly order a smoothie.

going to Anguilla in a few days...which is a bit short...:eek:

[corpilot]

Try googling Citation Mustang and Compton Abbas for a feel of what may be required :)

[Encorebaby]

What next: quote: Before JAR OPS introduced factors for landing distance every airline would operate their aircraft in and out of runways at or close to the limit. Nobody ever called that ridiculous as far as I can remember.

This statement rather lets your whole argument down I'm afraid. By turning this discussion into private verses commercial ops you are effectively saying that JAR/EU OPS and Latterly EASA is pointless!! The sole purpose behind these bodies is the promotion of flight safety through regulation and standardisation.

My EASA ops manual provides me with all the information that I require to complete my role in a safe standard way. Safe because it has been developed primarily with safety in mind, drawing on years of experience and countless AAIB reports. Back in the day before flight safety became important (incidentally pretty much where you seem to be right now) the accident rate was unacceptably high. So many people complained about this and here we are today, fully regulated and safety factored up. If you can not see progress here then you truly are a sky God and I bow to your superior skills.
The factor 1.67 landing factor is a very minor part of a much bigger picture involved with operating a modern Commercial jet safely. I have no doubt that back in the day when it was written the author decided that, after taking all the extenuating factors into consideration surrounding the safe landing of an aeroplane, the average pilot on the average day spread over an average career would perform a landing that kept the aeroplane on the Tarmac. This factor does not guarantee a safe outcome but it takes care of Murphy's law. Obviously private pilots are far superior to captain average. Even if I could meet all the criteria for this job I would stay right where I am because I feel far safer under the watchful gaze of our FOI, like him or hate him, he has my back!

[cambioso]

"duck below the glide"
Mr T, surely when you do this on a visual approach the wings fall off don't they?
It's horses for courses Old Boy. Stay with Encore where your FOI "has your back" you will feel far safer I'm sure.
This operation isn't for you (or, obviously your underpants - what a ridiculous rant!!?), but don't go knocking it just because it isn't in your comfort/current skill zone. This operation has flown 3000 hours in the last 4 years with 100% safety record. We chose our limits conducive with AFM (always), approach minimums (always) airfield and weather conditions, and pilot ability. We are NEVER forced or peer-pressured into any situation that we are not happy with.
We are just a small group of pilots that are happy with our job, respect and enjoy the company of our colleagues, are reasonably paid for a good job done, and really enjoy flying this super aircraft (Falcon 2000 EASy).
Jez

[con-pilot]

One problem many corporate pilots have when operating on a short (but legal) runways is that they usually have never had to use maximum braking before. I used to marvel on how quick I could stop a 727 on normal (7000 feet and longer) runways.

But it wasn't until I was dispatched to a 4,700 foot runway did I really use maximum brakes on a landing. To make matters even more interesting it was at night. The performance charts said that I needed just under 4,000 feet to stop, so I was legal.

To be honest I was sweating blood on final, landed in the touchdown zone, raised the spoilers, lowered the nose and when it touched the runway I stood on the brakes. I stopped with more than a 1,000 feet of runway left. Matter of fact, the reversers had not spooled up to full power before we hit 80 kts.

That made me a believer, so from then on with new pilots we would demonstrate landing using maximum braking on a 6,000 foot runway, then switch seats and have them land using the same procedures.

So having actual experience in jet aircraft on minimum length runways is a valuable asset. At least in my opinion.


If there are any 727 pilots here, I did use flaps 40 on those minimum length runways landing. We were authorized to remove the flaps 40 block if deemed necessary.

[His dudeness]

We do operate a C680 (13,7 tonnes) in and out of a 3323ft LDA/3675ft TODA airfield with a 4° approach with LOC and RNAV approach to one side only. No real RESAs adn obstacles on either side, main ldg direction has an elevated 6 lane road right before the THR. We use 1,25 as factor, the runway is grooved which makes a hell of a difference. We usually have like 300 mtrs to spare when we leave the rwy (RAAS tells me !)

At that field there are 2 C560s, our C680, 2 Phenom 300, 2 CL300s, couple of CJs, a LJ45, a F2000 and - pilots with huge balls - a LJ35. Thats been there for ages, me thinks something like 30 years now.

Can be interesting at times (yes, landing at night or with gusty crosswinds), but...

the only accident we had there was a COMMERCIALLY operated TP (Factor 1,43) landing way into the runway and crashing in an earth wall. A/P was totaled, only minor injuries to pax and crew. Daytime and perfect WX.

So even when an factor is applied, one can screw up.

BTW, landing distances in the AFM are done by test pilots, but with brakes worn to the minimum. (I was told) So there still is a margin in these numbers itself plus the reversers (which are so slow to open on my airplane that you don´t really use em anyway), should your kite have em...


Correction (See CL300s post #27):

Worn down to the limit ONLY for the certification of MTOM RTO. For the rest of the landings, a value is inserted in the cloud of data.

Do I like that airfield ? Hell no. It has less margins, clearly, than, say, Manchester...still one can operate in and outta there without being a cowboy. But it pays my bills. And before found guilty of letting my bosses pressure lure me into that airfield: no. I spent an hour in front of the managing board explaining why that airfield is less safe than others and why we will end up in certain conditions not landing there. Which we sometimes do.

THAT decision making is why we are paid, IMHO....

And they do know why we can´t haul full loads out of there.

We very often go with small full loads, do a fuel stop and then carry on to our far destinations. We use the book numbers/APG/Type Achart to determine what we can do there. My main concern is bird strike on T/O, not landing (remember these 2 poor sods in that LF45 in LIML a few years back? Both killed, multiple bird strikes in both engines - our airfield has a wealth of wild life, rabbits, birds up to Herons and sea gulls)

Last but not least: I´m definitely no sky god, at best I´m an averagely skilled aviator. My colleague - whom I consider a far better pilot than I am - dislikes landing at our homebase and usually asks not to have to. He 'grew up' going from big airfields to big airfields in jets. I OTOH started flying on KingAirs, in which we did fly to a lot of real small airfields. Did that for 8 years before I got my first Jet rating. Experience does make a difference IMO.

[His dudeness]

@con-pilot: unfortunately I never flew a 727, but I do remember PanAm IGS pilots do the weirdest things with their 27s into Stuttgart, Germany, especially on that dreaded NDB 08 approach (high minima, dive and drive) - I saw them do sideslips etc. And they often landed short to save on taxi time. My father was an atco and we often saw them being speedy even on short approach. Real pilots IMO.

Always loved the looks of the B727, sexiest ass of any plane :-), miss em...

[CL300]

BTW, landing distances in the AFM are done by test pilots, but with brakes worn to the minimum. (I was told) So there still is a margin in these numbers itself plus the reversers (which are so slow to open on my airplane that you don´t really use em anyway), should your kite have em...


Worn down to the limit ONLY for the certification of MTOM RTO. For the rest of the landings, a value is inserted in the cloud of data.

[His dudeness]

I stand corrected... thanks.

[tommoutrie]

from my uni days I dimly remember that brand new brakes do not perform as well as brakes that have worn in. This is because with brand new pads you have uniform pressure across the pad and the inboard part of the pad does not provide as much braking effort as the outboard part. To provide the maximum retardation you have to wear the pad so that you have uniform wear across the pad and it will then provide the maximum braking effort. From the point where they are worn in to almost worn out they should provide the maximum braking effort possible.

before someone shoots me down, this is a dim memory from almost 200 years ago when I was an undergraduate at Birmingham and much of that time is rather hazy...

[rightbank]

going to Anguilla in a few days...which is a bit short...

And only usable in one direction for most jet aircraft. Lovely airfield though. Enjoy!

[Sop_Monkey]

My advice would be to stay away. 1.67 dry is plenty short enough, commercial or private. If you are expected to go shorter that the 1.67, where is the limit to protect you and the passengers? Where is the line drawn? Factor of 1.0 for landing distance? because that will be expected of you in time and it is too short and not much margin for error.

[jimjim1]

This is how the Russians (sorry Germans it seems) do it.

Appear to be different edits of the same source video. Short videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs3zQuqMCbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZkRKdg0WGU

[Encorebaby]

Here's one for all you thrill seekers...:ok:

http://youtu.be/c6Wr3ilAWpo

[CL300]

Brakes pads in plane are working differently, and carbon brakes as well, constant and continuous pressure is required ( no pumping like metal) Just because, on carbon brakes it is the layer between disks and pads that creates friction thus braking. On metal brakes it is the opposite, and the layer reduces effectiveness.

The reasoning of doing the RTO test at 100% worn brakes, is the fact that heat cannot dissipate as well as it does when they are new ( gap is adjusted through springs and this what you check on the preflight), there are numerous video ( more or less edited depending on the manufacturer), where one can see brake catching fire at the end of the stopping roll, my favorite is the Airbus 340-600 in Istres, where the ground crew is freaking lost.

All in all, everything is about energy, if you do not carry more than required, you do not have to dissipate it on the ground. I understand all the concerns of pilots having been grown out of the 1.67 / 1.92 factor; remember a big chunk of the world does not even consider it for anything but Airline Ops. Part 91 sits at 1.0, 91K at 1.25 ( if I remember well) and this is it...
The thing is , that most of the pilots are trusting blind the take off performance to the pound, and are concerned with the landing numbers, this i do not get.
But this is me...

[His dudeness]

The thing is , that most of the pilots are trusting blind the take off performance to the pound, and are concerned with the landing numbers, this i do not get.

The box of pandora... let alone, how many do really understand how TO numbers are 'made' and what the first and second segment climbs they need to have are.

But then, is this a real issue ? Where are the accidents (for TO), as EASA and SAFA seem to make a storm in the water glass about these numbers...

Last but not least, if I can´t trust the numbers in the AFM (to the pound as you put it, what can I trust?)

If I look back how our ancestors flew around (loading by volume and not weight in FAR 23 a/c such as C401s or the like) I wonder wtf we argue about...

After all these considerations and headaches for JAR/FAR25 a/c we then have a look at commercially operated JAR/FAR 23 A/C and what do we see ? all eng tod by 1,15 - a total meaningless number, but the one EASA wants to see (I trust thats still the case...as it was under JAR)

Which leads me to an anecdote:

we commercially operated a KingAir B200 and then got a CJ2 additionally, first flight after purchase was to go to Locarno... 800m rwy. Thus I took the B200 and the bosses wifes quizzed me why, after all the boss had bought her that nice little CJ2 and now she still had to sit in the rattling B200. I explained that Locarno is way to small for Jets to operate there and after landing she discovered a Challenger 600 standing around. She never trusted my word again, no matter how often I explained the difference between private and comm ops...

[Sop_Monkey]

CL300

Sticking with PT factors for landing lowers the risk at T/O, would it not?

We are human and going to have "off days at the office" every so often. Take it from me, if the risk can be reduced it is best. I thought EASA private ops were going to be under the same regulations as commercial. Is that not the case yet?

[Denti]

Even commercial doesn't use the full factors for inflight landing performance calculation. Usually only a factor of 15 or 20% is used. Dunno if its short field, but landing with a 65t 738 on a 1850m runway (EDDR) is quite fun.

[CL300]

@sopmonkey Sticking with PT factors for landing lowers the risk at T/O, would it not?

how come ?

[Sop_Monkey]

Well if you intend to land at an airport I take it you would like to depart. The more runway you have for landing will mean more runway for t/o, 1st sector.

[PSF2J]

sop_monkey,

You remind of me of the kind of pilot that would fly an aircraft into a mountain, because the book or SOPs said it would be safe.

If you think that by adding on 1.67 factor you are safer, then think again. :ugh: Why not just make the factor 3.00 just to make sure? :mad: I've seen stupid landings far too long into the runway, which the crew justify as acceptable because "we added a safety factor".....seriously? This factor should not need to be used.

The AFM is data that can be achieved by the average pilot. Ask the manufacturers. I did, because I was fed up of ill-informed instructors telling me it was "test-pilot" data. If you don't consider yourself/your skills to be even average, then perhaps its time to hang up the flying goggles as there isn't a safety factor big enough for you!

Give me a 1.0 factor any day. Whenever I've used it, I have been pleasantly surprised by the margins still remaining. Maybe I'm just amazingly arrogant, or just happy with my own skill set in what I do, plus I know my aircraft intimately :E:E:E YEAH BABY!

What doesn't help is people trying to fly into performance limiting airfields with no change of technique from airfields where they have a 10,000ft runway. That is going get messy.

[Sop_Monkey]

PSF2J

I read you post with interest.

Straight answer to a straight question. Hypothetically, two airports at the destination, right next to each other. One airport has a runway giving you a factor of at least 2.0 and the other has the runway length giving you a factored distance of say 1.1. Ignore taxi distances, approach aids, wind, wx. etc..

Which airport would you choose to land at and why?

[MarcK]

That's not quite a fair comparison. How about an airport with a factor of 2.0 that's a 2 hour drive from destination vs. an airport with factor of 1.1 that's 15 minutes from destination?

[Sop_Monkey]

Shhhhhishh!!!!

Trying to find out where PSF2J is coming from with regards to risk management.

[His dudeness]

I thought EASA private ops were going to be under the same regulations as commercial. Is that not the case yet?

Nope and they won´t be, rwy factor wise.

[Encorebaby]

It won't be the runway factors that directly nail private ops under EASA regulations, it'll be SMS. Private simply won't be able to justify NOT applying the same factors as commercial ops and hey presto....comply or bye bye

[Sop_Monkey]

Looks like we've lost PSF2J's input at the moment.

Re post #42.

Any other sky gods on board prepared to help me out with a response to a straight forward and simple question?

[MarcK]

Here's a variant of that question, represented by a number of airports I know: You've flight planned to an airport with a 2.0 runway. As you get close, that runway is closed for some reason, but the airport has another shorter, 1.1 runway. Do you land or divert?

[CL300]

Everything is very nice on the chalkboard. Things are : how often a modern jet uses a runway below 4000ft ? 3000 ft ? on the performance book one can look what is the absolute minimum as far as runway length is concerned, this will be the baseline so to speak ( ideal combination of Weight, temperature, etc..); then comes the day that you weight your beautiful and furnished aircraft.....

This day, you start talking to the contractors to lengthen the runway LoL.

Of course , if you plan to take-off again from this runway, you need to find a suitable one for this, i leave to the crew or DOA the assessment of the feasibility of the flight. Business aviation is just that : going where Airlines can't go direct. Sometimes you cannot, and have to mitigate the trip, but if you can, just do it.

Long, Short, Cold, Hot, High, Low, doesn't matter as long as it is safe and legal, your emotions shall stay away on the decision making process, otherwise one thing is for sure : Stay away from this segment of the industry, or fly companies like Netjets ( which are not cat2/3 because they cannot trust the autopilot below 200ft; but are happy to take-off in 125 m RVR) ( this is no joke at least at NJE); but the last example is a true bias of real business aviation, they are more like RYR on that side ( besides AWO)

[PSF2J]

Apologies for having other things to do!

sop_monkey. Instead of asking me an unrealistic "hypothetical" question, why not pick a real example from your experience for me that makes your point? Unsurprisingly no-one has answered your "simple" question as it is ridiculous, and does not reflect reality, and to a lesser extent, what we do.

As for risk management, I have every idea of it. I carefully review all of the factors before making a decision to operate anywhere. Just because I'm willing to accept a lower factor, I guess that makes me stupid and irresponsible? :ugh:

CL300, you sum it up perfectly.

MarcK, take the 1.1!

Encorebaby.....sounds like you could make your own business there. Oh, and I'm quite sure they'll be able to justify NOT applying the same figures. The flying is different. It'll be the clever ones that get it through. They just won't publicise it because of the adamancy from people that they will HAVE to have the same.

The whole idea of having your own biz jet, is to get you to places the charter operators and airlines can't go. If you don't like this sector of the market, leave it, and stop telling us how to do it your way instead of ours!

[Sop_Monkey]

PSF2J

All I asked was a straight answer. Still didn't get it. Ever thought about going into politics? You would be ideal for the house.

I don't try and dictate to anyone. However I will add that a lot of my early career involved operations, some it from "banana" shaped strips, both vertically and horizontally. So been there, done that and what I am trying to convey it just ain't worth it. Experience teaches you that as you only get away with it so long. I was very young and yes stupid. I am no ace and don't want to be either as "good pilots tend to get themselves killed", one way or another and unfortunately the grave yards are full of them. Was I lucky? Extremely. I retired from that sort of non passenger flying at 30, after 10 years. Flown medium and heavy a/c since, so I do feel I have the background to pass comment but not to dictate.

[flydive1]

All I asked was a straight answer. Still didn't get it.

Probably you did not get an answer because, as other said, your question did not make sense.

[PSF2J]

sop_monkey

Your last post is your problem. You think that luck and getting away with it is involved. My flying doesn't involve luck. Never has, never will.

Seriously, you should hang up the goggles.

[Sop_Monkey]

What about fate, wrong place at the wrong time? Or are you immune?

[PSF2J]

Well there's sweet FA anyone can do about that then :confused:

You do understand the definition of fate?

"the development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power."

Please tell me how you control that one? :suspect:

Unless, your clairvoyancy skills are what keep you 'safe' and 'lucky'; You clever man :ok:

I make sure I do everything within my control to operate safely.

[gcap]

I had about 6000 hours flying the Dash 7 in true STOL operations.
Then went to the 727 where we operated into St Thomas when it was 4800 ft.
Then to the A-310 which we also took into St Thomas.
We regularly landed the 72 inDCA on Rwy 33
I now fly a Global into 4255'.
I don't see the big deal. You do it right, or you don't do it at all

[cambioso]

SOP and Encore...............I guess it's about time to get your coats eh?
Byeeeeeeeeee
Jez

[Encorebaby]

PSF2J...

Based on your definition of FATE, I suppose that is why commercial ops apply safety factors, it adds a basic protection over and above the seat of your pants.

Cambioso...

Why is it time to get my coat?

[His dudeness]

wrong place at the wrong time?

No idea what you are on about with this, but I´d say the wrong place could translate to touchdown not in touchdown zone....if you have a short strip, you know where you have to sit. If you don´t, for whatever reason, G/A.

And yes, should the brakes fail, should I screw up, I have less margin. That is perfectly clear to us crew members and my passengers alike. So what ? They are prepared to take that risk and I´m too, mitigation is factor 1,25 and trust reversers. For standing water we use 1,44...

After all, we sit in an pressurized cabin, cruise at 460+ kts 8 miles high were we can´t live and the OAT is -65°, fly over oceans, deserts and mountains - flying is a risk compared to walking on a solid ground.

I can´t really change my home base (no IFR airfield close by) and the risk we take by operating that plane there is calculated. Part of this calculation was the choice of an airplane with very low V-speeds, 2 tires on every gear, almost straight wings, a beefy brake system (same system than on the heavier C750) and T/Rs.

I know for a fact (own experience) that we operate our airplane very often way more conservative than commercial operators. Especially range/payload wise.
Is it a greater risk to fly to an island with one alternate far away with no fuel to spare at max possible FL and standard weights calculated for holiday makers, or a short hop with minimum fuel, calculated for FL 240, departing a VFR field in EDDF airspace where you know you can´t get up there, let alone quickly ... or operating into a short airfield that you know inside out with a factor of 1,25 ?

I know the answer to that one, do you ?

[His dudeness]

I suppose that is why commercial ops apply safety factors, it adds a basic protection over

Yeah and what about the commercial operators that managed to overrun runways despite the factors ? Factor wrong ? too little ?

private simply won't be able to justify NOT applying the same factors as commercial ops and hey presto

Really ? I don´t think so, but maybe you are right - I´m no specialist in SMS, from what I have gathered yet I thought, the SMS is more about other things...
like non compliance to rulesn`regs etc...

I would be pleased to fly only to and from runways 3 miles long, I would´nt mind an even longer one ..... by flying into small airfields....yet reality dictates different things. The line to draw is the numbers in that thick book they give us with the airplane. If you need more and you´re the PIC, apply whatever you need. If your SIC, harass your PIC if you are uncomfortable with the numbers. Easy, innit ?

[PSF2J]

Encorebaby,

You mean to say that a safety factor is added for "predetermined supernatural power"? :uhoh: If its outside of a persons control, then there is little you can do about it.....factor or not. :ugh: That really is the poorest argument I have seen for that one.

As for you considering of "protection", protection from what exactly? Your own errors?

Stick with your charter/airline operator. They'll have your back when it goes wrong. Guaranteed. They'll be with you because you used the safety factors. :{ Grow up son.

I'm with Cambioso.

[Encorebaby]

Birds of a feather...

[Sop_Monkey]

Come on son, we're goin' home. Leave this lot to it.:}

[OXF ATC]

Surprised nobody here has highlighted the huge difference in landing performance between business jets. Something like the Falcon 50 needs a fraction of the landing distance of say a Lear 60 or Premier 1. Factor for a wet runway and the latter two don't have access to thousands of airports that the Falcon will quite safely get into. We're talking typically 1500 to 2000 ft more runway required - that's a huge difference.

[flydive1]

Come on son, we're goin' home. Leave this lot to it.:}

Just make sure the door is 3 times as wide as required, you do not want to get hurt.;)

[Sop_Monkey]

You're right too risky, so i'm staying.

Some of you chaps either have big b***s or are extremely stupid. Ya can't be too careful ya hear??!!!

Where did I put my tin hat darling?

[His dudeness]

Ya can't be too careful ya hear??!!!

Noted. Now, carry on...

BTW, I´m stupid. My wife said so, umpteen times...

[PSF2J]

Oh this just gets better! So I agree with Cambioso, and you assume the byeeeeeeee bit? := As for birds of a feather, at least I know I can fly.

Wow, sop_monkey and encorebaby, you two really are like the second part of your names here.

Sop_monkey, you'll need your clipboard, company ops manual, the necessary commercial EASA regulations, SMS manual, and risk assessment sheets for the clipboard as a minimum. Better start using them. :8 The company and EASA will help you get out of the room; they've got your back.

Now the door is 3 times wider than normal, but not sure thats an adequate enough safety factor for your operation. Let me know what the risk assessment reads. I'm guessing it'll come out as high risk, so thats a no-go! Bad news though, only one door out.

So you're now in an emergency with only the one door out but good news though too! You can follow the company ops manual and go out the window which is 6 times smaller than the door :ok: - don't worry the manual says its fine because now its an emergency you don't need a safety factor:)! You can believe whats written in the manual. The 6 storey drop you ask? Don't worry. I told you earlier. The company and EASA have got your back. :rolleyes:

Whats that you want me to think outside of the manual and ring 911/999/112, just for extra safety for you? Nah, sorry. Its not in your manual, therefore you don't need it do you? My thinking would require a full risk assessment, and imagine if the auditors gotta hold of my paperwork :{

So out you go, legs first. The problem is the company didn't factor in the size of your head to start with in the manual. And now you're stuck with your body out of the window suspended by your head.

Don't worry! Company and EASA will be there, once you've:
1) completed and filed an MOR for the danger you were put in,
2) filled in the safety feedback form (company manual requirement),
3) completed a risk assessment of the window you've just jumped out of, found out the manual is in error and written to the chief pilot, (you had a couple of minutes waiting time) and
4) auditor has audited your flight return paperwork. By the way, your weight and balance, shocking! :E

Let me know how it goes won't you?

flydive1 Post of the day goes to you fellow :D:ok:

As per usual I come to pprune to realise how much of an idiot I really am, and how common sense and practical skill, is being shadowed by baffoons hiding behind the word "safety" and thinking it will always protect them.

[Encorebaby]

Now come on there PSF, gather up your toys and go to bed. There is no point in arguing your point coz, since you joined the ranks of the privateers aviation moved on in leaps and is now lining up to put you in your box along with the rest of us. We've all enjoyed Top Gun but it's just a movie and most of us realise that a modern commercial jet deserves a little more respect and quite frankly so do your pax. I honestly understand your point but the reality is that regulation will win out in the end and you'll end up having to pop your plane on an AOC just so you can be compliant, I hear Malta is cheap. The fact that you will have to seek a longer runway for your pax can only be good news for you anyway. LA Mole or Cannes? The sensible choice of course...Nice :D

[Sop_Monkey]

PSF2J

Nice one!! Haha!! :D:D:D

"Let me know how it goes won't you?"

It didn't go so well. Manuals weren't updated/amended = showstopper.

Now ya all fly safe ya hear.

[tommoutrie]

hang on, are we still talking about the same thing?

Nice, Cannes, La Mole?

you go to La Mole because its how you get to St Tropez.

you go to Cannes because its how you get to Cannes.

you go to Nice because the Landmark girls work at Nice. There is no other reason.

...mmmmm...landmark girls....

by the way, didn't this discussion start by talking about landing a Falcon at Guernsey? How is Guernsey short for a Falcon? Even Jez, with his fading eyesight and shaky hands, can land a falcon in about half the length of Guernsey. If you resurfaced it in Teflon and smeared in in a light coating of KY you could still probably land a falcon on it. Why are we talking about landing short on Guernsey? Probably land on 27 and turn off at Bravo if you tired hard on a breezy day.

[His dudeness]

by the way, didn't this discussion start by talking about landing a Falcon at Guernsey?

Come on Tom, its pprune....

[MisterT]

"duck below the glide"
Mr T, surely when you do this on a visual approach the wings fall off don't they.

Cambisio have to admit don't understand this response - I assuming with this flippant comment you are one of these pilots who feel it acceptable to duck under the glide to get the plane into a tight spot!

What I don't understand is if you have calculated the landing performance which is based on 50ft over the threshold why the need to duck below the glide.

Also from the planes I have flown the AFM figures always show that a slightly steeper approach , say 3.5 degrees, reduces landing distance , so by convention 3 reds would increase your landing distance because you've reduced your approach angle.

Do other private pilots agree that ducking below glide is perfectly acceptable approach to landing on a short runway or are your of the opinion that this is gash!!

Also what your private boys keep on missing is that the landing on a short runway is only a small part of the puzzle. How many of your private guys have had to divert from small runway due say bad weather only to turn up at your alternate with all the fuel annuincator lights on due to keeping ramp fuel to a minimum to ensure you can make the landing distance at your original destination?

[PSF2J]

Encorebaby, have you finished your diatribe yet? No, the regulation won't win, and we won't be forced to join in, because thankfully billionaires rule the world :E Plus, we'll just find a registry that suits. I bet you in 20years, we will still be able to have the same conversation. You really should work directly for EASA or an insurance firm. They'd love you.

Tom, you are spot on. A lot of pilots don't seem to appreciate the going to where they actually need to go for the passenger. Let's all just use the biggest runway nearby like Nice. P:mad: off!

MisterT, where to start? I've never diverted out of a small strip with all the fuel annunciator lights on. Care to tell a story to us???? As for ducking below the glide, the glide is irrelevant when you are going into a short strip where there is no IAP or PAPIs. Your approach should put you on the numbers at a decent descent angle to clear all obstacles. The problems come from pilots so engrained with using the papi's that they can't cope without them. Skill loss again.

BTW, nothing wrong with ducking below the glide, when your are VISUAL and clear of Obstacles. It's steepening the approach path and therefore falls in to line with your performance assumption. If you went to some places Citation pilots go, and didn't adjust your technique, you would be a statistic. Once again, we are back to a discussion of being a pilot, or an aircraft IT operator.

Sop_monkey Thank you for the good sense of humour. Had a giggle writing it. Safe flying to you to.

[NuName]

EGKB is a perfect example of a great place to duck under the G/S, low over the grass, shallow angle, on the numbers, save the brakes, happy pax. Still trying to work out how a steeper angle reduces landing distance, must have missed something over the years. :ouch:

[Sop_Monkey]

NuName

I figure I may be able to assist. Take the angel to the extreme and approach vertically you will land real short. Whether the aircraft or anyone on-board would be in any shape to depart maybe be subject to debate.:}

[Encorebaby]

Nuname,

All normal AFM landing performance data is calculated from 50ft screen height. From this point it takes approximately 830 ft lateral forward distance to the touch down zone. What the AFM figure is saying is that, for example, at 50 ft altitude on approach the LDR equals 3000, this means 830 ft to the TDZ then a further 2170 ground run to stop.

If one increases ones approach angle then one is effectively bringing this 50 ft point closer to the TDZ which is the same physical point on the runway regardless of approach angle. For conjecture if we were to land vertically on the TDZ our ground run required in the AFM would be 2170 ft rather than 3000.

Ducking below the glide path is notoriously dangerous as proven by two very notable recent examples, a citation in Germany and a Lear Jet in Barbados though exact cause I'm not sure of both hit obstacles on the final approach path. A great deal of study by airlines has proven that unstable approaches, as yours would be by ducking below the glide, are a major cause of runway issues/crashes, again many notable examples.:=

[Sop_Monkey]

Agreed.

A European Flag carrier took out the fence on approach to St Maarten a few years ago, in a 747. They certainly weren't 50' above, more like 5', as the fence is only about 6' IIRC. WX, server VMC.

[NuName]

When one becomes visual and continues the approach visually there is no longer a prescribed G/S to follow, so I will re-phrase, I make a lower approach visually than I would using instrument approach criteria. The steeper the approach the more difficult it becomes to transition to the touch down attitude making it probable that the distance from the threshold to the stopping point is increased. If there are no approach aids one makes a visual approach and with a shortish runway, and/or downhill, wet? is it good to aim to be 50 feet above the threshold when there are no obstacles to negotiate on the extended centreline?

[Encorebaby]

A tricky approach, wind induced turbulence, perspective and of course bodies waving at you from very short final:ok:

[Encorebaby]

NuName,

The actual distance from the touch down point to the end of the landing run (full stop) is not effected by approach angle. The only difference is the distance from screen height to Touch down point according to the AFM figures, increase the angle...reduce the LDR. A good example of this is London City, steep approach angle and short runway. Because the standard 50 ft screen height still applies according to performance calculations this will occure closer to the touch down point therefore not 830 ft but more like 400 ft (we have almost doubled the normal 3 degree angle so half the lateral distance, not exact science). Stopping distance is unchanged.

50 ft at the threshold is meaningless, under normal approach path angles one would expect to cross the threshold approximately higher than this. Visual approaches still require a stable approach which in turn must satisfy the criteria for a stable approach. Just because we can elect to fly a visual approach does not preclude safe obsticles clearance flying. One also be careful not to alter ones Verticle speed or approach angle greatly on short final because this will trigger EGPWS warnings resulting in a go around.

[fjordviking]

When accepting no safety margin You will eventually run out of luck.

The factoring is there for a reason.

In my humble career i've had an hydraulic wheel brake faliure after landing, had to use pneumatic alternate brake procedure with no antiskid. Had no warning beforehand during approach. This is a proceure with a landing distance increase
Of 1.37.

Some of the posters in here Even brag about being such skilled pilots And not needing any safety margins.
I just call it being plain stupid.

[CL300]

Distance from a 3° glide at a screen height of 50ft to touchdown is 920ft...
At 50 ft 1.23 Vso and touchdown point at 1.0 Vso Throttles closed, main wheels and all proximity switches energised, within 6 seconds nose wheel touches and reversers can be deployed ( braking may start before nose wheel on the ground), maximum braking to the full stop, that means do not modulate the brakes.

If you increase the approach angle, and keep the screen height identical, the flare will make you touchdown sooner. hence a shorter landing distance. ( some manufacturers like Cessna on their Excel, even computed a special Vref for LCY); Airbus has a special mode as well for this airport, as well as a special flare command call-outs.

All this being legal, because in the AFM, and pilots trained for it.

Factoring at one two three doesn't matter, if you have a failure or encountered unreported conditions, only experience or luck can make the outcome successful , and this is where EXPERIENCE comes into play. If coming from airline ops with 20 dispatchers and barely knowing how the fuel panel is working ( example) towards a small ops, even flying one of the best flying machine ( the other one is the falcon 50EX, awaiting the F8X); one can find it very challenging even with 15k hours of autopilot flying, or island hoping in a piston.
On one side, this is another ILS, on the other side, i can transform my plane in a flying rock and still recover in no time..

Guys, short field is a perception, and of course everyone agrees that more runway, more fuel, more performance, more salary, every is better; just admit that ops dictates the rules, and the set of rules is chosen in order to accomplish the mission. so from a A380 perspective 8000 ft can appear tiny, where a MAULE can land in the width of the same runway.

There is not one type of aviation, but as many as operators or destinations; find the one that suits you the best, and enjoy every minute of it.

I know the aviation which i belong to, and i rather not be flying than to end up FO in a B77 in the sandpit.

[Journey Man]

There's a great deal of misunderstanding in this thread regarding how landing performance is calculated and what demonstration the figures are extrapolated from. It probably doesn't matter, as most of it has been lost amongst the mud slinging.

Private operations can do as they please within the realms of the regulations for private operators. As Cambioso, I believe, said - apologies if it was the other chap - the owner assumes the risks as do the crew. A commercial operator simply could not assume the same risks, or rely on the same acceptance of that risk from the passengers, as their passengers are rarely qualified enough to understand the risks or assume them. The commander makes the ultimate judgement - this is true whether we're discussing private, or commercial operations.

[PURPLE PITOT]

I have landed, ( and then taken off again,) a GLEX on an aircraft carrier. Anything is possible if the numbers add up.

P.s JM is spot on.

[BizJetJock]

Also a lot of misunderstanding about risk management. Likelihood of a particular hazard occuring is very dependent on the scale of the operation.
If we take the proverbial "one in a million" chance, an operation like Jez's that does 750 hours a year - a lot for a corporate operator - can expect this hazard to occur once every 1,300 years. Even allowing for the fact that statistics don't work that way, it seems like reasonable odds to me as a pilot, and certainly to the sort of passengers we fly (often risk takers to have achieved what they have).
On the other hand, if you take Ryanair, their fleet of 400+ aircraft operate somewhere around 2 million hours each year. All of a sudden the same hazard is something it's worth spending a lot of effort to avoid, or you'll be having an expensive major incident every six months or so.
So when considering accepting less than the full 1.67 factor, which doesn't guarantee anything anyway when you look at all the possible scenarios, and allowing for the fact that you rarely need to go all the way down to 1.0, it's not much of an issue provided the crew understand the hazards and aren't just indulging in macho "we're better than airline pilots" bull****.
Of course, even in airlines as soon as the runway is wet you're usually down to about a 1.3 factor anyway, but probably less than 50% of pilots actually realise that.

[Weypoint Wayne]

Pretty emotive thread!! I have no particular opinion either way we all have a job to do but I was reminded of a job I did a few years ago which will stay with me as a lesson in mortality. I was paired up with an infamous Dutch captain flying a beaten up old C550 that was older than me. I had never been to Samedan and he wasn't current within 12 months but this was a private job for the owner so it didn't matter. This particular Dutch Captain had a way of convincing you that all would be ok, he had apparently been there many times. The weather was marginal on the day and TBH in retrospect very little chance of actually getting in. Anyhow who was I to intervene, this guy had it all under control a real maverick!!! We arrived overhead in cloud cancelled IFR thankfully above MSA and by now to be fair we had broken out of cloud. He flew around until he could see a way into the valley and down we went his determination to get the job done and not to disappoint the owner guiding us up the valley dodging gliders and clouds. When we landed the old girl decided to throw a brake failure at us!!! My illustrious Dutch companion managed to stop us eventually in a Bambi style slither and cool as a cucumber he waved off the owner. It turns out that this same Dutch character had a list of misgivings as long as his hair and he went on to torment people the length and breadth of Europe. Can anyone here remember this guy? Where is he now?
Wayne

[CL300]

C550 - SAMEDAN

Impressive but not really a limiting airport for this type of plane, and the runway is twice longer than required.

Failures occurs, granted.

In my time in the Falcon 10, total hydraulic failure would make us to look at anything longer than 8000 ft just for the minimum length...

By the way in EASA land, when failure occurs, what is your factored landing ? is it not 1 ?

I do not know this particular Dutch, but i remember a particular britisch/french/nigerian bloke, that had a very specific way of looking at the AFM..lol

[Journey Man]

CL300,

By EASA land, I assume you mean European AOC holders? Once you're airborne, the pilot applied factor is x1.0 for non emergency situations, so yes, emergency situations are no different. Now, how you got anywhere near a factor of x1.0 from your operational dispatch planning of x1.67, x1.92 or the relevant contaminated runway data, would be an interesting story, but the preflight landing assessment essentially is just that. You have to ensure you have the AFM listed distance and the commander makes his assessment (with input from the FO, before I get slated for suggesting poor CRM…)

[His dudeness]

Also a lot of misunderstanding about risk management. Likelihood of a particular hazard occurring is very dependent on the scale of the operation.

Being stupid, IF I where to access risk by numbers, where would I get them ? Landing overrun statistics in non comm environment with rwy factors applied less than 1,43/1,67 ? Is there such a statistic easily available ?

OTOH, is there a real issue ? how many overruns with non comm airplanes did really occur ?

[CL300]

Generally, it is done by a system of points for a given flight, with a committee assessing the danger associated with each condition

Night, single runway, new crew, late arrival,MOR received etc... at the end you sum up the points and have a "risk assessment' , of course this is full of bs in our segment, since most of charter AOC have the "prior management release thingy" leaving the final go to the DOA.

From Green to Black, cover your back.

It is working very well in an airline environment , in ours it is more or less a textbook exercise, sometimes overshadowing the real day to day issues.

This is only reflecting my experience of course.

[His dudeness]

Night, single runway, new crew, late arrival,MOR received etc... at the end you sum up the points and have a "risk assessment'

In short, we do what we always did plus we fill in a paper. Yeah, i can see how this is gonna change "things" a lot.

My contempt for these bureaucrats is on an all time high...again...

[PSF2J]

Spot on his_dudeness :D

[FricklyFart]

I think for 99% of the trips what you have well exceeds the margin of what the book calls for and the plane usually exceeds the capability of the pilot.

To put all pilots in the same bucket isn't fair. There are times when the aircraft needs a ferry over water, flown in difficult places, in difficult weather, special permit approaches, private ranches, single pilot so all seats filled, long trips that stretch the fuel with bad weather at the other end, alts right to max for fuel, squaks, the list goes on. Sometimes a company needs an aircraft and pilot that are flown to their capability instead of milk runs.