Actual Landing Distance WET - how is it determined?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actual Landing Distance WET - how is it determined?
I have a question:
Actual Landing Distance dry:
50 ft, VREF, dry RWY, Max manual braking, spoilers, no reverse
Required Landing Distance dry:
the above x 1,67
Required landing Distance wet:
Required LD x 1,15
Clear so far....
What is it with the Actual Landing Distance wet (or even contaminated)?
Has it been demonstrated similar to the dry case (Flight testing)?
Or has it been calculated on the basis of ALD dry?
The "search" function didn't help, and a qiuck search on my OMs didn't help either...
Thank you and best Regards
Charly
Actual Landing Distance dry:
50 ft, VREF, dry RWY, Max manual braking, spoilers, no reverse
Required Landing Distance dry:
the above x 1,67
Required landing Distance wet:
Required LD x 1,15
Clear so far....
What is it with the Actual Landing Distance wet (or even contaminated)?
Has it been demonstrated similar to the dry case (Flight testing)?
Or has it been calculated on the basis of ALD dry?
The "search" function didn't help, and a qiuck search on my OMs didn't help either...
Thank you and best Regards
Charly
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering FARs (and bear in mind there are differences here both in terms of between authorities and historically also):
§121.195 "Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports" pretty simply lays out that the required landing distance for "wet or slippery" conditions is based upon a simple ratio of the required dry distance, per your summary [RLD(wet)=1.15*RLD(dry)=1.15*1.67*ALD(dry) ] UNLESS the manufacturer has approved data which is different (with the caveat that RLD(wet) may never be less than RLD(dry) )
There is therefore no requirement on the operators to have access to "real" ALD(wet) data nor any requirement on the OEM (in Part 25, say) to produce such data for the operators' use. This means that there's no incentive for either to have that data specifically available unless it's better than the 1.15 factor would be (unless they care about people sliding off runways, of course). Even if it were available, it wouldn't be "approved" data - because there's basically no reg to approve it to - and would end up in a non-approved supplement to the flight manuals.
IF specific data are provided they'll have been generated based on a combination of flight test data and empirical data for the effects of various states of the runway (and the same goes for contaminated data, for snow, slush, etc.) but if no specific data for the ALDs are given then the RLD(wet) is simply defined by rule from the dry performance and may not relate to the real wet performance of the aircraft.
§121.195 "Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports" pretty simply lays out that the required landing distance for "wet or slippery" conditions is based upon a simple ratio of the required dry distance, per your summary [RLD(wet)=1.15*RLD(dry)=1.15*1.67*ALD(dry) ] UNLESS the manufacturer has approved data which is different (with the caveat that RLD(wet) may never be less than RLD(dry) )
There is therefore no requirement on the operators to have access to "real" ALD(wet) data nor any requirement on the OEM (in Part 25, say) to produce such data for the operators' use. This means that there's no incentive for either to have that data specifically available unless it's better than the 1.15 factor would be (unless they care about people sliding off runways, of course). Even if it were available, it wouldn't be "approved" data - because there's basically no reg to approve it to - and would end up in a non-approved supplement to the flight manuals.
IF specific data are provided they'll have been generated based on a combination of flight test data and empirical data for the effects of various states of the runway (and the same goes for contaminated data, for snow, slush, etc.) but if no specific data for the ALDs are given then the RLD(wet) is simply defined by rule from the dry performance and may not relate to the real wet performance of the aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you scientest.
Reason for my question was this: Airbus has provided us with "Actual Landing Distance WET" and even Contaminated (standing water, slush, snow, ice) to calculate actual landing distances for failed aircraft equipment (see also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=271027 ). And when I'm not mistaken, JAR requires an aircraft with system failures to meet actual landing distances only.
Regards Charly
Reason for my question was this: Airbus has provided us with "Actual Landing Distance WET" and even Contaminated (standing water, slush, snow, ice) to calculate actual landing distances for failed aircraft equipment (see also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=271027 ). And when I'm not mistaken, JAR requires an aircraft with system failures to meet actual landing distances only.
Regards Charly
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite; although, for example, a full test programme won't be conducted for wet runways (its hard to get exact runway states anyway, so there'd be some scatter in the data collected) - but the anti-skid system will at least be assessed in non-dry conditions, and any data gathered used in calculating the performance on wet runways.
(Even the dry data is "calculated", since the demonstrations are no longer done as one single performance landing, but in a piecewise fashion; a methodology encouraged after Douglas got a bit too enthusiastic during a landing test, the video of which is widely circulated...)
(Even the dry data is "calculated", since the demonstrations are no longer done as one single performance landing, but in a piecewise fashion; a methodology encouraged after Douglas got a bit too enthusiastic during a landing test, the video of which is widely circulated...)
Moderator
And when I'm not mistaken, JAR requires an aircraft with system failures to meet actual landing distances only.
If your comment infers that you see no problem with unfactored data that frightens the daylights out of me. Having seen some performance landing tests in years past (and some of the aerodynamics fudges) I wouldn't count on stopping in the suggested raw distances in a fit .. ie the data is better used as the brick wall minimum distance .. and then one should review all reasonably available runway options .. with the aim of trying to push up the distance factor from 1.0 to somewhere closer to 1.67 x 1.15.
If you don't have that luxury for some operational reason .. then at least you have an idea as to how critical or relaxed the proposed landing operation might turn out to be ... and base your real time howgozit assessment on that benchmark ..
If your comment infers that you see no problem with unfactored data that frightens the daylights out of me. Having seen some performance landing tests in years past (and some of the aerodynamics fudges) I wouldn't count on stopping in the suggested raw distances in a fit .. ie the data is better used as the brick wall minimum distance .. and then one should review all reasonably available runway options .. with the aim of trying to push up the distance factor from 1.0 to somewhere closer to 1.67 x 1.15.
If you don't have that luxury for some operational reason .. then at least you have an idea as to how critical or relaxed the proposed landing operation might turn out to be ... and base your real time howgozit assessment on that benchmark ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your comment infers that you see no problem with unfactored data that frightens the daylights out of me.
I don't understand how you got the idea, I wouldn't see a problem??
If JAR requires only Actual landing distances for failures and Airbus supplies me with this data, the next question is (out of interest), how those are actualy determined for wet or contaminated runways.
The definitions I quoted in my first post concerning actual landing distance should have shown you, that I am certainly aware of the nonreproducability of these landing distances. (Vref, 50 ft, max manual braking ...).
I don't understand how you got the idea, I wouldn't see a problem??
If JAR requires only Actual landing distances for failures and Airbus supplies me with this data, the next question is (out of interest), how those are actualy determined for wet or contaminated runways.
The definitions I quoted in my first post concerning actual landing distance should have shown you, that I am certainly aware of the nonreproducability of these landing distances. (Vref, 50 ft, max manual braking ...).
JT, I agree with your concerns.
If anyone can help, I would appreciate chapter and verse, or at least an explanation with assumptions for any JAR use of actual (non-factored) distances.
Beware the terminology and biases of language; there are many pitfalls in the regulations. N.B. recent FAA pronouncements on contaminated runway operations.
Charly et al, “…how those are actually determined for wet or contaminated runways.”
As MFS explains manufacturers do use some measured data to validate the calculations; yes I have measured wheel marks in the snow!
Some insight to the calculation of JAR contaminated landing distance is in NPA 14/2004. Although this material is not yet in the regulations, most manufacturers use this basis or similar analysis for their published data.
Note some significant items:-
“Due to the nature of naturally occurring runway contaminants (standing water, slush, snow, ice) and difficulties associated with measuring aeroplane performance on such surfaces, any data that is either calculated or measured is subject to limitations with regard to validity. Consequently the extent of applicability should be clearly stated”.
Thus, an important aspect when using data relating to these conditions is to understand the assumptions and limitations in its use. Not all manufacturers publish these, or those that do, the notes are often in the ‘small print’, i.e. what is a ‘Boeing slippery runway’. See the small print on slides 12 & 13. Also see Stopping on Slippery Rwys (Boeing).
NPA 14 continues:- “Standard Assumptions. Due to the wide variation in possible conditions when operating on contaminated runways and the limitations inherent in representing the effects of these conditions analytically, it is not possible to produce performance data that will precisely correlate with each specific operation on a contaminated surface”
Most data assumes that the point of touchdown is 1000ft in from the threshold; I suggest that few operators achieve that in normal conditions so why expect this accuracy when the conditions may not be ideal, worse still with systems failures etc. Then there is threshold crossing altitude, braking techniques, use of reverse, etc; see Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing. for further insight.
Another consideration should be the safety ‘factor’; remember that even where 1.67, 1.92, etc is used, aircraft still continue overrun the runway. A Canadian study (on snow/ice) concluded that a factor of 2.2 or 2.4 might be required in order to provide the equivalent level of safety as on a dry runway; this implies that as the factors increase – the runways become wet or contaminated, the operating risks increase disproportionately and the crew are expected to change their procedures (behavior) to make up for this shortfall in safety.
Having once visited the end of a limiting wet runway using the wet-factored distance for the configuration - flapless, good T/D position, speed, braking, etc, I would not recommend the use of unfactored distance as a stopping distance. For those extremely rare situations of having to land on an ‘unsuitable’ runway, the plan (approach briefing) should include “in the event of an overrun” actions. The specific issue in my landing was that wet, ungrooved concrete has a very low coefficient of friction (with respect to tarmac), where the manufacturer’s data was ‘at the limits of its applicability’ – as were the crew …. … !
If anyone can help, I would appreciate chapter and verse, or at least an explanation with assumptions for any JAR use of actual (non-factored) distances.
Beware the terminology and biases of language; there are many pitfalls in the regulations. N.B. recent FAA pronouncements on contaminated runway operations.
Charly et al, “…how those are actually determined for wet or contaminated runways.”
As MFS explains manufacturers do use some measured data to validate the calculations; yes I have measured wheel marks in the snow!
Some insight to the calculation of JAR contaminated landing distance is in NPA 14/2004. Although this material is not yet in the regulations, most manufacturers use this basis or similar analysis for their published data.
Note some significant items:-
“Due to the nature of naturally occurring runway contaminants (standing water, slush, snow, ice) and difficulties associated with measuring aeroplane performance on such surfaces, any data that is either calculated or measured is subject to limitations with regard to validity. Consequently the extent of applicability should be clearly stated”.
Thus, an important aspect when using data relating to these conditions is to understand the assumptions and limitations in its use. Not all manufacturers publish these, or those that do, the notes are often in the ‘small print’, i.e. what is a ‘Boeing slippery runway’. See the small print on slides 12 & 13. Also see Stopping on Slippery Rwys (Boeing).
NPA 14 continues:- “Standard Assumptions. Due to the wide variation in possible conditions when operating on contaminated runways and the limitations inherent in representing the effects of these conditions analytically, it is not possible to produce performance data that will precisely correlate with each specific operation on a contaminated surface”
Most data assumes that the point of touchdown is 1000ft in from the threshold; I suggest that few operators achieve that in normal conditions so why expect this accuracy when the conditions may not be ideal, worse still with systems failures etc. Then there is threshold crossing altitude, braking techniques, use of reverse, etc; see Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing. for further insight.
Another consideration should be the safety ‘factor’; remember that even where 1.67, 1.92, etc is used, aircraft still continue overrun the runway. A Canadian study (on snow/ice) concluded that a factor of 2.2 or 2.4 might be required in order to provide the equivalent level of safety as on a dry runway; this implies that as the factors increase – the runways become wet or contaminated, the operating risks increase disproportionately and the crew are expected to change their procedures (behavior) to make up for this shortfall in safety.
Having once visited the end of a limiting wet runway using the wet-factored distance for the configuration - flapless, good T/D position, speed, braking, etc, I would not recommend the use of unfactored distance as a stopping distance. For those extremely rare situations of having to land on an ‘unsuitable’ runway, the plan (approach briefing) should include “in the event of an overrun” actions. The specific issue in my landing was that wet, ungrooved concrete has a very low coefficient of friction (with respect to tarmac), where the manufacturer’s data was ‘at the limits of its applicability’ – as were the crew …. … !
Moderator
Having once visited the end of a limiting wet runway using the wet-factored distance for the configuration
.. oh dear ... and, no doubt, followed up that evening with a calming scotch or three .. ?
The JT/ALF joint prosecution rests ..
.. oh dear ... and, no doubt, followed up that evening with a calming scotch or three .. ?
The JT/ALF joint prosecution rests ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look guys... it's not about stopping the aircraft at the value out of the table.
I don't want to smash the aircraft onto the 1000 ft marker with VREF Speed, already with the brakes pressed in the air and pulling the spoilers 2 ft above the rwy. It's not about that!!
Following example:
You have lost two hydraulic systems, and the longest Rwy in your vicinity is 3300 m long. Can you land or not:
An A320 with 62 to for Landing:
Actual Landing Distance Dry : 900 m
Required Landing Distance WET ergo x 1,67 x 1,15: 1730 m
Actual Landing Distance WET (from my handbook): 1200 m
Correction factor for a dual Hydraulic Leak x 2,6 (normally applied to actual distances): 4490 m required or 3120 m actual.
So, gentleman, would you land on a 3300 m RWY?
I don't want to smash the aircraft onto the 1000 ft marker with VREF Speed, already with the brakes pressed in the air and pulling the spoilers 2 ft above the rwy. It's not about that!!
Following example:
You have lost two hydraulic systems, and the longest Rwy in your vicinity is 3300 m long. Can you land or not:
An A320 with 62 to for Landing:
Actual Landing Distance Dry : 900 m
Required Landing Distance WET ergo x 1,67 x 1,15: 1730 m
Actual Landing Distance WET (from my handbook): 1200 m
Correction factor for a dual Hydraulic Leak x 2,6 (normally applied to actual distances): 4490 m required or 3120 m actual.
So, gentleman, would you land on a 3300 m RWY?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.....
1200m (wet distance book value) x 2.6 (Hyd Fail) = 3120 meters
The 1.15 conversion is a MINIMUM value, actual calculations may increase this, in your example DRY=900 * 1.15= 1035 meters, but Airbus testing resulted in a value of 1200 meters.
Mutt
1200m (wet distance book value) x 2.6 (Hyd Fail) = 3120 meters
The 1.15 conversion is a MINIMUM value, actual calculations may increase this, in your example DRY=900 * 1.15= 1035 meters, but Airbus testing resulted in a value of 1200 meters.
Mutt
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To questions in the first place:
1) Which Hyd-Failure? G+Y? G+B? B+Y? The Ldg Dist Factor varies significantly....
2) Does your company already use the revised Calculation Procedure (we introduced it SEP06). Obvously not, I also foung the 2,6 for a G+Y fault in the 'old' calc procedure.
From my QRH:
A320, 62 ton, Sea-Level, 0 Wind, WET Rwy: 1.150 Meters minus 6% for 2 Reversers operative = 1.080 m
G+Y HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 2,45 x 1.080 m = 2.650 m
G+B HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 2,00 x 1.080 m = 2.160 m
B+Y HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 1.90 x 1.080 m = 2.060 m
Maximum Reverse is considered on all operating engines on a wet Rwy, thus the higher coefficient for the G+Y fault.
Given the worst case of G+Y, I think 3.300 meters is plenty of a margin.
Calculating it with the 'old procedure' and assuming you need 3.120 m and have 3.300 m available, it's gonna be very tight. If there are no other airports available in the vicinity, you'll have to do it, as there's 'LAND ASAP' on the SD and if the tiny B ELEC Pump quits, the you look a lot worse than after leaving the RWY END at 40 knots.
Good Luck, MAX ;-)
1) Which Hyd-Failure? G+Y? G+B? B+Y? The Ldg Dist Factor varies significantly....
2) Does your company already use the revised Calculation Procedure (we introduced it SEP06). Obvously not, I also foung the 2,6 for a G+Y fault in the 'old' calc procedure.
From my QRH:
A320, 62 ton, Sea-Level, 0 Wind, WET Rwy: 1.150 Meters minus 6% for 2 Reversers operative = 1.080 m
G+Y HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 2,45 x 1.080 m = 2.650 m
G+B HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 2,00 x 1.080 m = 2.160 m
B+Y HYD Fault on Wet Rwy: 1.90 x 1.080 m = 2.060 m
Maximum Reverse is considered on all operating engines on a wet Rwy, thus the higher coefficient for the G+Y fault.
Given the worst case of G+Y, I think 3.300 meters is plenty of a margin.
Calculating it with the 'old procedure' and assuming you need 3.120 m and have 3.300 m available, it's gonna be very tight. If there are no other airports available in the vicinity, you'll have to do it, as there's 'LAND ASAP' on the SD and if the tiny B ELEC Pump quits, the you look a lot worse than after leaving the RWY END at 40 knots.
Good Luck, MAX ;-)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Germany
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mäx, we have the new values as well already. This was still an old example from an OM-B copy on my laptop (private Partition ;-) ). It wasn't concerning the exact values anyhow.
Take a 2800 m RWY for the new values to exagerate the dilemma of not being able to consider required distances with the "abnormal factor".
Take a 2800 m RWY for the new values to exagerate the dilemma of not being able to consider required distances with the "abnormal factor".
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been done to death before.Dont do airbus but in relation to boeing and jar
There is no need for distances to be factored after the performance dispatch phase. Non normal landing distances are issued as seprate data and allow for the failure.(i refer to boeing PI tables) This is all contained in the Performance in Flight section of the qrh. Wet distances are found using Slippy runway braking action good.
The distances derived are doable, not black magic. As a regular operator into short airfields i can confirm. Our dispatch numbers are limiting but eg the perf brief for JSI has a caveat that once dispatched there is nothing stopping the Commander using the PI for actual conditions and config should a sudden rain shower occur for example after dispatch based on the weather, alternates etc. That means If the wx is fcst ok and one of the alternates is doable with wet dispatch lengths (ldrx1.67x1.15) then the flight can go and the commander asses the destination in real time with real distances.he cannot dispatch with more than the moast limiting Factored wgt for conditions but can do the above
Places like a suddenly wet Corfu rwy 17 would recieve much business if it wasnt the case.1900 lda and usually aprox 1700 wet ldr 737/8 as derived from the pi with max ldg. (memory only not exact)It does recive the business and people dont dissapear after factoring un necessarily
Just to reiterate..There is no requirement for factoring after the dispatch phase under Jar 1.51. The commander must satify himself sufficient distance exists. There may be a company policy of factoring, thats different, lesys not years of a certian operation cloud the legal facts. JT you are entitled to factor as you please but your initial tone was a tad condesecnding as if to point out that lesser mortals have got the reins and are daring to fly the numbers which you find disturbing. Fact The numbers work notwithstanding your personnal experinces or company polcy.
I aplogise if the reply is disjointed I'm trying to multitask
There is no need for distances to be factored after the performance dispatch phase. Non normal landing distances are issued as seprate data and allow for the failure.(i refer to boeing PI tables) This is all contained in the Performance in Flight section of the qrh. Wet distances are found using Slippy runway braking action good.
The distances derived are doable, not black magic. As a regular operator into short airfields i can confirm. Our dispatch numbers are limiting but eg the perf brief for JSI has a caveat that once dispatched there is nothing stopping the Commander using the PI for actual conditions and config should a sudden rain shower occur for example after dispatch based on the weather, alternates etc. That means If the wx is fcst ok and one of the alternates is doable with wet dispatch lengths (ldrx1.67x1.15) then the flight can go and the commander asses the destination in real time with real distances.he cannot dispatch with more than the moast limiting Factored wgt for conditions but can do the above
Places like a suddenly wet Corfu rwy 17 would recieve much business if it wasnt the case.1900 lda and usually aprox 1700 wet ldr 737/8 as derived from the pi with max ldg. (memory only not exact)It does recive the business and people dont dissapear after factoring un necessarily
Just to reiterate..There is no requirement for factoring after the dispatch phase under Jar 1.51. The commander must satify himself sufficient distance exists. There may be a company policy of factoring, thats different, lesys not years of a certian operation cloud the legal facts. JT you are entitled to factor as you please but your initial tone was a tad condesecnding as if to point out that lesser mortals have got the reins and are daring to fly the numbers which you find disturbing. Fact The numbers work notwithstanding your personnal experinces or company polcy.
I aplogise if the reply is disjointed I'm trying to multitask
Moderator
Wee One,
Apologies if I appeared condescending .. that certainly was not my intent.
There is no need for distances to be factored after the performance dispatch phase
True. However, I suggest that, on the line, one is better served by using the QRH data as being questionably achievable, absolute max effort numbers. I have my engineering reasons from previous lives upon which to base such a comment ..
That is to say, use the data as one more bit of input into the decision process regarding where you might be intending to recover the aircraft in an abnormal or emergency situation.
The distances derived are doable, not black magic
... a point which could be discussed .. upon what basis, and with what considerations, do you so assert ?
There is no requirement for factoring after the dispatch phase
Concur .. but that is not the point .. the QRH data ought to be used as decision making input, not gospel. The emphasis ought to be on checking what factor might exist - which then gives an indication of what level of adrenaline/care is called for - rather than imposing a specific factor ...
Apologies if I appeared condescending .. that certainly was not my intent.
There is no need for distances to be factored after the performance dispatch phase
True. However, I suggest that, on the line, one is better served by using the QRH data as being questionably achievable, absolute max effort numbers. I have my engineering reasons from previous lives upon which to base such a comment ..
That is to say, use the data as one more bit of input into the decision process regarding where you might be intending to recover the aircraft in an abnormal or emergency situation.
The distances derived are doable, not black magic
... a point which could be discussed .. upon what basis, and with what considerations, do you so assert ?
There is no requirement for factoring after the dispatch phase
Concur .. but that is not the point .. the QRH data ought to be used as decision making input, not gospel. The emphasis ought to be on checking what factor might exist - which then gives an indication of what level of adrenaline/care is called for - rather than imposing a specific factor ...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: north
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT ,
It seems we are in agrement on some points. I was merely pointing out (probably in a endless procrastinating way...ooops doing it again) the difference between what may be considered prudent and what is legally required. From my personnal experience it is achievable and reliable data. This includes regular ops into very limiting strips and many contaminated winter fields.
I feel these days there is alot of hand me down info circulating that is a hybrid of Regulation and mixed sops all churned up in the hangar talk sessions and surfaces as fact or Regulation. As a result I like to stick to the actual facts first and then discuss the merits or demerits of applying extra for granny on any calculation be it perf or fuel carried for example.
If a Commander chooses to ad distance or fuel or anything more than needed then it is good to know the baseline from which to start. But not to confuse personnal preference with the base line, if you know what I mean....I'm not sure I do
.
There is also the occasional time that many guys will hide behind safety etc when really it could be just inexperience in a particular kind of op. At the tea and buscuits afterwards it would be prudent to have your decision based on fact not a hybrid version. EG Pilot one on first fight on cat c ops diverts due to factoring PI. Pilot 2 with more experince lands safely in a distance well within the PI non factored length. Pilot 1 thinks pilot 2 is a cowboy. At the tea and buscuits it tanspires that Pilot 2 was correct and pilot 1 had based his decision on thinking he had to factor and was finding answers that suited his nervous confirmation bias..
Enough ...Ive been procrastinating again
It seems we are in agrement on some points. I was merely pointing out (probably in a endless procrastinating way...ooops doing it again) the difference between what may be considered prudent and what is legally required. From my personnal experience it is achievable and reliable data. This includes regular ops into very limiting strips and many contaminated winter fields.
I feel these days there is alot of hand me down info circulating that is a hybrid of Regulation and mixed sops all churned up in the hangar talk sessions and surfaces as fact or Regulation. As a result I like to stick to the actual facts first and then discuss the merits or demerits of applying extra for granny on any calculation be it perf or fuel carried for example.
If a Commander chooses to ad distance or fuel or anything more than needed then it is good to know the baseline from which to start. But not to confuse personnal preference with the base line, if you know what I mean....I'm not sure I do
.There is also the occasional time that many guys will hide behind safety etc when really it could be just inexperience in a particular kind of op. At the tea and buscuits afterwards it would be prudent to have your decision based on fact not a hybrid version. EG Pilot one on first fight on cat c ops diverts due to factoring PI. Pilot 2 with more experince lands safely in a distance well within the PI non factored length. Pilot 1 thinks pilot 2 is a cowboy. At the tea and buscuits it tanspires that Pilot 2 was correct and pilot 1 had based his decision on thinking he had to factor and was finding answers that suited his nervous confirmation bias..
Enough ...Ive been procrastinating again
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When deciding on company policy we look at what is achievable by an average pilot, we therefore do not consider the "actual landing" distances as usable unless they are factored or its an emergency.
Maybe we are just unique
Mutt
Maybe we are just unique
Mutt