[Username Protected]

According to POH numbers yes, they are safe.

[Username Protected]

Hey all
one of the airports near where I live is KMYF in San Diego.
The main Rwy, 28R Is 3400 ft with a 1199 ft displaced threshold.
The runway is asphalt, resurfaced but NOT grooved.
Assuming coming in to land here with 9100 lbs, flaps FULL, the UNFACTLRED landing dry distance is 2620 ft and wet distance is 3330 ft.
If you came in a little heavier, for whatever reason, those numbers go up.
The question for the more experienced folks here is how many would be comfortable landing with those numbers? Assume you cannot cheat and use the displaced part of runway to come in below the GS.
if you are comfortable, any precautions you would take? Like make sure you come in at a lighter than heavier weight?
Who would feel comfortable being based at the field?
Would you feel comfortable landing if the runway was wet? (3330 ft)
How about contaminated?
How about flying part 135 into this airport? With it wet?
I am just trying to get a feel for how most folks feel about it…
Of course, using Rwy 10L with 4598 ft is a possibility but let’s say we are only able to use 28R

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected),

I have 600+ hours in a Phenom 100. The calculation for dry runway is correct for landing by the books. MY rule of thumb is add 50% and you are safe with wet runways, no ice, no wind. So 3900 feet would be the required runway (for I). That why my comment 3500 feet is short. 4000 feet, or close by, is my min for the Phenom up to 2000 feet density altitude at airport. For take off 9800 pounds max (1 pilot, 2 pax, 1800p fuel), you are at 3413 feet. Recommend to watch this:
https://www.phenompilots.org/threads...21-07-00-PM-ET

[Username Protected]

I guess the answer is simple!

If OPERA tells you it can be done, you shoul ask yourself if YOU are comfortable with that.

[Username Protected]

According to POH numbers yes, they are safe.

That’s assuming a perfectly-executed approach and touchdown, on a clean runway with good friction coefficient, with perfect tires and brakes, and no effects from crosswind on the anti-skid system.

Yes, according to the calculation it is safe, but is it wise? How much do you trust yourself and all the variables to make that landing roll perfect?

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected)-

This is very cut and dry to me:

I would be comfortable landing 28R only if dry. With that said, yes, I would do everything possible to keep landing weight reasonably low (without cutting into safe fuel reserve). I would calculate and strictly abide by a touchdown point limit (TPL) for every landing, as well, and be in the mental state that a go-around is very possible if I became unstabilized.

I would definitely not attempt to land on a wet/ contaminated runway with 3400' LDA, especially if the runway is not grooved. I have many times seen the plane need 3000'-4000' of ground roll on wet runways as the anti-skid cycles and the plane slides a(Username Protected).

Re: basing the plane there, that is a personal conversation to have with yourself. Are you OK with diverting to another field anytime 28R is required and the field is not completely dry? If you have the discipline/ mind-set to make this your SOP, then certainly, I'd base a plane there and plan on using Uber every now and then.

Look at the runway overrun history of the Phenom 100 compared to the Mustang. An order of magnitude more events for similar sized plane/ fleet. Non-dry runways are not to be underestimated in the plane.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected)-

This is very cut and dry to me:

I would be comfortable landing 28R only if dry. With that said, yes, I would do everything possible to keep landing weight reasonably low (without cutting into safe fuel reserve). I would calculate and strictly abide by a touchdown point limit (TPL) for every landing, as well, and be in the mental state that a go-around is very possible if I became unstabilized.

I would definitely not attempt to land on a wet/ contaminated runway with 3400' LDA, especially if the runway is not grooved. I have many times seen the plane need 3000'-4000' of ground roll on wet runways as the anti-skid cycles and the plane slides a(Username Protected).

Re: basing the plane there, that is a personal conversation to have with yourself. Are you OK with diverting to another field anytime 28R is required and the field is not completely dry? If you have the discipline/ mind-set to make this your SOP, then certainly, I'd base a plane there and plan on using Uber every now and then.

Look at the runway overrun history of the Phenom 100 compared to the Mustang. An order of magnitude more events for similar sized plane/ fleet. Non-dry runways are not to be underestimated in the plane.

Thanks (Username Protected)
your point is well taken.
One of the major aspects of phenom is always the concern about runway length and contamination.
Did not have to worry so much in the eclipse world, as it’s 4800-5500 lbs with Vref somewhat less than the Phenom in the 84-92kts. Even though I did not have ABS, I did not feel the need for it and wet runways were not so much a concern.
The much larger ERJ-175/190 had carbon brakes and it was a great platform.
I wonder if Embraer has considered carbon brake pads for the phenom, instead of steel, especially given the runway overrun history of our platform. Carbon brake pads are supposed to be more efficient and more heat resistant.

[Username Protected]

FYI the 300 uses Carbon Brakes (the 100 does not)

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected)-

The brakes are not the problem with the P100, the lack of ground spoilers is. Lots of light jets have steel brakes and have great stopping ability.

Touching down on a wet runway at 100 knots (give or take) the wing is still producing lift, so the force of the tires against the runway is less than the weight of the plane. This affects how much stopping force the tire can exert against the runway.

With the 100E and EV (ground spoilers added) the non-dry performance of the 100 was much improved.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected), I agree that ground spoilers help, but I think it's a combination of a number of other factors that hurts the field performance and handling of the P100 on the ground. Narrow track width & wheelbase, lack of super low ground idle (that drops thrust down to 8-10%, CJ3+), no thrust attenuators (CJs), no split ventral fin (Cirrus Jet), programing of the brake computers, lack of feedback on the rudder pedals, and obviously no thrust reversers (which can't be taken into consideration for field performance).

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected)-

Making an apples to apples comparison though-

No new light jets (Part 23/ 23 commuter) in production have:
-Thrust attenuators (CJs only had them before FADEC was added- CJ, CJ1, CJ2)
-Reverse thrust
And all the Phenoms and Citations (FADEC controlled) I fly have pretty much the same idle thrust.

So all that's left to differentiate the P100 (besides lack of speedbrakes/ spoilers) is tactile feedback on brake pedals, which won't affect maximum available braking potential, wheelbase, ditto, and finally BCU programming.

You could argue the BCU programming might not be optional, but I'd find that hard to believe. Embraer has revised and finessed the BCU logic a lot over the past 15 years, I'd be surprised if there was anything "left on the table" at this point...

[Username Protected]

Everyone please watch this webinar on landing accidents and runway overruns in the Phenoms.



It open my eyes when I did the research. Bot(Username Protected) line is throw out all of Embraer’s landing data it has been proven by several NTSB investigations that it is way too short. Pilots should use the new “Operational Landing” distances in the POH which take into account human factors and give more accurate contaminated data based on runway condition codes. The tables do however assume maximum braking.

You will find if you are trying to land on a wet ungrooved runway that is less than 5000 ft in either Phenom, you are taking a big risk of going off the end of the runway. Many professional crews have proven it over and over again.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected), doesn't the CJ3+ have low ground idle (8-10%), which is why the attenuators weren't needed. The current ground idle on the P100 and early CJs were still producing significant thrust on roll out. I brought this up to EMB and asked if the engineers if they would discuss it with PWC. I think it was very clever on Williams' part. The Cirrus Jet has the split ventral fin, and I'd disagree that great ground handling performance on landing doesn't improve field performance. We've seen too many P100s go off the side of the runway.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected)-

When the CJ1 and CJ2 switched to the 1+ and 2+ with FADEC controlled engines, they did away with the attenuators. When the first 525 was made, I don't think there were any other jets in production without thrust reversers as, at a minimum, an option if not standard.

I've flown all of the FADEC equipped 525s (1+, 2+, M2, 3, 3+, 4), and I can't say I've ever noticed a large difference in the ground idle setting between any of them. I'm pretty sure the 3 and 3+ have exact same engine, but I'd have to look. In any event, I don't really notice a difference in thrust at idle in the P100/ CJ3+, when tax(Username Protected)ng, for example.

I agree with you completely about the lateral handling and lateral excursions- the P100 definitely could be better there. It's too easy to get into a pilot induced oscillation if the pilot uses uneven braking force and/ or doesn't apply proper aileron input during the rollout.

[Username Protected]

(Username Protected), outstanding presentation. ty.