FAR 121 Landing legality?
Guest
Posts: n/a
FAR 121 Landing legality?
I'm in a battle with my POI regarding the length of the runway required (if any) for landing.
There is no question that for takeoff, you must have "Landing Field Length", including the full 40% buffer. FAR 121.195 states that no person may "takeoff" without that.
Once you are airborne, I contend that requirement is behind you, and all you need is enough concrete to get the a/c stopped on the runway.
He holds that the "Landing Field Length" is required for landing.
I feel he's incorrect in his interpretation of that being an in-flight requirement.
Can anyone point me to a reference, or General Counsel's opinion that would support either point of view?
What's your airline's position on this subject?
------------------
There is no question that for takeoff, you must have "Landing Field Length", including the full 40% buffer. FAR 121.195 states that no person may "takeoff" without that.
Once you are airborne, I contend that requirement is behind you, and all you need is enough concrete to get the a/c stopped on the runway.
He holds that the "Landing Field Length" is required for landing.
I feel he's incorrect in his interpretation of that being an in-flight requirement.
Can anyone point me to a reference, or General Counsel's opinion that would support either point of view?
What's your airline's position on this subject?
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
411a-
I appreciate your answer, but can you offer some proof (in writing) that he is correct?
On what do you base your opinion?
I was in contact with the ATA representative this morning, and American, United and TWA (among others) are not bound by that restriction.
------------------
I appreciate your answer, but can you offer some proof (in writing) that he is correct?
On what do you base your opinion?
I was in contact with the ATA representative this morning, and American, United and TWA (among others) are not bound by that restriction.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to my company manuals, there is no legal requirement concerning landing distance, while inflight. Just in the planning phase, we use dispatch landing charts. There are company rules, though. We are provided with socalled Calculated Landing Distance tables, with which we can determine the actual landing distance pretty accurately. We have to maintain a margin of 200m over this calculated value.
But in my opinion, there is no inflight legal requirement.
But in my opinion, there is no inflight legal requirement.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411Ayou are wrong! There is no legal in-flight requirement i.e. 60/40.
Have a look in numerous AFM's you will find a landing field length for dispatch and an actual landing field length, the actual landing field length can be used when in-flight.
Also have a look in FAR121, there is no requirement listed.
PS, POI's aren't GODS, they should be open to discussion.
We had an ETOPS restriction placed on us by our POI, we discussed it with Boeing, JAA and researched the FARs, AC's etc. This restriction was unheard of. Another visit to our POI proved that it was his interpretation and wasn't a legal requirement! Needless to say, it is no longer a restriction.
Mutt
Have a look in numerous AFM's you will find a landing field length for dispatch and an actual landing field length, the actual landing field length can be used when in-flight.
Also have a look in FAR121, there is no requirement listed.
PS, POI's aren't GODS, they should be open to discussion.
We had an ETOPS restriction placed on us by our POI, we discussed it with Boeing, JAA and researched the FARs, AC's etc. This restriction was unheard of. Another visit to our POI proved that it was his interpretation and wasn't a legal requirement! Needless to say, it is no longer a restriction.
Mutt
Guest
Posts: n/a
I should have softened the word "argue". It's still a friendly argument (at this point). But.....it has the potential for getting nasty.
411A-
>>You are correct only if you land offroute or divert to an unplanned alternate<<
Once again, can you give an official reference for that (those) statements? Until you can, it's just your opinion, and I'm going to need more than that to PROVE either point of view.
------------------
411A-
>>You are correct only if you land offroute or divert to an unplanned alternate<<
Once again, can you give an official reference for that (those) statements? Until you can, it's just your opinion, and I'm going to need more than that to PROVE either point of view.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please check FAR 121-195,if does not answer the question let me know
"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no
person operating a turbine engine powered transport category airplane may
take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal
consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing
distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of
landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport
within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from
a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and
the runway.
"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no
person operating a turbine engine powered transport category airplane may
take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal
consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing
distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the
destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of
landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport
within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from
a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and
the runway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Royan, you`re right, but this is all still planning phase. The question was, whether this still applies when you`re airborne.
These rules do not apply when inflight.
Inflight the only rule is: The captain should be convinced a normal safe landing can be made.
If you start replanning in flight, say 4 hours out and picking another alternate due wx, then ofcourse the planning rules apply. (although this is always the focal point of discussion)
These rules do not apply when inflight.
Inflight the only rule is: The captain should be convinced a normal safe landing can be made.
If you start replanning in flight, say 4 hours out and picking another alternate due wx, then ofcourse the planning rules apply. (although this is always the focal point of discussion)
Guest
Posts: n/a
QUID-
An airline that I worked for many years ago planned flights to an airport where the restriction complied, only to divert EVERYTIME to the "ultimate intended destination" where the runway did not comply. When the FAA found out they were NOT ammused. Now, you would not be thinking of doing the same, would you?
An airline that I worked for many years ago planned flights to an airport where the restriction complied, only to divert EVERYTIME to the "ultimate intended destination" where the runway did not comply. When the FAA found out they were NOT ammused. Now, you would not be thinking of doing the same, would you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Static, The regulation are for required landing distance .Dry R/W ,actual ldg distance divided by .6 . Wet 115% of that for a dry surface .(there is regulations for contaminated surface for JAR -OPS . And also for auto land ). Before dispatch the pilot must check that the R/W length at destination for the forecasted ldg wt is at least equal to the req dist . in case of departure with a sys failure affecting ldg dist known before dispatch the req ldg dist without failure multiplied by the coefficient given in the MMEL is what the pilot needs .Coming to your point with failures in flight affecting the ldg performance the R/W length to be considered is the actual ldg dist without failure multiplied by the coefficient given in the QRH . I hope this clarifies the subject .
Guest
Posts: n/a
The requirement is only that you are able to stop within the available runway. It is an Ops Specs requirement, I don't think you'll find a regulation for it. Many airlines handle this by having a chart that shows the heaviest weight that will work for a particular runway, although that doesn't tell you a lot. If you are under the weight limit (applying the various corrections) you still don't know how much of that runway you'll need or how much brakes you might require (max brakes are acceptable...).
My company approaches it a bit differently with our performance laptop, the crew enters in the data for the runway (playing it as conservative as we want to as *we* control the inputs), and it outputs the landing runway required (including 1500' of air run distance) and compares that to the runway available.
This gives us a lot more info for planning purposes, for example, can we make taxiway xyz with min braking and flaps 35, etc.
My company approaches it a bit differently with our performance laptop, the crew enters in the data for the runway (playing it as conservative as we want to as *we* control the inputs), and it outputs the landing runway required (including 1500' of air run distance) and compares that to the runway available.
This gives us a lot more info for planning purposes, for example, can we make taxiway xyz with min braking and flaps 35, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A-
I'm quite familiar with our Ops Specs, but just in case, I re-read every word today, but can't find anything that applies here. What specific paragraphs are you talking about? (Of course, our Ops Specs may be different than yours.)
As far as "planned diversions",... no way. That would involve hundreds of diversions each day, and each would require use of Capt's emergency authority. If it was planned, then we'd need an ammended release, and the ammendment would have to be in accordance with 121.195, so nothing would be gained.
royan-
121.195 states that "no person may takeoff.." It does NOT state that no person may takeoff 0R LAND...
I offer as support of my opinion a section from the 8400.10 (Air Carrier Inspector's Handbook) the following quote-
>> E. Application of Flight Handbook Performance Limits. Many of the requirements of Subparts I of Part 121 and Part 135 apply only until the aircraft takes off from the departure point. Other requirements from these Subparts apply at all times as do the AFM limitations. For example, FAR 121.195 and FAR 135.385 prohibit a large, turbine airplane from takeoff unless, allowing for enroute fuel burn, the airplane will be capable of landing on 60% of the available runway at the planned destination. The regulations do not, however, prohibit the airplane from landing at the destination when, upon arrival, conditions have changed and more than 60% of the runway is required. In this case, the airplane must only be able to land on the effective runway length as shown in the flight manual performance data. <<
What would be the reason for that paragraph, if not to clarify that 121.195 applies only to the "takeoff" requirement?
I'm quite familiar with our Ops Specs, but just in case, I re-read every word today, but can't find anything that applies here. What specific paragraphs are you talking about? (Of course, our Ops Specs may be different than yours.)
As far as "planned diversions",... no way. That would involve hundreds of diversions each day, and each would require use of Capt's emergency authority. If it was planned, then we'd need an ammended release, and the ammendment would have to be in accordance with 121.195, so nothing would be gained.
royan-
121.195 states that "no person may takeoff.." It does NOT state that no person may takeoff 0R LAND...
I offer as support of my opinion a section from the 8400.10 (Air Carrier Inspector's Handbook) the following quote-
>> E. Application of Flight Handbook Performance Limits. Many of the requirements of Subparts I of Part 121 and Part 135 apply only until the aircraft takes off from the departure point. Other requirements from these Subparts apply at all times as do the AFM limitations. For example, FAR 121.195 and FAR 135.385 prohibit a large, turbine airplane from takeoff unless, allowing for enroute fuel burn, the airplane will be capable of landing on 60% of the available runway at the planned destination. The regulations do not, however, prohibit the airplane from landing at the destination when, upon arrival, conditions have changed and more than 60% of the runway is required. In this case, the airplane must only be able to land on the effective runway length as shown in the flight manual performance data. <<
What would be the reason for that paragraph, if not to clarify that 121.195 applies only to the "takeoff" requirement?
Guest
Posts: n/a
We've had the laptops since 91 now, they're great. We are not swapping them out with something we're calling the Pilot Access Terminal, PAT. It has not only the performance features (which are really impressive and allow us a lot more fine tuning and pilot control than other systems) but also a maintenance function where you point and click on the cockpit display and enter possible problems directly for direct download (soon to be paperless maint log), and some have the aviation weather access, full access to weather maps etc in real time. That's experimental, but hope to see it fleetwide at some point.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I gave him a hard copy of the quoted section of the 8400.10, his answer was "It's full of errors and needs to be revised." <shrug>
Don't get me wrong, 90% of the time he's great to work with, but this time he's dug his heels in. We've scheduled another meeting on Tuesday afternoon, so we'll see.
Don't get me wrong, 90% of the time he's great to work with, but this time he's dug his heels in. We've scheduled another meeting on Tuesday afternoon, so we'll see.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now i get it, Quid, you must be based in Florida, your POI is trying to work our the "intent" of 8400.10
OK put it this way, you are flying along and you get a cabin fire, the runway below you is exactly 6000' long (Required landing distance.) The next 10000' foot runway is over an hour away, what are you going to do? Answers on a postcard to the Florida Supreme Court....... (Sorry guys, i just couldnt resist.)
Prof2mda, we looked at the laptop in 93 or so, have you actually got them attached and powered from the aircraft, or are they supplied to the crews?
Thanks.
Mutt
OK put it this way, you are flying along and you get a cabin fire, the runway below you is exactly 6000' long (Required landing distance.) The next 10000' foot runway is over an hour away, what are you going to do? Answers on a postcard to the Florida Supreme Court....... (Sorry guys, i just couldnt resist.)
Prof2mda, we looked at the laptop in 93 or so, have you actually got them attached and powered from the aircraft, or are they supplied to the crews?
Thanks.
Mutt