FAR 121 Landing legality?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The laptop is in the airplane. Currently we are transitioning from a real battery powered laptop to one that is plugged in for datalink and recharging, but the functionality is the same for the performance module.
It is kept in a "case" on the f/o side, and when it's placed there is attaches its databus and charging receptacles.
It is kept in a "case" on the f/o side, and when it's placed there is attaches its databus and charging receptacles.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mutt , the case you put is very clear now , nobody can question your decesion to land at that R/W , refer to my answers above .It is all for safety.you have to plan well , and then cope with changes AND EMERGENCIES WHEN THEY ARISE, every airline will have an ops spec where they mention the procedures and the suitable approved R/W's , and even that you can deviate from in an emergency .
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those who care:
I received a decision today from FAA headquarters. It states that the "policy and procedures in place at (my airline) are in compliance with the applicable regulations." "If the Captain elects to land on another runway that is shorter, (the weight listed on the landing chart is less than the actual weight) the aircraft is legal to land."
In a nutshell, FAR 121.195 governs dispatch and takeoff only. It is NOT limiting for landing operations.
I received a decision today from FAA headquarters. It states that the "policy and procedures in place at (my airline) are in compliance with the applicable regulations." "If the Captain elects to land on another runway that is shorter, (the weight listed on the landing chart is less than the actual weight) the aircraft is legal to land."
In a nutshell, FAR 121.195 governs dispatch and takeoff only. It is NOT limiting for landing operations.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aviation Rules and regulation should not in any way be confusing or misunderstood, any confusion should be clarified and not left to individual differences or trying to find ways to break them.
[This message has been edited by Royan (edited 22 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Royan (edited 22 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quid,
I found this one very interesting, both from a legal and a philosophical perspective. I have not researched FAR 121 as I am far from home and can only get limited access.
For your interest, the Australian rule for equivalent operations specifically requires that normal landings be conducted on runways with buffers intact, ie 1.67 for destination and 1.43 for alternates. The only time the pilot of an Australian registered aircraft can land without buffers is in an emergency.
Although the original Australian rules were based on the then CAR 4 (I think) rules, there are a number of differences documented where the Australian regulators did not agree that safety was preserved. I am not sure if this particular rule was one of those differences, but I could fully understand that it would have been.
My philosophical interest was aroused simply because I cannot understand why anyone would either permit or wish to land a perfectly serviceable aircraft during normal operations on a runway that matches the demonstrated landing distance only, ie without buffers.
My understanding is that the 1.67/1.43 buffers are there to ensure an acceptable level of safety for normal commercial operations, ie recognising that we avoid crashing the aeroplane on and using autobrake 10 so that some of the people who pay our wages might want to come back and do it again. The unfactored distances are achieved by test pilots whose motivation is to minimise the landing distance in order to maximise the commercial value of the aircraft - any consideration to the comfort of the occupants being mere lipservice. I would have thought that reducing the normal buffers would have been well recognised as a risk-increasing philosophy that would be unwise to leave solely to the discretion of the operator.
Given some of the chest beating that goes on in these fora from some of our colleagues, particularly in regard to "if you can't do this or that, you should hand in your licence", despite some of the poor handling one observes in simulators and aircraft alike, I can only presume that your interest was an academic one in protecting your licence against the Feds.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
I found this one very interesting, both from a legal and a philosophical perspective. I have not researched FAR 121 as I am far from home and can only get limited access.
For your interest, the Australian rule for equivalent operations specifically requires that normal landings be conducted on runways with buffers intact, ie 1.67 for destination and 1.43 for alternates. The only time the pilot of an Australian registered aircraft can land without buffers is in an emergency.
Although the original Australian rules were based on the then CAR 4 (I think) rules, there are a number of differences documented where the Australian regulators did not agree that safety was preserved. I am not sure if this particular rule was one of those differences, but I could fully understand that it would have been.
My philosophical interest was aroused simply because I cannot understand why anyone would either permit or wish to land a perfectly serviceable aircraft during normal operations on a runway that matches the demonstrated landing distance only, ie without buffers.
My understanding is that the 1.67/1.43 buffers are there to ensure an acceptable level of safety for normal commercial operations, ie recognising that we avoid crashing the aeroplane on and using autobrake 10 so that some of the people who pay our wages might want to come back and do it again. The unfactored distances are achieved by test pilots whose motivation is to minimise the landing distance in order to maximise the commercial value of the aircraft - any consideration to the comfort of the occupants being mere lipservice. I would have thought that reducing the normal buffers would have been well recognised as a risk-increasing philosophy that would be unwise to leave solely to the discretion of the operator.
Given some of the chest beating that goes on in these fora from some of our colleagues, particularly in regard to "if you can't do this or that, you should hand in your licence", despite some of the poor handling one observes in simulators and aircraft alike, I can only presume that your interest was an academic one in protecting your licence against the Feds.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, chest beating, etc. is not a player here. And, I'd NEVER suggest that a pilot go for the actual landing distance (60% of Landing Field Length) unless he has NO other choice.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No, chest beating, etc. is not a player here. And, I'd NEVER suggest that a pilot go for the actual landing distance (60% of Landing Field Length) unless he has NO other choice.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.
I'm involved in writing procedures for my carrier, and this one is a "legal" question.
Here are a couple of examples:
(For simplicity sake, in all cases we'll assume that the flight is dispatched legally to a factored 60/40 runway that is dry and 10,000 feet long. That would be 6000' landing distance and 4000' buffer).
1. If due to favorable winds, I arrive at the destination a little heavier than planned, and now I require 200 feet more landing field length, must I hold until I burn down to the planed landing weight, or may I land, knowing I'm going to take another 120 feetof landing distance?
2. If the flight is dispatched dry, and there is a surprise shower enroute and now the runway is wet, am I legal to land?
3. If the flight was dispatched expecting 5 knots of headwind, and on arrival it's calm, am I legal to land?
4. If I expected to land on the 10,000 runway, and due to a change of runways I'm now being vectored to a 9000' runway, am I legal to land?
In the US, we dispatch to *airports*, not to specific runways. In many cases the pilot has no idea which runway the Dispatcher used in planning the flight.
