Short-Field experience (on jet types)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short-Field experience (on jet types)
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
i think that what it is meant for short-field experience ( i.e. on the limit of the AFM, and the associated regulations)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Banbury, United Kingdom
Age: 69
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
Last edited by CL300; 29th Jan 2015 at 15:17.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: EGKB
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
... as such going into all these ridiculous 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 !!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: EGKB
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The airports are ridiculous to me because your operating the plane to the limit.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..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...
going to Anguilla in a few days...which is a bit short...