LDG/Conf Apr SPD/LDG Dist Folowing Fail.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LDG/Conf Apr SPD/LDG Dist Folowing Fail.
During the last revision , Airbus decided to insert values to DRY , WET and Contaminated runways. QRH 2.32
Question:
Why the figures we have to multiply by the Actual LDG DIST are greater for dry runway than for wet and Contaminated?
Safe Flights,
A-3TWENTY
Question:
Why the figures we have to multiply by the Actual LDG DIST are greater for dry runway than for wet and Contaminated?
Safe Flights,
A-3TWENTY
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the wet & contaminated figures already have large margins applied to them compared to the dry...in the non-normal case these margins may not necessarily be appropriate any more.
Try putting some numbers through and you'll find that the LDRs for wet and contaminated rwys in the event of a failure are still greater than that required for a dry rwy. The reason it 'looks' wrong is because airbus keep the same process of landing distance calculation regardless of a/c or rwy condition - the only number that matters is what comes out at the end!
Try putting some numbers through and you'll find that the LDRs for wet and contaminated rwys in the event of a failure are still greater than that required for a dry rwy. The reason it 'looks' wrong is because airbus keep the same process of landing distance calculation regardless of a/c or rwy condition - the only number that matters is what comes out at the end!
Planning to land on a wet rwy with dual (G+Y) hyd failure. (Sim time!)
From the QRH for msn 2500ish I came up with ALD (wet) 1360m with QRH wet landing correction factor of 2.15 to get LDR of 2924m.
For dry however the figures are ALD 1070m x dry landing correction factor 2.80, LDR = 2996m (3000m in QRH dual hyd fail summary) This doesn't really make sense to me.
Can someone explain or have I completely overlooked something??
From the QRH for msn 2500ish I came up with ALD (wet) 1360m with QRH wet landing correction factor of 2.15 to get LDR of 2924m.
For dry however the figures are ALD 1070m x dry landing correction factor 2.80, LDR = 2996m (3000m in QRH dual hyd fail summary) This doesn't really make sense to me.
Can someone explain or have I completely overlooked something??
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our co manuals it is stated that the wet figure can be less than the dry figure, so in our perf manuals there is a restriction that wet perf cannot be greater than dry perf.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Boomerang,
With G & Y hyds fail, you'll be limited to 1,000 psi brake pressure to prevent the tyres from skidding due no anti skid.
1,000 psi wheel braking force is a fraction of what you might have been able to apply on a dry runway without the tyres skidding - so the wet & dry landing distances are very similar.
With G & Y hyds fail, you'll be limited to 1,000 psi brake pressure to prevent the tyres from skidding due no anti skid.
1,000 psi wheel braking force is a fraction of what you might have been able to apply on a dry runway without the tyres skidding - so the wet & dry landing distances are very similar.
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 19th Dec 2010 at 09:26. Reason: typos
