GRF Airbus RWYCC downgrade
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Russia
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRF Airbus RWYCC downgrade
Hello dear colleagues ))
It might be my question is not new, but following multi changes in FCOM and FCTM with last revision in Airbus the topic of Performance calculations minimum one doubt.
Live example from Helsinki apt from 29.12.2021, RCR(Runway Condition Report) via digital ATIS contains information such:
Runway Condition Codes 2 downgraded, 3 downgraded, 3 downgraded, contaminants all parts 100 per sent 03 millimeters DRY snow.
Take Off significant contaminant thin. After included SA information.
To discover with above information we have some explanations by FCOM/ EFB/TOF/30/30/Performance Calculation/Downgrade part
- RWYCC 2, the computation with any depth of slush or standing water may be not conservative...(take additional information or delay T.O.)
My question is, what is the Runway condition do I have to use in Flight Smart + T.O. for above example, considering only 3 mm of dry snow and minimum RWYCC 2.
More over most of explanations in FCOM and FCTM help us with LDG performance calculations, those pls explain dear colleagues how in a proper way extract necessary information about Runway Condition using RCAM for T.O. calculation.
Many thanks in Advance....
It might be my question is not new, but following multi changes in FCOM and FCTM with last revision in Airbus the topic of Performance calculations minimum one doubt.
Live example from Helsinki apt from 29.12.2021, RCR(Runway Condition Report) via digital ATIS contains information such:
Runway Condition Codes 2 downgraded, 3 downgraded, 3 downgraded, contaminants all parts 100 per sent 03 millimeters DRY snow.
Take Off significant contaminant thin. After included SA information.
To discover with above information we have some explanations by FCOM/ EFB/TOF/30/30/Performance Calculation/Downgrade part
- RWYCC 2, the computation with any depth of slush or standing water may be not conservative...(take additional information or delay T.O.)
My question is, what is the Runway condition do I have to use in Flight Smart + T.O. for above example, considering only 3 mm of dry snow and minimum RWYCC 2.
More over most of explanations in FCOM and FCTM help us with LDG performance calculations, those pls explain dear colleagues how in a proper way extract necessary information about Runway Condition using RCAM for T.O. calculation.
Many thanks in Advance....
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello dear colleagues ))
It might be my question is not new, but following multi changes in FCOM and FCTM with last revision in Airbus the topic of Performance calculations minimum one doubt.
Live example from Helsinki apt from 29.12.2021, RCR(Runway Condition Report) via digital ATIS contains information such:
Runway Condition Codes 2 downgraded, 3 downgraded, 3 downgraded, contaminants all parts 100 per sent 03 millimeters DRY snow.
Take Off significant contaminant thin. After included SA information.
To discover with above information we have some explanations by FCOM/ EFB/TOF/30/30/Performance Calculation/Downgrade part
- RWYCC 2, the computation with any depth of slush or standing water may be not conservative...(take additional information or delay T.O.)
My question is, what is the Runway condition do I have to use in Flight Smart + T.O. for above example, considering only 3 mm of dry snow and minimum RWYCC 2.
More over most of explanations in FCOM and FCTM help us with LDG performance calculations, those pls explain dear colleagues how in a proper way extract necessary information about Runway Condition using RCAM for T.O. calculation.
Many thanks in Advance....
It might be my question is not new, but following multi changes in FCOM and FCTM with last revision in Airbus the topic of Performance calculations minimum one doubt.
Live example from Helsinki apt from 29.12.2021, RCR(Runway Condition Report) via digital ATIS contains information such:
Runway Condition Codes 2 downgraded, 3 downgraded, 3 downgraded, contaminants all parts 100 per sent 03 millimeters DRY snow.
Take Off significant contaminant thin. After included SA information.
To discover with above information we have some explanations by FCOM/ EFB/TOF/30/30/Performance Calculation/Downgrade part
- RWYCC 2, the computation with any depth of slush or standing water may be not conservative...(take additional information or delay T.O.)
My question is, what is the Runway condition do I have to use in Flight Smart + T.O. for above example, considering only 3 mm of dry snow and minimum RWYCC 2.
More over most of explanations in FCOM and FCTM help us with LDG performance calculations, those pls explain dear colleagues how in a proper way extract necessary information about Runway Condition using RCAM for T.O. calculation.
Many thanks in Advance....
EASA GRF Q&A HERE
Check page 16 second question and page 15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Russia
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Sonicbum, I appreciate for your time and interesting reference. By the challenge of EASA, if I correctly understood only the plan in future to combine type and depth of contaminant with RWYCC downgrade.Moreover Flight Smart + Take Off consider only type and depth of contaminant, which also recommended for Take Off calculation to satisfy with accelerating while Rolling. Just one method in above mentioned which I can suggest to find the more conservative performance from reported contamination and downgraded RWYCC. But if we have crosswind or weight limitation its a bit difficult to proof the right way of our calculation, together for all thirds of the actual RWY. Please correct me if its true.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems we are on a transition phase. Landing calculations are clearer for me. Takeoff there are some gray areas...
Would be interesting to see flysmart inputs on both contaminant and RWYCC.
Would be interesting to see flysmart inputs on both contaminant and RWYCC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Russia
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello!
Indeed I'v received Tech Request by Airbus.In spite of reference from FCOM (downgrade 2 for T.O) the Airbus recommend to extract RWY condition from RCAM.But they mentioned about not standard RCR issued by Helsinki apt. They said essential method to take RWY condition for T.O. calculation, but in according with example the proper way to step down RWYCC 2, and take according condition.
In any case I agree with opinion about the T.O. method calculation is not exact versus LDG performance calculation.
Moreover if apt. does't have Digital ATIS, it's difficult to receive actual RWY information, the METAR not included any RCR.
Please if you have some thoughts share with us.
Thk. everyone
Indeed I'v received Tech Request by Airbus.In spite of reference from FCOM (downgrade 2 for T.O) the Airbus recommend to extract RWY condition from RCAM.But they mentioned about not standard RCR issued by Helsinki apt. They said essential method to take RWY condition for T.O. calculation, but in according with example the proper way to step down RWYCC 2, and take according condition.
In any case I agree with opinion about the T.O. method calculation is not exact versus LDG performance calculation.
Moreover if apt. does't have Digital ATIS, it's difficult to receive actual RWY information, the METAR not included any RCR.
Please if you have some thoughts share with us.
Thk. everyone
