Take off and landing performance
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
But we are talking about a newly qualified pilot - that is the purpose of the thread.
Yes, we can, should, and do split up TODR and TORR, but we ALSO consider clearway. The approach of using the 50ft clearance height whilst still over the runway avoids a lot of calculations and judgements. The ability to handle those is not taught in the PPL, and I'm still of the opinion that a year or so of club flying to get the basic information bedded in, to build up some experience upon which judgments can be formed, and not least to become consistent enough in your flying that it's safe to make any kind of judgement - all of those are needed.
I'd defend to the death (well, yours anyway) the right of an experienced pilot to make those sort of judgements, and would only comment that they MUST develop enough understanding and consistency first. BUT, I really don't think it's appropriate to recommend to either a new PPL, or the average (12 hours per year) club pilot that they even contemplate it.
G
Yes, we can, should, and do split up TODR and TORR, but we ALSO consider clearway. The approach of using the 50ft clearance height whilst still over the runway avoids a lot of calculations and judgements. The ability to handle those is not taught in the PPL, and I'm still of the opinion that a year or so of club flying to get the basic information bedded in, to build up some experience upon which judgments can be formed, and not least to become consistent enough in your flying that it's safe to make any kind of judgement - all of those are needed.
I'd defend to the death (well, yours anyway) the right of an experienced pilot to make those sort of judgements, and would only comment that they MUST develop enough understanding and consistency first. BUT, I really don't think it's appropriate to recommend to either a new PPL, or the average (12 hours per year) club pilot that they even contemplate it.
G
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
.... and none of us were reccomend that a newly minted PPL tried to do anything outside of the POH. Which is WHY I quoted the POH figures.
The question was also being answered as to why people fly at these common TRAINING airfields when the figures state that it should be impossible. I say again.... TRAINING airfields not tight little strips that require an experianced pilot on type.
What I am saying is that I think a year of "club" flying will probably make them incapable of flying into tighter strips because they fly the aircraft incorrectly either through evolution of bad practice or more commonly through bad instruction.
I sit and watch people fly 152's like they are airliners, massive circuits and eating runway like a model on coke.
If the pilot fly's the aicraft in accordance with the POH and is taught to fly it that way correctly then all of the airfields mentioned at the start of this post are easily achievable.
A good pilot who wanted to fly to one of these fields and was concerned would seek guidance and maybe an accompanied flight with an instructor first.
And if pilots flew the correct numbers instead of the common 10 -20kts over the correct speed they would need less runway!
The question was also being answered as to why people fly at these common TRAINING airfields when the figures state that it should be impossible. I say again.... TRAINING airfields not tight little strips that require an experianced pilot on type.
What I am saying is that I think a year of "club" flying will probably make them incapable of flying into tighter strips because they fly the aircraft incorrectly either through evolution of bad practice or more commonly through bad instruction.
I sit and watch people fly 152's like they are airliners, massive circuits and eating runway like a model on coke.
If the pilot fly's the aicraft in accordance with the POH and is taught to fly it that way correctly then all of the airfields mentioned at the start of this post are easily achievable.
A good pilot who wanted to fly to one of these fields and was concerned would seek guidance and maybe an accompanied flight with an instructor first.
And if pilots flew the correct numbers instead of the common 10 -20kts over the correct speed they would need less runway!
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Also agree totally on the circuit size issue.
I recall flying my PA28 into Sywell last year, slotted in downwind, followed the aircraft in front (similar type), turned crosswind when he turned finals, then had to get the *&^&^& chart out because we were actually out of sight of the runway. I could have got in two circuits in that time.
Wouldn't mind so much, but I was paying for that flight!
G
I recall flying my PA28 into Sywell last year, slotted in downwind, followed the aircraft in front (similar type), turned crosswind when he turned finals, then had to get the *&^&^& chart out because we were actually out of sight of the runway. I could have got in two circuits in that time.
Wouldn't mind so much, but I was paying for that flight!
G
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: EGSX
I must take issue with a few points raised here.
1. It's true that most of the landing distance involved is due to being at a height of 50 feet at the threshold, but if you refer to CAA Safety Leaflet 7, it points out that after applying all relevant factors, that the LDR from a height of 50 feet should not exceed the LDA (with is measured as being from a height of 50 feet above the threshold). So we have to base all calculations on this figure.
2. It has been pointed out that if pilots fly in accordance with the POH and at the correct speed, that all the examples used are within limits. They are not. The figures I used at the start of the post were taken verbatim from the 152 POH and assume a correct short field landing technique being applied ( at 54Kias / 30 degree flaps ). In fact, the POH only contain figures for short field landings & take offs and does not contain any others.
3. If I had taken my test on the short field runway that is available at my home airfield, and applied all the required factors, using the correct figures issued by the CAA, and showed it to my examiner - he would have been well within his rights to fail me for even attempting to take off, even though the runway is regularily used.
Now I accept that the safety factors are a little excessive, that you can clearly land in a much shorter distance - indeed even I, with my limited experience, can quite happily stop within 200 metres using short field technique, and the safety factors are only suggested, but they are the only guide we have. Why ignore them? Indeed in the case of public transport, they are a legal requirement. What happens in these cases?
If the figures are so pessimistic, shouldn't they be altered?
1. It's true that most of the landing distance involved is due to being at a height of 50 feet at the threshold, but if you refer to CAA Safety Leaflet 7, it points out that after applying all relevant factors, that the LDR from a height of 50 feet should not exceed the LDA (with is measured as being from a height of 50 feet above the threshold). So we have to base all calculations on this figure.
2. It has been pointed out that if pilots fly in accordance with the POH and at the correct speed, that all the examples used are within limits. They are not. The figures I used at the start of the post were taken verbatim from the 152 POH and assume a correct short field landing technique being applied ( at 54Kias / 30 degree flaps ). In fact, the POH only contain figures for short field landings & take offs and does not contain any others.
3. If I had taken my test on the short field runway that is available at my home airfield, and applied all the required factors, using the correct figures issued by the CAA, and showed it to my examiner - he would have been well within his rights to fail me for even attempting to take off, even though the runway is regularily used.
Now I accept that the safety factors are a little excessive, that you can clearly land in a much shorter distance - indeed even I, with my limited experience, can quite happily stop within 200 metres using short field technique, and the safety factors are only suggested, but they are the only guide we have. Why ignore them? Indeed in the case of public transport, they are a legal requirement. What happens in these cases?
If the figures are so pessimistic, shouldn't they be altered?
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Its called arse covering and our CAA are very good at that.....
In inexperianced pilot would be wise to think about it. With experiance comes the ability to assess risk more accuratly and then you decide for yourself just how much of your arse you want to cover at any moment in time.
The CAA safety leaflets are advisory only not law for private or public transport. For public transport the operators have there own set of rules for factoring.
If you believed every advisory the CAA issued you would never use a GPS, fly in reduced viz or croswinds in fact never leave the ground.
Dont get to hung up on it, go out and fly these fields and if you are unsure take an instructor with you, they should be experianced enough to help you make the correct choices.
Where are you based? If you would like to come and see where a 152 wil go SAFELY I will take you for a trip.
In inexperianced pilot would be wise to think about it. With experiance comes the ability to assess risk more accuratly and then you decide for yourself just how much of your arse you want to cover at any moment in time.
The CAA safety leaflets are advisory only not law for private or public transport. For public transport the operators have there own set of rules for factoring.
If you believed every advisory the CAA issued you would never use a GPS, fly in reduced viz or croswinds in fact never leave the ground.
Dont get to hung up on it, go out and fly these fields and if you are unsure take an instructor with you, they should be experianced enough to help you make the correct choices.
Where are you based? If you would like to come and see where a 152 wil go SAFELY I will take you for a trip.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
With regard to proverse issues, one is required to be able to land at an aerodrome on the longest runway in no wind and on other runways in whatever wind is available (50% headwind).
Thus it is expected that one will use the longest runway until the crosswind exceeds the limts then uses the cross runway which by then will have a good headwind factor.
Since most GA operations are from single runway airfields, this is seen as an unnecessary complication for the ammateur pilot.
If anyone has a copy of Campbells book there is a nice graph for using the headwind.
Regards,
DFC
Thus it is expected that one will use the longest runway until the crosswind exceeds the limts then uses the cross runway which by then will have a good headwind factor.
Since most GA operations are from single runway airfields, this is seen as an unnecessary complication for the ammateur pilot.
If anyone has a copy of Campbells book there is a nice graph for using the headwind.
Regards,
DFC
Grandpa Aerotart
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 3
From: SWP
Tractorboy I think you're missinterpreting what is written in that leaflet...yes you're supposed to be at 50' at the 'beginning of the LDA' but that DOES NOT mean 50' over the threshold.
If a representative of CAA has told you that he is just plane wrong.
Do you really think that CAA would tolerate all these operations off short strips if they were illegal?
Surely the examiner you mention would be out at the field recording registrations and times for the enforcement actions that would follow.
Given the early stage of your flying career you may not yet have realised that CAA has a significant % of employees (pilots and others) who are there because they couldn't cut it in the real world, it is the public service after all...unemployable so joined CASA is very common in Australia...the FAA are no different....and yes I do have enough Brit and Yank pilot mates to be comfortable making that assertion...Kiwi ones too....the BS doesn't vary, just the country.
I recently was angered enough by an article in Australian Flying that I blasted off an email to the editor, which was published albeit edited.
The article referred to 'CASA's preference' for landing light piston twins at blue line speed...which is single engine climb speed...and depending on the aircraft 20-30kts to fast. At the takeoff end of the article it purveyed a technique where the aircraft was rotated at some low speed and climbed out before 'turning off the boost pumps, raising the flaps and accelerating to blue line speed at 500'. There is just no better way to die in a light piston twin!!
I have trained more than my fare share of relatively inexperienced CPLs (2-300 odd hrs) to bush fly C180, C185, C182 and C206 and a bunch more in Bn2, C402, 404, Twin Otter.
I think you should crawl over broken glass, if that is what it takes, to go for a fly with bose x.
Brgds,
Chuckles
If a representative of CAA has told you that he is just plane wrong.
Do you really think that CAA would tolerate all these operations off short strips if they were illegal?
Surely the examiner you mention would be out at the field recording registrations and times for the enforcement actions that would follow.
Given the early stage of your flying career you may not yet have realised that CAA has a significant % of employees (pilots and others) who are there because they couldn't cut it in the real world, it is the public service after all...unemployable so joined CASA is very common in Australia...the FAA are no different....and yes I do have enough Brit and Yank pilot mates to be comfortable making that assertion...Kiwi ones too....the BS doesn't vary, just the country.
I recently was angered enough by an article in Australian Flying that I blasted off an email to the editor, which was published albeit edited.
The article referred to 'CASA's preference' for landing light piston twins at blue line speed...which is single engine climb speed...and depending on the aircraft 20-30kts to fast. At the takeoff end of the article it purveyed a technique where the aircraft was rotated at some low speed and climbed out before 'turning off the boost pumps, raising the flaps and accelerating to blue line speed at 500'. There is just no better way to die in a light piston twin!!
I have trained more than my fare share of relatively inexperienced CPLs (2-300 odd hrs) to bush fly C180, C185, C182 and C206 and a bunch more in Bn2, C402, 404, Twin Otter.
I think you should crawl over broken glass, if that is what it takes, to go for a fly with bose x.
Brgds,
Chuckles
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
There is a man who flies a certain taylor craft at my club that can land in the 6 inch gap that I leave between white line and wheels on the spot landing competition......
Chalk dust, there was definatly chalk dust.........
And I am gonna beat him next year, if not at spot landing then black and blue......
Chalk dust, there was definatly chalk dust.........
And I am gonna beat him next year, if not at spot landing then black and blue......
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
In fact, the POH only contain figures for short field landings & take offs and does not contain any others.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
yes you're supposed to be at 50' at the 'beginning of the LDA' but that DOES NOT mean 50' over the threshold
It means that on a normal approach profile you are to be at 50ft at the beginning of the LDA which is at the threshold.
That threshold may have been displaced leaving some runway prior to the displaced threshold but that is usually for obstacle clearance requirements where having the aircraft at 50ft at the start of the runway surface would not provide the minimum separation from as an example traffic on a road.
It could be argued that while one is exempt from the requirements of rule 5 when making an approach to land in accordance with normal aviation practice, making that approach below the normal approach surfaces would not be normal aviation practice. Thus, creep over the hedge to touch at the start of the displaced ie well below normal minimum approach path) and frighten a horse rider on the public pathway that underlies the approach and they could claim that you did not operate in accordance with normal aviation practice or for that matter safely!
If of course it is an unlicensed airfield then many of the interesting ones are over a hedge and the 50ft is immaterial!
Cessna and other manufacturers only publish the best performance figures because they are in no small part a sales measure.
If you want to use other than the published method then;
a) Think about what the insurance implications are
b) If using a higher speed then it could be useful to use the tailwind factor as in part that is what you are doing in effect by travelling at a higher ground speed before lift off.
c) For different flap settings - flaps shorten ground roll but reduce climb rate - work it out for yourself!
Get some lessons in landing with a good side-slip can help!
Regards,
DFC
It means that on a normal approach profile you are to be at 50ft at the beginning of the LDA which is at the threshold.
That threshold may have been displaced leaving some runway prior to the displaced threshold but that is usually for obstacle clearance requirements where having the aircraft at 50ft at the start of the runway surface would not provide the minimum separation from as an example traffic on a road.
It could be argued that while one is exempt from the requirements of rule 5 when making an approach to land in accordance with normal aviation practice, making that approach below the normal approach surfaces would not be normal aviation practice. Thus, creep over the hedge to touch at the start of the displaced ie well below normal minimum approach path) and frighten a horse rider on the public pathway that underlies the approach and they could claim that you did not operate in accordance with normal aviation practice or for that matter safely!
If of course it is an unlicensed airfield then many of the interesting ones are over a hedge and the 50ft is immaterial!
Cessna and other manufacturers only publish the best performance figures because they are in no small part a sales measure.
If you want to use other than the published method then;
a) Think about what the insurance implications are
b) If using a higher speed then it could be useful to use the tailwind factor as in part that is what you are doing in effect by travelling at a higher ground speed before lift off.
c) For different flap settings - flaps shorten ground roll but reduce climb rate - work it out for yourself!
Get some lessons in landing with a good side-slip can help!
Regards,
DFC
Grandpa Aerotart
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 3
From: SWP
CAO 20.7.4 say the following....I am reasonably sure your CAA equivalent is worded very similarly.
10 LANDING DISTANCE REQUIRED
10.1 Subject to paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4, an aeroplane must not land unless the
landing distance available is equal to or greater than the distance required to
bring the aeroplane to a complete stop or, in the case of aeroplanes operated on
water, to a speed of 3 knots, following an approach to land at a speed not less
than 1.3VS maintained to within 50 feet of the landing surface. This distance is
to be measured from the point where the aeroplane first reaches a height of 50
feet above the landing surface and must be multiplied by the following factors:
(a) 1.15 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 2 000 kg or less;
(b) 1.43 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 4 500 kg or
greater;
(c) for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights between 2 000 kg and
4500 kg, a factor derived by linear interpolation between 1.15 and 1.43
according to the maximum take-off weight of the aeroplane.
10.2 For aeroplanes operated on land, landing distances are to be determined for a
level short dry grass surface. For aeroplanes operated on water, landing
distances are to be determined on flat broken water.
10.3 Subject to paragraph 10.4, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or
a manufacturer’s data manual for an aeroplane that sets out the landing
distance required for that aeroplane, then that aeroplane must be operated so as
to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 or the
requirements relating to landing distance set out in either of those manuals.
Note: The data contained in some manufacturers’ data manuals is unfactored and makes no
allowance for degraded aircraft performance. Where there is a considerable difference
between the data in a manufacturer’s data manual and the data in the flight manual for the
aeroplane then the manufacturer’s data should be treated with caution.
Now I would agree that it is not worded particularly well and this is usually the case with these things...heaven forbid they would make something unequivical
It is my contention that the statement 'this distance is measured from the point where aircraft first reaches a height of 50' above the landing surface' refers purely to height not geographically above the runway.
This rule covers both water landing capable aircraft as well as non...where on an open stretch of water that meets the requirments of an alighting zone is the threshold?
So in the case of a Cessna 180 on floats the LDR starts when that aircraft passes 50' above the 'landing surface'...an altitude not a geographic location.
Why would a landing on a runway be considered so different and yet still be covered under the same Order?
In the normal course of events when on approach to a runway with no obstacles to that approach you fly a normal approach, at an appropriate speed, to the touchdown point/aiming area/zone whatever you want to call it. LDR, IMHO, begins over the geographical point that correspondes to an altitude of 50'....but you might in fact pass the threshold markers at 30' or 20'. If trees have grown tall on the approach causing a normal approach to be made to a point further away from the threshold then you have a reduced effective length and Land Roll Available/Required would certainly be an important factor....an exxperienced pilot might chose to side slip past the trees and still touchdown at the same point as before the tree grew and I think that would be appropriate in the class of aircraft we are discussing...but that is not the point.
If this is not the way the CAA choses to interpret the rules then why are the airstrips mentioned in this thread allowed to exist...let alone be used as training fields which surely need to be approved for the class of aircraft to be used? Surely any airstrip to short for a Cessna 152 is to short to be of use to any aircraft save an ultralight or Pilatus Porter?
I don't blame todays new pilots for being confused about this stuff....it's been a VERY long time since the average instructor has had the practical knowledge, desire and skill to teach this stuff...all most are interested in is that shiny jet job and they filter all knowledge through that prism..."In the big jets they do things this way or that...so that is the way it must be done"....and guess what? Most CASA, CAA,FAA examiners of airmen are ex instructors who never made it passed instructing to the real world of aviation....and yes the real world is a LOT different to the flying school world.
That is why you get dumbarse 'preferences' for landing a piston twin at Vyse...95% of their twin time is instructing, 5% is charter but they have never operated one on limiting runways day in and out....They just don't know what they don't know and pass that ignorance on to their students...and then people like me, when I was in GA, have to retrain them out in the world.
The only similarity between a C152 and 767 is they both carry people and are capable of powered flight...and there it ends. A Cessna 152 is just the modern equivalent of a Piper Cub and should be flown accordingly....with feeling and a little art!
Where do you think the expression "...kts over the fence" came from? But sadly the art and practical application of a light aircraft is being lost under a pile of arse covering crap dealt out by the lowest common denominator.
10 LANDING DISTANCE REQUIRED
10.1 Subject to paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4, an aeroplane must not land unless the
landing distance available is equal to or greater than the distance required to
bring the aeroplane to a complete stop or, in the case of aeroplanes operated on
water, to a speed of 3 knots, following an approach to land at a speed not less
than 1.3VS maintained to within 50 feet of the landing surface. This distance is
to be measured from the point where the aeroplane first reaches a height of 50
feet above the landing surface and must be multiplied by the following factors:
(a) 1.15 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 2 000 kg or less;
(b) 1.43 for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights of 4 500 kg or
greater;
(c) for aeroplanes with maximum take-off weights between 2 000 kg and
4500 kg, a factor derived by linear interpolation between 1.15 and 1.43
according to the maximum take-off weight of the aeroplane.
10.2 For aeroplanes operated on land, landing distances are to be determined for a
level short dry grass surface. For aeroplanes operated on water, landing
distances are to be determined on flat broken water.
10.3 Subject to paragraph 10.4, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or
a manufacturer’s data manual for an aeroplane that sets out the landing
distance required for that aeroplane, then that aeroplane must be operated so as
to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 or the
requirements relating to landing distance set out in either of those manuals.
Note: The data contained in some manufacturers’ data manuals is unfactored and makes no
allowance for degraded aircraft performance. Where there is a considerable difference
between the data in a manufacturer’s data manual and the data in the flight manual for the
aeroplane then the manufacturer’s data should be treated with caution.
Now I would agree that it is not worded particularly well and this is usually the case with these things...heaven forbid they would make something unequivical
It is my contention that the statement 'this distance is measured from the point where aircraft first reaches a height of 50' above the landing surface' refers purely to height not geographically above the runway.
This rule covers both water landing capable aircraft as well as non...where on an open stretch of water that meets the requirments of an alighting zone is the threshold?
So in the case of a Cessna 180 on floats the LDR starts when that aircraft passes 50' above the 'landing surface'...an altitude not a geographic location.
Why would a landing on a runway be considered so different and yet still be covered under the same Order?
In the normal course of events when on approach to a runway with no obstacles to that approach you fly a normal approach, at an appropriate speed, to the touchdown point/aiming area/zone whatever you want to call it. LDR, IMHO, begins over the geographical point that correspondes to an altitude of 50'....but you might in fact pass the threshold markers at 30' or 20'. If trees have grown tall on the approach causing a normal approach to be made to a point further away from the threshold then you have a reduced effective length and Land Roll Available/Required would certainly be an important factor....an exxperienced pilot might chose to side slip past the trees and still touchdown at the same point as before the tree grew and I think that would be appropriate in the class of aircraft we are discussing...but that is not the point.
If this is not the way the CAA choses to interpret the rules then why are the airstrips mentioned in this thread allowed to exist...let alone be used as training fields which surely need to be approved for the class of aircraft to be used? Surely any airstrip to short for a Cessna 152 is to short to be of use to any aircraft save an ultralight or Pilatus Porter?
I don't blame todays new pilots for being confused about this stuff....it's been a VERY long time since the average instructor has had the practical knowledge, desire and skill to teach this stuff...all most are interested in is that shiny jet job and they filter all knowledge through that prism..."In the big jets they do things this way or that...so that is the way it must be done"....and guess what? Most CASA, CAA,FAA examiners of airmen are ex instructors who never made it passed instructing to the real world of aviation....and yes the real world is a LOT different to the flying school world.
That is why you get dumbarse 'preferences' for landing a piston twin at Vyse...95% of their twin time is instructing, 5% is charter but they have never operated one on limiting runways day in and out....They just don't know what they don't know and pass that ignorance on to their students...and then people like me, when I was in GA, have to retrain them out in the world.
The only similarity between a C152 and 767 is they both carry people and are capable of powered flight...and there it ends. A Cessna 152 is just the modern equivalent of a Piper Cub and should be flown accordingly....with feeling and a little art!
Where do you think the expression "...kts over the fence" came from? But sadly the art and practical application of a light aircraft is being lost under a pile of arse covering crap dealt out by the lowest common denominator.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 26th October 2005 at 02:34.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 56
From: Melbourne, Australia
'this distance is measured from the point where aircraft first reaches a height of 50' above the landing surface'
an aeroplane must not land unless the landing distance available is equal to or greater than the distance required to
bring the aeroplane to a complete stop
bring the aeroplane to a complete stop
"... the distance specified by CASA as being the effective operational length available for use by aircraft for landing at Government or licensed aerodromes or the distance available for landing on an authorised landing area .." So, for a licensed airfield you must get that distance from the good book and the distance required from the POH gotta be less than that. Some room for debate for an ALA but not a lot - if an area is not available for landing then it is not included in the distance available for landing.
As some-one previously stated, we're discussing the rules for less experienced pilots. I know an experienced pilot who operates 3 aircraft from his 450 m one-way strip quite happily.
A student asked to go in there with me on a nav exercise. After checking the POH for the PA-28 he still wanted to go. I declined and took him to a nearby unlicensed strip which was much longer. Even that caused him some grey hairs.
We have lots of places for long runways in Australia, so personally I don't see a need to go anywhere with marginal distance. If I was flying a Husky I'd be happy to land almost anywhere though.
Grandpa Aerotart
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 3
From: SWP
Now I am prepared to admit the wording is a little restrictive but let's take a look at effective operational length.
CAO 20.7.somethingorother
Corrected Effective Operational Length: A length of runway — including
over-run — expressed in feet, corrected for slope, runway surface, and
approaches, declared by CASA as usable for take-off or landing by a particular
aeroplane.
So here effective operation length includes overrun. It also makes mention of 'approaches'.
Effective Operational Length can include stopway and clearway for takeoff.
So is EOL always going to be = the actual length of the runway?
I think I've never seen a runway, grass or other, where the threshold was the beginning of the overrun.
So if a runway has an overrun (with clear 'approaches'
)...and most certainly do...I can be at 50' at the beginning of the overrun which is the beginning of the EOL?
So therefore the EOL is the distance between the point at which I pass 50' and the far end of the runway...and if that distance is equal to or greater than the LDR as found in the POH I am legal...and wasn't at 50' over the threshold.
I have looked and looked but can't find where Operational Length and Effective Operational Length are defined differently...in fact I find no reference to OL at all. References can be found to ground roll and clearly the rules deferentiate between that and distance which has a component which is airborne. No where does it say you must be at 50' over the threshold.
It would be an interesting point of Law
Out of interest what types did the fella operate from the 450m strip 'quite happily'? I don't think I'd be keen to take a PA28 into a 450m strip either but did the numbers say it was long enough EFFECTIVELY
I love thrashing this sort of stuff out
Brgds,
Chuck
CAO 20.7.somethingorother
Corrected Effective Operational Length: A length of runway — including
over-run — expressed in feet, corrected for slope, runway surface, and
approaches, declared by CASA as usable for take-off or landing by a particular
aeroplane.
So here effective operation length includes overrun. It also makes mention of 'approaches'.
Effective Operational Length can include stopway and clearway for takeoff.
So is EOL always going to be = the actual length of the runway?
I think I've never seen a runway, grass or other, where the threshold was the beginning of the overrun.
So if a runway has an overrun (with clear 'approaches'
)...and most certainly do...I can be at 50' at the beginning of the overrun which is the beginning of the EOL?So therefore the EOL is the distance between the point at which I pass 50' and the far end of the runway...and if that distance is equal to or greater than the LDR as found in the POH I am legal...and wasn't at 50' over the threshold.
I have looked and looked but can't find where Operational Length and Effective Operational Length are defined differently...in fact I find no reference to OL at all. References can be found to ground roll and clearly the rules deferentiate between that and distance which has a component which is airborne. No where does it say you must be at 50' over the threshold.
It would be an interesting point of Law
Out of interest what types did the fella operate from the 450m strip 'quite happily'? I don't think I'd be keen to take a PA28 into a 450m strip either but did the numbers say it was long enough EFFECTIVELY
I love thrashing this sort of stuff out
Brgds,
Chuck
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 56
From: Melbourne, Australia
Yep, 20.7.0 it is - and, as you say, again a reference to a CASA declaration. "For the purposes of computing take-off and landing weights the corrected effective operational length shall be determined by reference to Aeronautical Information Publications, subject to variations contained in NOTAMS." I was looking forward to finding the answer in ERSA but no mention of that.
ERSA defines take-off distance (TODA) available as the length of the take-off run available plus the length of any clearway and landing distance available (LDA) as the length of the runway declared available and suitable for the the ground run of an aircraft landing (in most cases this corresponds to the physical length of the runway pavement).
Leongatha RW 36 for example has a TODA of 729 m. At the northern end there's at least another 700 m of grass before the fence. (However, the take-off run available is 669 m i.e. suitable for the ground run.) I note the hill further to the north.
Terminology of ERSA is consistent with CAO 20.7.4 - although I see that extra 700 m and there's 669 m I can use to run along the ground - I must use the distance of 729 m in my calcs.
That Warrior has an ISA SL take-off distance of 503 m and a landing distance of 354 m per the POH for a paved, level runway - unfactored distances. Effect of short dry grass outside the scope of tonight's post.
Dunno whether I can tell you what types without giving enuff info to identify him from the register. One type is heavier and faster than a Warrior. Another has no flaps.
ERSA defines take-off distance (TODA) available as the length of the take-off run available plus the length of any clearway and landing distance available (LDA) as the length of the runway declared available and suitable for the the ground run of an aircraft landing (in most cases this corresponds to the physical length of the runway pavement).
Leongatha RW 36 for example has a TODA of 729 m. At the northern end there's at least another 700 m of grass before the fence. (However, the take-off run available is 669 m i.e. suitable for the ground run.) I note the hill further to the north.
Terminology of ERSA is consistent with CAO 20.7.4 - although I see that extra 700 m and there's 669 m I can use to run along the ground - I must use the distance of 729 m in my calcs.
That Warrior has an ISA SL take-off distance of 503 m and a landing distance of 354 m per the POH for a paved, level runway - unfactored distances. Effect of short dry grass outside the scope of tonight's post.
Dunno whether I can tell you what types without giving enuff info to identify him from the register. One type is heavier and faster than a Warrior. Another has no flaps.
