Take off alternate - Landing distance req
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disregarding the one engine scenario, slr737 raises an interesting question about landing performance requirement for takeoff alternate (even in good wx, where you can consider your departure airport).
To keep legal, do you have to demonstrate you can land in 60% of the LDA at your departure airport/takeoff alternate? And if so, at what weight are you required to demonstrate this at?
To keep legal, do you have to demonstrate you can land in 60% of the LDA at your departure airport/takeoff alternate? And if so, at what weight are you required to demonstrate this at?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because the applicable relevant weight may be above the max landing weight, if you are returning due to an abnormal condition. You were never intending on returning to departure airport until the abnormal happened.
But we are discussing the dispatch requirements in the ops room before we get onboard... Which brings us back to the first question, "do you have to demonstrate you can land in 60% of the LDA at your departure airport/takeoff alternate? "
But we are discussing the dispatch requirements in the ops room before we get onboard... Which brings us back to the first question, "do you have to demonstrate you can land in 60% of the LDA at your departure airport/takeoff alternate? "
That's all very well but you are not attempting to answer SLR737's question.
RTFQ old chap.
RTFQ old chap.
I have read the question, all right, and given a clear answer, you cannot "demonstrate" (as one poster puts it) that you can land in 60% of the factored LDA, because you are not an experienced and current test pilot, with a flight test aeroplane, using the rather brutal handling techniques that established the unfactored distances in the first place.
If you attempt to land where the actual landing distance available in only equal to the nominal unfactored distance, you will go off the end, with the consequent almost certainty of damage to your aircraft, which will almost certainly end you career if you are the PIC, and expose your passengers to entirely avoidable risks, which is what, in public, you will be canned for.
The "it was legal" defense doesn't work in real inquiries, let alone the court of public opinion.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I must have a look at the current figures for aircraft runway over-runs (not just Indonesia), but I think it will validate what I have said about landing performance, even when the runway in not obviously limiting.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere hot and sticky
Age: 44
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear when I said "demonstrate" I was referring to calculating the required landing distance while sat in the dispatch office. Not demonstrating by any practical means.
“… use of ‘factored’ data for landing at takeoff alternate …”
EU-OPS 1.400 requires that ‘Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself/herself that, according to the information available to him/her, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual.'
Many interpretations of this use the dispatch factors for the destination; the logic being that this is an equivalent level of safety.
With FOLD, the data may result in similar landing distance to the dispatch factored distances; however, if FOLD assumes reverse (check the small print) the slightly higher risk of a reverse failure in comparison to the dispatch case could be balanced by the infrequent use of FOLD for a landing at destination. FOLD is usually based on the minimum factor (15%) which can (should) be increased.
In principle the above applies for landing at the take-off alternate.
Assuming that this will be an abnormal operation then the assessment of ‘a safe approach and landing’ can be revised by the Commander – balanced by the necessities of the situation, e.g. use the minimum factor for urgent landing.
For increasing levels of emergency then ‘safe’ should be (continuously) reassessed; for an engine failure where FOLD could be invalided, then reference to the abnormal landing distances – landing with failures, should provide guidance for the landing distance required – with or without factors (check the small print).
As the risks increase the landing decision requires a well-balanced judgement (and thus justifiable after the fact); e.g. choosing the absolute minimum distance would consider an unfamiliar airport, landing at max weight, higher speed, etc, not just the failure, all of which could affect the accuracy of the assumed touchdown point in the data.
N.B. when last seen the Boeing ‘actual’ advisory data – pre OLD, has more limiting assumptions, thus less safety margin in the landing distance calculations (really read the small print). An interpretation of this ‘actual’ data is that after applying the minimum factor (15%), the resultant landing distance is only then something which can be achieved by an average pilot. However, when considering the safety aspects of an abnormal takeoff alternate landing, further factors will be required, particularly re the lack of reverse, etc.
Which manufacturers now publish FOLD?
EU-OPS 1.400 requires that ‘Before commencing an approach to land, the commander must satisfy himself/herself that, according to the information available to him/her, the weather at the aerodrome and the condition of the runway intended to be used should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the Operations Manual.'
Many interpretations of this use the dispatch factors for the destination; the logic being that this is an equivalent level of safety.
With FOLD, the data may result in similar landing distance to the dispatch factored distances; however, if FOLD assumes reverse (check the small print) the slightly higher risk of a reverse failure in comparison to the dispatch case could be balanced by the infrequent use of FOLD for a landing at destination. FOLD is usually based on the minimum factor (15%) which can (should) be increased.
In principle the above applies for landing at the take-off alternate.
Assuming that this will be an abnormal operation then the assessment of ‘a safe approach and landing’ can be revised by the Commander – balanced by the necessities of the situation, e.g. use the minimum factor for urgent landing.
For increasing levels of emergency then ‘safe’ should be (continuously) reassessed; for an engine failure where FOLD could be invalided, then reference to the abnormal landing distances – landing with failures, should provide guidance for the landing distance required – with or without factors (check the small print).
As the risks increase the landing decision requires a well-balanced judgement (and thus justifiable after the fact); e.g. choosing the absolute minimum distance would consider an unfamiliar airport, landing at max weight, higher speed, etc, not just the failure, all of which could affect the accuracy of the assumed touchdown point in the data.
N.B. when last seen the Boeing ‘actual’ advisory data – pre OLD, has more limiting assumptions, thus less safety margin in the landing distance calculations (really read the small print). An interpretation of this ‘actual’ data is that after applying the minimum factor (15%), the resultant landing distance is only then something which can be achieved by an average pilot. However, when considering the safety aspects of an abnormal takeoff alternate landing, further factors will be required, particularly re the lack of reverse, etc.
Which manufacturers now publish FOLD?
Despegue, aqui lo tienes http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2066.pdf
8che and slr737:
An alternate is an alternate and needs to be considered according to your applicable regulation. In EASA, this is governed by CAT.POL.230/235 for Perf A aircraft, which I presume slr737 is discussing. A takeoff alternate is no different.
There are many reasons why you may need to return after take-off, aside from OEI case. What weight would you plan for? An immediate return with a realistic circuit fuel burn would be sensible. Any more time aloft will only give you more favourable performance. If you have an unconfined fire or other such emergency, you may elect to return immediately regardless of the performance or structural limitations, should the situation dictate.
As with all of this, it's a planning criteria applicable up to the moment you begin the take-off run. After that, as safetypee points out, CAT.OP.MPA.300 applies. If you have planned things correctly during your preflight brief, you should have a good idea of where you're going in the event of certain triggers. i.e. a 'land as soon as possible' situation may warrant an overweight return to land; a 'land as soon as practicable' situation should warrant the take-off alternate which satisfied the dispatch requirements prior to take-off.
Consider your destination. Do you have to land within 60% of the LDA for a dry runway? No, you need to demonstrate that a realistic fuel burn will allow your theoretical landing performance to permit a landing within 60%. If you arrive at the destination heavier than planned (i.e. more favourable winds/flight level, direct routing, etc...), then what? You can still land, as long as the commander deems it's safe to do so prior to commencing the approach. Various companies have mandatory factors to help guide commanders with this decision. Factors are merely a guide, and no guarantee of achieving a safe landing as you can still royally balls up the TCH, Vref and flare.
LeadSled discusses the demonstrated landing performance. Your particular aircraft's configuration and the landing profile used to achieve this is in your AFM prior to the relevant performance. Read it. For the aircraft I've flown, they require maximum braking immediately after touching down and nailing the TCH and Vref speed, and glidepath angle. We generally don't do that. tends to spill the drinks, hence factoring is a good idea. Have a look at how an extra 10 knots on Vref affects your LDR. Or 10ft on TCH. All of this allows you to make an assessment of likely a safe landing can be achieved.
8che and slr737:
An alternate is an alternate and needs to be considered according to your applicable regulation. In EASA, this is governed by CAT.POL.230/235 for Perf A aircraft, which I presume slr737 is discussing. A takeoff alternate is no different.
There are many reasons why you may need to return after take-off, aside from OEI case. What weight would you plan for? An immediate return with a realistic circuit fuel burn would be sensible. Any more time aloft will only give you more favourable performance. If you have an unconfined fire or other such emergency, you may elect to return immediately regardless of the performance or structural limitations, should the situation dictate.
As with all of this, it's a planning criteria applicable up to the moment you begin the take-off run. After that, as safetypee points out, CAT.OP.MPA.300 applies. If you have planned things correctly during your preflight brief, you should have a good idea of where you're going in the event of certain triggers. i.e. a 'land as soon as possible' situation may warrant an overweight return to land; a 'land as soon as practicable' situation should warrant the take-off alternate which satisfied the dispatch requirements prior to take-off.
Consider your destination. Do you have to land within 60% of the LDA for a dry runway? No, you need to demonstrate that a realistic fuel burn will allow your theoretical landing performance to permit a landing within 60%. If you arrive at the destination heavier than planned (i.e. more favourable winds/flight level, direct routing, etc...), then what? You can still land, as long as the commander deems it's safe to do so prior to commencing the approach. Various companies have mandatory factors to help guide commanders with this decision. Factors are merely a guide, and no guarantee of achieving a safe landing as you can still royally balls up the TCH, Vref and flare.
LeadSled discusses the demonstrated landing performance. Your particular aircraft's configuration and the landing profile used to achieve this is in your AFM prior to the relevant performance. Read it. For the aircraft I've flown, they require maximum braking immediately after touching down and nailing the TCH and Vref speed, and glidepath angle. We generally don't do that. tends to spill the drinks, hence factoring is a good idea. Have a look at how an extra 10 knots on Vref affects your LDR. Or 10ft on TCH. All of this allows you to make an assessment of likely a safe landing can be achieved.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this an interesting discussion and I have done some research of my operations manual and EU OPS.
The question, if I understood correctly, is: if we have to take into account N-1 landing minima, do we have to take into account at the planning stage N-1 landing distance requirements.
To me, not!
There are two regulations, sub part D and sub part F.
Sub part D talks about wx planning minima and stipulates that for a take off alternate you have to take into account N-1 limitations for the aircraft. So for example a B737(the one I fly) can't fly a N-1 cat 2/3, however, a EMB190 can fly a N-1 cat2/3. So for the first aircraft(B737) if the wx is below cat 1 I have to find an alternate that is above cat 1, for the second(emb 190) I don't.
Sub part F talks about performance requirements! Besides required enroute alternates, there is no requirement to take into account any N-1 conditions!!
So, to summarize, your take off alternate should have wx limits above N-1 limits for your airplane type(according part D) and comply with the general requirements(according part F) for being able to land within 60% of the runway with all engines!
My mind is scrambled with all the rules, but think about it! You can go to your destinations without having to take into account N-1 landing performance, your alternates don't have to comply with N-1 landing performance requirements! Why should your take off alternate have to?
It is only a WX requirement, related to N-1 limitations that have to be taken into account.
As a last argument, nowhere in my books, there is a dispatch chart for landing performance N-1(I sound like Yoda). Only FOLD charts!!
The question, if I understood correctly, is: if we have to take into account N-1 landing minima, do we have to take into account at the planning stage N-1 landing distance requirements.
To me, not!
There are two regulations, sub part D and sub part F.
Sub part D talks about wx planning minima and stipulates that for a take off alternate you have to take into account N-1 limitations for the aircraft. So for example a B737(the one I fly) can't fly a N-1 cat 2/3, however, a EMB190 can fly a N-1 cat2/3. So for the first aircraft(B737) if the wx is below cat 1 I have to find an alternate that is above cat 1, for the second(emb 190) I don't.
Sub part F talks about performance requirements! Besides required enroute alternates, there is no requirement to take into account any N-1 conditions!!
So, to summarize, your take off alternate should have wx limits above N-1 limits for your airplane type(according part D) and comply with the general requirements(according part F) for being able to land within 60% of the runway with all engines!
My mind is scrambled with all the rules, but think about it! You can go to your destinations without having to take into account N-1 landing performance, your alternates don't have to comply with N-1 landing performance requirements! Why should your take off alternate have to?
It is only a WX requirement, related to N-1 limitations that have to be taken into account.
As a last argument, nowhere in my books, there is a dispatch chart for landing performance N-1(I sound like Yoda). Only FOLD charts!!
It is actually very simple.
On the ground take-off is optional. All planned landing airports and alternates must meet dispatch landing distance.
Once airborne, landing is mandatory. All landings are en-route/advisory data.
From an IFALPA document that discusses the differences between certified and advisory.
http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/Briefing%20Leaflets/Aircraft%20Design%20&%20Operation/12ADOBL03%20-%20Certified%20vs%20advisory%20data%20on%20Boeing%20aircraft .pdf
On the ground take-off is optional. All planned landing airports and alternates must meet dispatch landing distance.
Once airborne, landing is mandatory. All landings are en-route/advisory data.
From an IFALPA document that discusses the differences between certified and advisory.
Comparing Certified to Advisory data is, as the saying goes, like “comparing apples with oranges”. Certified data (that is factored dry test landing distance, with no reverse thrust, multiplied by 1.67 plus an additional .15 for wet runways) is used as a ight planning tool. Certified data allows you to determine the maximum takeoff weight which will allow the aircraft to land at the destination or alternate airport. FAA Advisory data is non-factored and assumes the use of reverse thrust in addition to all the conditions met or adjusted as referenced from the chart at the bottom of the PI page. Advisory data is provided to meet operational needs on varying runway conditions with the expectation that crews will assess landing performance based on actual weather and runway conditions at the time of arrival as opposed to those prevailing at the time of dispatch, when Certified data is used.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my aircraft, we have the advisory data for OEI case and a lot of other advisory data for non normal.
If you want to make it dispatch, it is simple criteria of adding 1,67 or 1,92 to it.
The question is do we have to do it also for the take off alternate in whatever case we can think off.
Elsa air ops specify that in the dispatch case, you have to show that you can land within the 60% of the runway for the destination and ALL alternate. so for me it includes also the take off alternate.
So I would presume that you need to show that you can land also at the take off alternate within 60% in the normal configuration, like you would do for the destination or destination alternate.
However, we know that we take a take off alternate because we can't come back at the destination due to wx. OEI is one case where (on my aircraft) you cannot come back under CAT III conditions.
I would say that we need to demonstrate that we can land at the take off alternate within 60% under normal conditions. But nothing is really written!
However no one seems to have a "real" answer to it. So let's assume, like c100driver pointed out that yes we need the dispatch criteria under normal conditions. but if we have to divert because of a non normal then it becomes an inflight calculation and as such does not require the 60% rule.
Leadsled, yes we know that we won't make the landing distance written in the books. But it is also our duty to follow the rules and make it legal.
Legality has now became a real part of our job, compare to what you might have know flying the 707 back in the old days...
If you want to make it dispatch, it is simple criteria of adding 1,67 or 1,92 to it.
The question is do we have to do it also for the take off alternate in whatever case we can think off.
Elsa air ops specify that in the dispatch case, you have to show that you can land within the 60% of the runway for the destination and ALL alternate. so for me it includes also the take off alternate.
So I would presume that you need to show that you can land also at the take off alternate within 60% in the normal configuration, like you would do for the destination or destination alternate.
However, we know that we take a take off alternate because we can't come back at the destination due to wx. OEI is one case where (on my aircraft) you cannot come back under CAT III conditions.
I would say that we need to demonstrate that we can land at the take off alternate within 60% under normal conditions. But nothing is really written!
However no one seems to have a "real" answer to it. So let's assume, like c100driver pointed out that yes we need the dispatch criteria under normal conditions. but if we have to divert because of a non normal then it becomes an inflight calculation and as such does not require the 60% rule.
Leadsled, yes we know that we won't make the landing distance written in the books. But it is also our duty to follow the rules and make it legal.
Legality has now became a real part of our job, compare to what you might have know flying the 707 back in the old days...
It is not really that hard.
§121.197 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Alternate airports.
No person may list an airport as an alternate airport in a dispatch or flight release for a turbine engine powered airplane unless (based on the assumptions in §121.195 (b)) that airplane at the weight anticipated at the time of arrival can be brought to a full stop landing within 70 percent of the effective length of the runway for turbopropeller powered airplanes and 60 percent of the effective length of the runway for turbojet powered airplanes, from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. In the case of an alternate airport for departure, as provided in §121.617, allowance may be made for fuel jettisoning in addition to normal consumption of fuel and oil when determining the weight anticipated at the time of arrival.
No person may list an airport as an alternate airport in a dispatch or flight release for a turbine engine powered airplane unless (based on the assumptions in §121.195 (b)) that airplane at the weight anticipated at the time of arrival can be brought to a full stop landing within 70 percent of the effective length of the runway for turbopropeller powered airplanes and 60 percent of the effective length of the runway for turbojet powered airplanes, from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. In the case of an alternate airport for departure, as provided in §121.617, allowance may be made for fuel jettisoning in addition to normal consumption of fuel and oil when determining the weight anticipated at the time of arrival.
The OEI case is a red herring and is specific to choosing a field that maybe Cat 2 or 3. In the case of a B737 without OEI cat2 or 3 then you have to use a airport that has cat1 minima. The landing distance that the chosen departure alternate has to meet before takeoff is the dispatch landing requirement. With the exception of some 4 engine aircraft that have certified AFM data for 3 engine ferry (i.e. intentional OEI) then the only certified data available is AFM all engine.
§121.195 Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Landing limitations: Destination airports.
(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at such a weight that (allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the destination or alternate airport) the weight of the airplane on arrival would exceed the landing weight set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination or alternate airport and the ambient temperature anticipated at the time of landing.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no person operating a turbine engine powered 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. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed:
(1) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the most favorable direction, in still air.
(2) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering the probable wind velocity and direction and the ground handling characteristics of the airplane, and considering other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.
(c) A turbopropeller powered airplane that would be prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, may be taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets all the requirements of this section except that the airplane can accomplish a full stop landing within 70 percent of the effective length of the runway.
(d) Unless, based on a showing of actual operating landing techniques on wet runways, a shorter landing distance (but never less than that required by paragraph (b) of this section) has been approved for a specific type and model airplane and included in the Airplane Flight Manual, no person may takeoff a turbojet powered airplane when the appropriate weather reports and forecasts, or a combination thereof, indicate that the runways at the destination airport may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of arrival unless the effective runway length at the destination airport is at least 115 percent of the runway length required under paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) A turbojet powered airplane that would be prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets all the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at such a weight that (allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight to the destination or alternate airport) the weight of the airplane on arrival would exceed the landing weight set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination or alternate airport and the ambient temperature anticipated at the time of landing.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no person operating a turbine engine powered 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. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed:
(1) The airplane is landed on the most favorable runway and in the most favorable direction, in still air.
(2) The airplane is landed on the most suitable runway considering the probable wind velocity and direction and the ground handling characteristics of the airplane, and considering other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.
(c) A turbopropeller powered airplane that would be prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, may be taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets all the requirements of this section except that the airplane can accomplish a full stop landing within 70 percent of the effective length of the runway.
(d) Unless, based on a showing of actual operating landing techniques on wet runways, a shorter landing distance (but never less than that required by paragraph (b) of this section) has been approved for a specific type and model airplane and included in the Airplane Flight Manual, no person may takeoff a turbojet powered airplane when the appropriate weather reports and forecasts, or a combination thereof, indicate that the runways at the destination airport may be wet or slippery at the estimated time of arrival unless the effective runway length at the destination airport is at least 115 percent of the runway length required under paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) A turbojet powered airplane that would be prohibited from being taken off because it could not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be taken off if an alternate airport is specified that meets all the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
Last edited by c100driver; 30th Dec 2015 at 00:39. Reason: addition
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where has the idea that manufacturers performance data is unachieveable come from? It's absolute rubbish to state that an average line pilot cannot achieve book figures. A manufacturer would be crucified in court if book figures were not achievable. Crossing the threshold at 50 feet on speed, closing the throttles, and performing a normal landing with maximum braking will produce at least the book figures and if a line pilot can't do that then he or she needs to find another job!
FOLD
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62707861/Safety-First-12
http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/Safety%...ust%202010.pdf
http://crew.rj.com/wtouch/training_c...erformance.pdf
Re #34 “Where has the idea that manufacturers performance data is unachieveable come from? It's absolute rubbish to state that an average line pilot cannot achieve book figures”.
The issue is not that the advisory distances are ‘absolutely’ unachievable, but that they are not achieved in operation.
There could be many factors apart from not touching down at the point assumed in the calculation (not 3000 ft or the first third – more often 1000 ft with little or no margin). The crew may not have sufficiently accurate data to use the chosen chart, e.g. wind, braking action; or not operate the aircraft as assumed by the manufacturer.
The FAA has recently issued SAFO 15 009 which appears to acknowledge some of these issues above.
Also see the amended AC91-97A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62707861/Safety-First-12
http://www.ukfsc.co.uk/files/Safety%...ust%202010.pdf
http://crew.rj.com/wtouch/training_c...erformance.pdf
Re #34 “Where has the idea that manufacturers performance data is unachieveable come from? It's absolute rubbish to state that an average line pilot cannot achieve book figures”.
The issue is not that the advisory distances are ‘absolutely’ unachievable, but that they are not achieved in operation.
There could be many factors apart from not touching down at the point assumed in the calculation (not 3000 ft or the first third – more often 1000 ft with little or no margin). The crew may not have sufficiently accurate data to use the chosen chart, e.g. wind, braking action; or not operate the aircraft as assumed by the manufacturer.
The FAA has recently issued SAFO 15 009 which appears to acknowledge some of these issues above.
Also see the amended AC91-97A.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps up landings, hydraulic-, gear- and flight control problems are typically more common than OEI landings. Shouldn't we start multiplying their landing distances by 1.92 as well? 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8che
With regard to the availability of your departure airfield following an engine failure in LVOs, your aircraft may well be approved for CAT 3 on one engine, but is it approved for autoland above Max Landing Mass? This is not the case on the B738 and would influence take off alternate selection following an engine failure at a mass above MLW in LVOs.
With regard to the availability of your departure airfield following an engine failure in LVOs, your aircraft may well be approved for CAT 3 on one engine, but is it approved for autoland above Max Landing Mass? This is not the case on the B738 and would influence take off alternate selection following an engine failure at a mass above MLW in LVOs.
Last edited by Matey; 3rd Jan 2016 at 22:05.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Matey its not which is why we can jettison fuel on the way to the alternate if needed.
On the 737 that's not an option so presumably some of the idiots on this thread will be factorising overweight landing performance before they take off !!
This is becoming tiresome
On the 737 that's not an option so presumably some of the idiots on this thread will be factorising overweight landing performance before they take off !!
This is becoming tiresome
Leadsled, yes we know that we won't make the landing distance written in the books.????
But it is also our duty to follow the rules and make it legal.????
Legality has now became a real part of our job, compare to what you might have know flying the 707 back in the old days...
But it is also our duty to follow the rules and make it legal.????
Legality has now became a real part of our job, compare to what you might have know flying the 707 back in the old days...
Are you really serious in making that statement??
The requirement to operate legally has not changed, since a legal framework was put around aircraft, that goes right back to the 1920s, whatever the laws may be at the time.
"Legally" , what you have said above is that you have to operate your aircraft in a manner that fits the definition of reckless operation of an aircraft, next up the criminal scale from negligent operation of an aircraft.
To suggest that you must operate an aircraft in a manner that fits the definition of reckless to stay "legal", is, if I may say so, legal nonsense.
Planning to operate on a runway where you know, in advance, you cannot stop, if that runway is required, is recklessness.
In every country under whose legal framework I have operated ( been licensed as a pilot and/or operated aircraft on that registry -- UK/US/AU/NZ plus a few others) reckless operation of an aircraft is a most serious criminal offense.
That probably goes a long way to explaining the confused thinking in much of this thread, you all need to adopt a rather wider meaning of "legal", as I have alluded to in earlier posts, where is mention the LEGAL responsibilities of the PIC. Those legal responsibilities are not merely theoretical, they are an every day reality, as, every now and again, a pilot finds out the hard way.
Just meeting the dispatch requirements (however badly they are constituted) in no way constitutes a PIC meeting his or her legal responsibilities for the flight.
As for "the old days" (SFAR 422B), my comments apply up to and including the B747-400, a long way remove, in terms of certified performance and acceptable performance data, from the B707/DC-8 days.
By the way, I am still flying.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have a very nasty suspicion that differently derived distances (certification amendment number at time of certification) are being mixed up here, and landing distanced based on different criteria are being conflated and confused.
Last edited by LeadSled; 5th Jan 2016 at 05:44.