Low Capacity RPT Take Off Req'ments >5700kg

[scramjet]

Take Off Distance Req'd?


Before the CASA flight manuals were thrown away and we were required to use the original manufacturers handbook, we were required to use charts that were factored by the appropriate amount. Now that we are using the manufacturers hand books again we have to do the factoring ourselves. The trouble is from the following CAO excerpts it would appear as though there is a reduced requirement for RPT ops in the same aircraft then there is for Charter? This to my way of thinking fly's in the face of the idea that RPT has more stringent requirements than Charter.

For example If I am fly to a particular desitination in my Piper Navajo on a RPT flight then I only have to use the manufacturers figures. But If I finish the RPT and then get a charter to the same destination then I have to Factor the "P" Charts and possibly require a reduced take off weight then I had only a few hours before. Am I missing something here? Surely there has got to be some other legislation hiding somewhere that explains this situation?

AEROPLANE WEIGHT AND PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS –
AEROPLANES NOT ABOVE 5700 KG — PRIVATE, AERIAL WORK
(EXCLUDING AGRICULTURAL) AND CHARTER OPERATIONS

CAO 20.7.4
6 TAKE-OFF DISTANCE REQUIRED
6.1 Subject to paragraph 6.3, the take-off distance required is the distance to
accelerate from a standing start with all engines operating and to achieve takeoff
safety speed at a height of 50 feet above the take-off surface, multiplied by
the following factors:
(a) 1.15 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 2000 kg or less;
(b) 1.25 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 3500 kg or greater;
or
(c) for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights between 2000 kg and 3500
kg, a factor derived by linear interpolation between 1.15 and 1.25
according to the maximum take-off weight of the aeroplane.

AEROPLANE WEIGHT AND PERFORMANCE
LIMITATIONS — MULTI-ENGINE
AEROPLANES NOT ABOVE 5700KG –
REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATIONS

CAO 20.7.2
3 TAKE-OFF PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS
3.1 No aeroplane shall take off at a weight in excess of the take-off weight
specified in the aeroplane flight manual for the take-off distance available.
In determining this weight, account shall be taken of the aerodrome pressure
altitude, ambient temperature, runway surface and slope, and the wind
velocity at the time of take-off.

[Creampuff]

Gaunty: in 25,000 words or less.......

[gaunty]

:p

BIK_116.80 already done it, much better.:} :ooh: :ok:
He's been getting some learning.:D

--------------------
Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.

[I Fly]

BIK_116.80 has provided a very good explanation on where the information comes from (or not). I am not worried as to whether the take-off or landing distances are factored or not. I can do that. However CAO 20.7.4.7 has a climb performance required of 6% and 20.7.4.9 has a landing climb performance. I am told that when the new Regs come out those requirements will disappear. Will the hills also disappear??????????
I have bought from Cessna for nearly $500 a “Pilot’s Operating Handbook and FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual” for a C172RG. It is in Charter. According to BIK_116.80 I should be covered both ways.
Section 5 tells me the Maximum rate of climb at 2650 lbs at various heights. There is NO way I can calculate what weight reduction I need to achieve the 6% at a particular height. The ‘old P-Chart’ gave me that. There is NOTHING published on the Landing Climb Performance.
What do I do?
Become a test pilot and find out by myself??
Refuse the Charter / Joyflight if I can’t achieve 6% at 2650 lbs??
We had a good system. Up until August 2002 we had a strict liability if we flew WITHOUT the P-Charts and now we have a strict liability if we fly WITH them. It makes me very wary of complying with any new rule. It might become illegal somewhere down the track.
It’s like being booked for speeding with no speed limit published, except our penalty is death.
Perhaps CASA has a hidden agenda of making it impossible to fly older aircraft?

[gaunty]

I Fly

It's simple.

The aircraft was not built or designed by the manufacturer to be used as a "charter" aircraf i.e. the carriage of the public for hire or reward.

It was built for the "private, business and recreational" market, which is considered to be "informed" and therefore not "required" to meet whatever "public transport" standards are set by a regulator from time to time.

It is therefore highly unlikely that this information will be available in any form that would be useful, unless you pay someone to produce it, and yes fly the data if you have to.

The manufacturer is not interested, why should he be so. If you want to use your Holden/Ford for purposes for which it was not intended why would they provide any additional information beyond their Australian Compliance requirements unless their was an economic imperative to do so.

As BIK_116.80 points out the old "P" chart was a regulatory mechanism invented, to try and emulate as far as it was possible the current thinking on "public standards"

You may be interested to learn that the Piston Engine airliners of the past like the DC3/4/6 etc were operated on the same simple "P" charts.
Go have a look at CAO 20.7.1b and you will find the relevant "cut off date of manufacture" for the production and use thereof.

For GA equipment the data for this "P" chart information was flown and provided by the manufacturers distributor or importer of the type into this country to the regulator for inclusion in the FM.

This was a significant cost and the information was if I recall correctly, copyright and proprietary to the original provider.

That is, it could only be provided with the original C of A issue to each aircraft of that type provided by them.
There were some serious breaches of copyright committed when new and used aircraft were "brokered" into the country outside the regular manufacturers distribution system.

An C of A couldn't be issued without the "P" chart and permission to do so was required from the owner, who for a fee, they were entitled to recover the not inconsiderable cost of the data production, would normally do so.

As you would expect rather than pay the fee, or in complete "ignorance" :rolleyes:, "photocopies" of the original from another already registered aircraft, would be presented
Their is some evidence that where "photocopies" were not available nor would be provided, that a friendly regulator would provide it from their own records.:rolleyes:
I know of a case where a new type was hired specifically for the purpose of taking the manual away for photocopying, without the knowledge of the owner.

One wonders about the legality/legitimacy of a C of A obtained under these circumstances???

I doubt that there is a hidden agenda as it is not a new idea, just the lack of anybody prepared to spend the money to produce the results.
For a couple of aircraft in charter, no way.

[I Fly]

Dear Gaunty,
Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. I would agree with you if the intended use was different from the way we use them now.
CAO 20.7.4 is applicable for “Aeroplanes not above 5700 Kg – Private, Aerial Work (excluding Agricultural) and Charter Operations.
So even for Private operations CAO 20.7.4 is binding.
What other use is there for e C 172RG that is not Private, Aerial Work or Charter?
CASA tells me that once the new Regulations come in, CAO 20.7.4 will no longer exist.
If I take some friends of mine for a flight, I still have a responsibility to bring them back safely.
I do not want to be the Test Pilot and experiment “will we out climb the hill or won’t we”. We do not have to spend any new money. We used to have the information available. That is going backwards and not forwards in matters of safety.

[gaunty]

I Fly

Correct and there is the nub of the problem in the way that the regs in this country have evolved in isolation to the US.

The old "P"chart contained most but not all of the answer in that it dealt with a minimum "climb gradient" available, but it seems that it is now going to be relegated to history without being replaced by anything meaningful.

But then we all know who to thank for starting that process.

I am just off for a cuppla days in the wine country, so given that I haven't killed the few remaining brain cells left, after the rest died as a result of GBH, I look forward to continuing the discussion.

If I take some friends of mine for a flight, I still have a responsibility to bring them back safely.

True but they are not the "public". Why or what the justification is, that "they" (your friends) should be "exposed" to a higher level of risk is moot.

BIK??

But that's for another day.

Now where did I put those Berocca....?:p :cool: :uhoh: :ooh: :ouch: