m&v
27th Jul 2002, 18:38
In Canada,Some time ago, whilst discussing the adoption of JAR's as a standard, it came to light that the JAR 'wet' screen was arrived at utilizing the same procedural distance as the dry scenario..(utilizing Clearway)..
We were led to believe that the prominent JAR authorities weren't too happy about this,and would have liked to see the 15' screen at the end of the runway????? Is this still the case??
As you know the FAA have adopted(under the guise of Harmonization),the 'wet'(reduced V1/15' screen)concept-but stipulate that it doesn't apply to the present fleet(B777 excepted)as no one wanted to foot the bill for the 'wet'testing..
Canada has adopted the JARs totally in their Certification of recent types(Bombardier etc)..
back to question one,If the rules are aligned with the Dry concept do we assume(dangerous)that one crosses the end of the Runway surface(utilizing the 'wet'info)at about 9' enroute to our 15'screen at the end of the Clearway..Only 50% of the required distance to the screen is over runway!!:rolleyes:
We were led to believe that the prominent JAR authorities weren't too happy about this,and would have liked to see the 15' screen at the end of the runway????? Is this still the case??
As you know the FAA have adopted(under the guise of Harmonization),the 'wet'(reduced V1/15' screen)concept-but stipulate that it doesn't apply to the present fleet(B777 excepted)as no one wanted to foot the bill for the 'wet'testing..
Canada has adopted the JARs totally in their Certification of recent types(Bombardier etc)..
back to question one,If the rules are aligned with the Dry concept do we assume(dangerous)that one crosses the end of the Runway surface(utilizing the 'wet'info)at about 9' enroute to our 15'screen at the end of the Clearway..Only 50% of the required distance to the screen is over runway!!:rolleyes: