Short-Field experience (on jet types)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Last edited by cambioso; 30th Jan 2015 at 06:55.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by con-pilot; 29th Jan 2015 at 22:57. Reason: Flaps 40 comment.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Correction (See CL300s post #27):
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 canīt 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: Iīm definitely no sky god, at best Iīm 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.
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 donīt 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.
THAT decision making is why we are paid, IMHO....
And they do know why we canīt 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: Iīm definitely no sky god, at best Iīm 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.
Last edited by His dudeness; 30th Jan 2015 at 07:14. Reason: Sbellink / correction
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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...
Always loved the looks of the B727, sexiest ass of any plane :-), miss em...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 donīt 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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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 canīt 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...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The back end of nowhere!
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Why not just make the factor 3.00 just to make sure? 
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
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.
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.
Why not just make the factor 3.00 just to make sure? 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
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.