Teaching Performance at PPL level
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching Performance at PPL level
Hi all, I'm just going through some PPL questions and am finding that the calculation questions in Performance use factors taken from the old CAA Safety Sense leaflet which is so out of date it refers to ANGRs and Perf E. There is a table of factors for grass etc. which in many cases does not correlate to EU OPS and the present Class B operation. Do you still teach to the factors in the Safety Sense leaflet?
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Bush
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP1535, Skyway Code, page 47. The document was last revised in March 2021 so one would hope it is accurate.
Extracts from the Skyway code are given to students in the new UK e-Exams too.
Extracts from the Skyway code are given to students in the new UK e-Exams too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, useful document. Its the factors on page 49 (same as the old safety sense leaflet) that I am trying to reconcile with Class B in EU-OPS, one would have thought they would be the same. The 'general safety factor' on take-off of 1.33 is not something I recognise and some of the surface factors are different. It seems odd to teach one set of safety factors in PPL then another set at CPL/ATPL. Will research further
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1.33 take-off factor is referenced in CAT.POL.A.400 for performance class C aircraft, isn't class B Turbo props? Class C is reciprocating engines. The 1.33 then refers to twin engines, but the safety sense is saying you should use those safety factors even for singles or PPL's.
Not sure the other safety factors are different from those mentioned in Part-NCO.
Not sure the other safety factors are different from those mentioned in Part-NCO.
PPL studies have never involved a knowledge of commercial operations. The limitations and guidance for private flights including take-off and landing are found only by reference to the Aircraft Manual/POH. Certain performance data is not available in many aircraft manuals though, especially very early ones, but it is not a requirement to write up an operational limitation as a supplement and have it approved. Amendments to aircraft manuals particularly operating data is sometimes required by the CAA to be inserted as an amendment to the POH.
The guidance given for take off and landing in the old but still current Safety Sense leaflet, in my view, is excellent and has a particular purpose; to act as guidance when, and only when, the aircraft manual does not. The advice is always generic and can be described, at best, as putting the pilot on the safe side of wrong, however never compulsory.
I don't think there are two conflicting standards. The additional limitations imposed for commercial ops are there to deal with the sometimes intense external pressures that a commercial pilot can be subject to.
The guidance given for take off and landing in the old but still current Safety Sense leaflet, in my view, is excellent and has a particular purpose; to act as guidance when, and only when, the aircraft manual does not. The advice is always generic and can be described, at best, as putting the pilot on the safe side of wrong, however never compulsory.
I don't think there are two conflicting standards. The additional limitations imposed for commercial ops are there to deal with the sometimes intense external pressures that a commercial pilot can be subject to.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL studies have never involved a knowledge of commercial operations. The limitations and guidance for private flights including take-off and landing are found only by reference to the Aircraft Manual/POH. Certain performance data is not available in many aircraft manuals though, especially very early ones, but it is not a requirement to write up an operational limitation as a supplement and have it approved. Amendments to aircraft manuals particularly operating data is sometimes required by the CAA to be inserted as an amendment to the POH.
The guidance given for take off and landing in the old but still current Safety Sense leaflet, in my view, is excellent and has a particular purpose; to act as guidance when, and only when, the aircraft manual does not. The advice is always generic and can be described, at best, as putting the pilot on the safe side of wrong, however never compulsory.
I don't think there are two conflicting standards. The additional limitations imposed for commercial ops are there to deal with the sometimes intense external pressures that a commercial pilot can be subject to.
The guidance given for take off and landing in the old but still current Safety Sense leaflet, in my view, is excellent and has a particular purpose; to act as guidance when, and only when, the aircraft manual does not. The advice is always generic and can be described, at best, as putting the pilot on the safe side of wrong, however never compulsory.
I don't think there are two conflicting standards. The additional limitations imposed for commercial ops are there to deal with the sometimes intense external pressures that a commercial pilot can be subject to.
The problem would seem to be the CAA are quoting certain things in the answers to certain questions in the PPL E-Exams. The CAA shouldn't be asking things that aren't in the syllabus or things that aren't referenced in law, that would be unfair.
We were taught to use 1.33 factor for take-off, but it took a while to find where that came from. I was taught in Holland so the safety factor isn't UK only, but must have been referenced elsewhere. Like I said in my answer I think Alex classed PPL as Perf B while they are more Class C, for Class C there is reference to 1.33 take-off factor.
The CAA shouldn't be asking things that aren't in the syllabus or things that aren't referenced in law, that would be unfair.
Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 11th Jun 2021 at 00:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class C is for aircraft with reciprocating engines and with either an MOPSC of more than nine or a maximum take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg. Light piston singles and twins would be certified under CS.23 and operated in Performance Class B, a Class for aeroplanes powered by propeller engines with an MOPSC of nine or less and a maximum take-off mass of 5 700 kg or less.
The CAA factors come from pre-JAA days when different Performance Groups A to E existed, the TORA/TODA/ASDA factoring requirements in a modern Class B operation are quite different.
The 1.33 factor undoubtably originates from the old CAA Performance Group E although it may have been retained by EASA for any big piston aircraft still flying commercially. Safety Sense leaflet 07 even refers to ANGRs and specifically mentions Group E.
The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 1993 said at 10 1. (b) The distance required by the aeroplane to attain a height of 50 feet, with all power units operating within the maximum take off power conditions specified, when multiplied by a factor of 1:33 does not exceed the emergency distance available at the aerodrome at which the take off is to be made.
The whole thing looks a bit out of date to me. Seems a bit odd to be teaching factors at PPL based on a UK regulation that is 20 years plus out of date and then teaching different factors for the same aircraft at CPL/ATPL. Do we know who is in charge of this section of the PPL syllabus at the CAA?
The CAA factors come from pre-JAA days when different Performance Groups A to E existed, the TORA/TODA/ASDA factoring requirements in a modern Class B operation are quite different.
The 1.33 factor undoubtably originates from the old CAA Performance Group E although it may have been retained by EASA for any big piston aircraft still flying commercially. Safety Sense leaflet 07 even refers to ANGRs and specifically mentions Group E.
The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 1993 said at 10 1. (b) The distance required by the aeroplane to attain a height of 50 feet, with all power units operating within the maximum take off power conditions specified, when multiplied by a factor of 1:33 does not exceed the emergency distance available at the aerodrome at which the take off is to be made.
The whole thing looks a bit out of date to me. Seems a bit odd to be teaching factors at PPL based on a UK regulation that is 20 years plus out of date and then teaching different factors for the same aircraft at CPL/ATPL. Do we know who is in charge of this section of the PPL syllabus at the CAA?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which in many cases does not correlate to EU OPS
UK CAA safety factors recommended for private pilots appear to be derived from previous/current AN(G)R 2006 Schedule 1 (found within CAP 393) as published in Safety Sense Leaflet 07c and duplicated in the CAA Skyway Code.
ifitaint...
The table labelled ‘performance changes’ on p46 of SkyWay Code V3 shows landing distance factors of x1.1 for ‘1000 ft increase in elevation’ and for ‘10°C increase in temperature’, whereas the latest PPL e-Exam workbook has been amended with landing distance factors of x1.05 for these conditions.
The PPL e-Exam Flight Performance and Planning Qs and As have been checked by CAAi against the 1.05 factor and are correct.
I have pointed out the anomaly to the SkyWay code editors.
The PPL e-Exam Flight Performance and Planning Qs and As have been checked by CAAi against the 1.05 factor and are correct.
I have pointed out the anomaly to the SkyWay code editors.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Beags. What is a PPL e-exam workbook and how can I get one? I have looked on the PPL e-exams page and its not jumping out at me.
The PPL e-Exam Flight Performance and Planning Qs and As have been checked by CAAi against the 1.05 factor and are correct.
Can you let us know where you found it, Alex? Pretty please? 
I think anyone who can find this essential piece of reading deserves some exam credits. However, the code appears. on first scanning, to be well structured, presented and with a bit of development (NOT TOO MUCH) covers all the PPL needs to know (sic).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you let us know where you found it, Alex? Pretty please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,803
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still have a problem with the 1.33 factor. It clearly was taken from ANGRs in the distant past and follows the old Perf E thing, gross TODR x 1.33 must be less than or equal to EDA, with the logic that perf E was mandatory for AoC operations and advisory for private flights. Anyone operating say a Seneca in the UK on both AoC and private would now have 2 quite different sets of factors to apply, a 20 year old Perf E advisory factor for private and the mandatory Class B factors for AoC ops. Shurely shomething wrong? Also
(1) the ANGR factor is UK only, if we are trying to teach PPL to the EASA syllabus across Europe (as we are) this 1.33 is going to be restricted to UK and a few Northern European nations who still think the CAA is worth following.
(2) over the years the EDA part of it has been forgotten, so now it seems to be applied to what? TORA? TODA? ASDA?
(1) the ANGR factor is UK only, if we are trying to teach PPL to the EASA syllabus across Europe (as we are) this 1.33 is going to be restricted to UK and a few Northern European nations who still think the CAA is worth following.
(2) over the years the EDA part of it has been forgotten, so now it seems to be applied to what? TORA? TODA? ASDA?
the logic that perf E was mandatory for AoC operations and advisory for private flights. Anyone operating say a Seneca in the UK on both AoC and private would now have 2 quite different sets of factors to apply, a 20 year old Perf E advisory factor for private and the mandatory Class B factors for AoC ops.
For the pilot there was no dilemma: A commercial flight: then they would apply the AOC factoring in addition to the POH manual but if a private flight then it was not necessary. I cannot remember ever the CAA providing operational direction to pilots to apply the commercial factoring figures for private flights other than perhaps some few wise words for PPLs in the Safety Sense leaflet. I don't believe EASA provides anything different but if I'm wrong on that one I will need to eat my googles.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue is what is being taught for exams. We understand that applying safety factors to the flight manual performance data is (for the most part) mandatory for commercial air transport but only advisory for private flights. The question is why the factors advised in the Skyway code are different from the factors required in CAT.POL.A. given the difference, which document are the PPL exams based on?
Specifically the safety factor applied to take off distance. CAT.POL.A.305 (performance class B) says
When no stopway or clearway available
(b) The unfactored take-off distance, specified in the AFM, shall not exceed:
when multiplied by a factor of 1,25, the take-off run available (TORA);
(This is also reflected in CAP 698 SEP1)
However the Skyway code states general safety factor for take off 1.33
In other respects the documents appear consistent with each other. In particular the factor for runway slope: CAT.POL.A says unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the take-off distance should be increased by 5% for each 1% of upslope. The skyway code recommends a factor of x 1.1 for each 2% of upslope on take off, which amounts to the same thing.
At an ATO it may be that your PART-ORA ATO manual requires the safety factors specified in CAT.POL.A (PART-NCO notwithstanding). In which case the 1.33 factor in the Skyway code (and PPL exams?) could be inconsistent with the ATO manual.
Specifically the safety factor applied to take off distance. CAT.POL.A.305 (performance class B) says
When no stopway or clearway available
(b) The unfactored take-off distance, specified in the AFM, shall not exceed:
when multiplied by a factor of 1,25, the take-off run available (TORA);
(This is also reflected in CAP 698 SEP1)
However the Skyway code states general safety factor for take off 1.33
In other respects the documents appear consistent with each other. In particular the factor for runway slope: CAT.POL.A says unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the take-off distance should be increased by 5% for each 1% of upslope. The skyway code recommends a factor of x 1.1 for each 2% of upslope on take off, which amounts to the same thing.
At an ATO it may be that your PART-ORA ATO manual requires the safety factors specified in CAT.POL.A (PART-NCO notwithstanding). In which case the 1.33 factor in the Skyway code (and PPL exams?) could be inconsistent with the ATO manual.
Last edited by Rivet gun; 15th Jun 2021 at 11:56.