BOEING CHANGES RUNWAY NUMBERS WHNE MANUAL
BOEING CHANGES RUNWAY NUMBERS WHNE FULL

The change in terminology between the rules has always led to confusion.

Since, presumably, the runway hasn't changed in length, this leads to a weight reduction. FAR 121.195(d) says that if runway conditions at the destination are expected to be wet or slippery, you must ensure a runway effective length that is at least 115% of the length you needed in paragraph (b).

BOEING CHANGES RUNWAY NUMBERS WHNE FULL

In the States, FAR 121.195(b) requires you to plan to arrive at a weight which allows allows a full stop landing within 60% of the effective runway length.

One view is that the new Airbus (OLD/FOLD) performance, with more realistic landing distances, plus 15%, provides equivalence with the AFM but is this factored or un-factored AFM data?

BOEING CHANGES RUNWAY NUMBERS WHNE MANUAL

Noting that most Ops Manual data allows credit for reverse, but it’s not clear how this can be related to the non-reverse AFM data to show equivalent safety, or how the 1.67 / 1.92 factors (CAT POL A 230) should be applied or not. “… may be contaminated, the LDA shall be at least the landing distance determined in accordance with (a), or at least 115 % of the landing distance determined in accordance with approved contaminated landing distance data or equivalent, whichever is greater.” Methods for providing contaminated data are given in AMC CS 25.1591, recommended reading for the operational limits and assumptions.Ĭonclusions? Use AFM data unless there is specifically approved landing data is in the Ops Manual, (FCOM, QRH)įor takeoff use 1.67 / 1.92 based on the AFM.įor landing use AFM or alternative approved data which provides equivalent safety. “(a) … may be wet, the LDA shall be at least 115 % of the required landing distance, determined in accordance with .230.” 1.92 factor … the 1.67 above applies (note wet adjustment, 1.92, below).ĬAT.POL.A.235 Landing - wet and contaminated runways “ for turbo-jet powered aeroplanes, within 60 % of the landing distance available (LDA)” 1.67 factorĮ) For dispatching the aeroplane. “The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with .105(a)” i.e. I wonder if it is reinterpreted against EASA’s IR-OPS there would be any revised views.ĬAT.OP.MPA.300 “should not prevent a safe approach, landing or missed approach, having regard to the performance information contained in the operations manual.”ĬAT.POL.A.100 requires the use of “approved performance standards that ensure a level of safety equivalent to that of the appropriate chapter.”ĬAT.POL.A.105, “performance data contained in the AFM shall be used to determine compliance” This appears to contradict OP.MPA.300. This has been debated many times before with a range of views, transatlantic and EASA operators.

Boeing changes runway numbers whne