[Username Protected]

FYI Embraer just updated the P300 POH to revision 17. Nothing major that I can see.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGE REVISION 17 – JANUARY 15, 2021
Updated Parking procedures.
Updated ECL download website.
Updated ground reset procedures.
Added minimum runway width.
Updated ground spoiler's system description. Updated landing gear position indication.
Updated holding tables.
Updated quick turn around time.

[Username Protected]

"Nothing major" with the new 75.5'/23m minimum runway width that is now in the POH? This is an ICAO recommendation, however it is now a manufacturer recommendation and insurance limiting depending on an underwriter's interpretation. I am waiting on Embraer's response to analysis for some runways less than 75'.

[Username Protected]

"Nothing major" with the new 75.5'/23m minimum runway width that is now in the POH? This is an ICAO recommendation, however it is now a manufacturer recommendation and insurance limiting depending on an underwriter's interpretation. I am waiting on Embraer's response to analysis for some runways less than 75'.

Good catch, I overlooked the implications of that. I am going to look through my insurance policy and see what constraints they put on language in the AFM/POH.

[Username Protected]

75' is a really common runway width in the US. Is 23m common outside the US? I realize that Embraer prefers metric and 23m = 75.5ft, but it's pretty annoying that they didn't set the minimum at 75ft/23m... were they really intending to exclude hundreds of 75' runways in the US?

[Username Protected]

Sometimes I just have to shake my head and wonder; what were they thinking? Obviously, not much.

[Username Protected]

I am not a lawyer... but I looked through my Starr insurance policy and could not find anything where violating a manufacturer recommendation would cause coverage to be declined. I am not even sure that they can decline a claim even if breaking an AFM limitation, as long as the usage purpose was valid (ie no commercial use if only personal allowed), the pilot met the requirements of the policy, and the act was not malicious (ie intent to cause harm or damage).

A few years ago at the convention I recall an underwriter saying that policies were in effect even/primarily for "stupidity".

I am going to ask a broker to weigh-in, stand by.

[Username Protected]

I am reaching out to my contact as well to understand their thoughts.

[Username Protected]

His opinion was that he would not be too concerned with the POH references as insurers do not have a clause in the policy specifically requiring adherence to the POH. Referencing that if you take off inadvertently over gross and slide off the runway on an abort, your insurance will still respond. If you violate an FAR that might be another story.

[Username Protected]

His opinion was that he would not be too concerned with the POH references as insurers do not have a clause in the policy specifically requiring adherence to the POH. Referencing that if you take off inadvertently over gross and slide off the runway on an abort, your insurance will still respond. If you violate an FAR that might be another story.

Technically don't you violate an FAR if you take-off overweight and exceed a limitation? 14 CFR § 91.9 "no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual"

I think insurance is on the hook regardless in that scenario. For example, the Phenom 100 crash into a residence a few years ago, the pilot did not enable to the de-ice boots while in icing which is an AFM requirement "Crew must activate the ice protection system when icing conditions exist or are anticipated, as per Section 3, Normal Procedures.". Insurance still had to payout.

[Username Protected]

Embraer responded to my request for analysis on operating out of runways and provided guidance through an,"Embraer Technical Disposition." I will not publish this guidance, but encourage those operators that need this guidance to make the same request to the Contact Center and a Technical Support Engineer.
In summary, they were able to provide guidance for operations in widths between 59ft(18M) and 76ft(23M). Embraer provided a chart for minimum V1 to operate in minimum runway width. It includes variables of Altitude, Takeoff Weight, and Flap Setting. This chart states, "A maximum lateral displacement of 22.2 ft (6.76 m) for the Phenom 300 is guaranteed if the V1 is equal to or greater than the minimum V1 presented in the table below:"

In all of my practical scenarios using this new chart my V1 is always higher than minimum specified. So, no issues for me for my routine narrow runway operations. Problems that could arise for me is if my destination airport was out of fuel and I would need to reposition to take on fuel. The lighter weights in this chart have a higher Minimum V1.

[Username Protected]

Folks-
I have yet to speak with an insurer that would use this runway width POH amendment as grounds to deny a claim. As always if you are concerned with YOUR specific carrier's response to this question pose it to your broker to get a formal reply from underwriting. If insurers used situations like this and every small loophole to deny claims I think there would be an issue even for them to sell policies as a whole. Aircraft slide off the runway in inclement weather, violate FARs. operate outside of limitations and claims are paid. If you breach a material condition in the policy however (such as operating with a pilot that has not completed recurrent training in the prescribed timeframe) - then yes you can expect some potential issues with coverage if that pilot is at the controls when the gutterball occurs off the end of the runway. It is certainly a good area to inquire on but best to get a formal reply from whichever underwriting company handles your specific policy.

[Username Protected]

Hello Phenom Community. I am (Username Protected) with Falcon Insurance Agency Midwest, Inc. in St Peters, MO - near St. Louis.

Aviation Insurance policies typically have no exclusions for FAR violations or operating in conflict with AFM recommendations or maintenance recommendations. For transition pilots there may be some training requirements to include a number of takeoff and landings and/or a specified number of IFR hours etc. and I have seen in some cases that it includes High DA airports. But those are specific to a certain pilot and not a typical provision in the policy.

Getting an underwriter to put specifics in writing on what is included or excluded may be a challenge. They won't want to inadvertently change the policy language. Your insurance broker will be able to answer specific questions and it is always a good practice to communicate with the broker any time there are insurance coverage uncertainties. That is a big part of what we do.

More common coverage issues arise with pilots that do not meet their requirements. Training within the last 12 months of the intended flight has been a hot topic. With all the delays from COVID, it is easy to go beyond the 12 months that the insurance requires. In general, the underwriters will grant extensions but there needs to be a formal request. And just because the FAA has a grace period does not mean that the insurance policy will au(Username Protected)atically have a grace period. Keep your insurance broker in the loop so a technicality doesn't create an problem with getting a claim paid.

(Username Protected).

(Username Protected)
Vice President - Falcon Insurance Agency Midwest, Inc.
k(Username Protected)@falconinsurance.com
636-519-8336

[Username Protected]

POH Revision 18 is now out. Victory for (Username Protected)!

- Deleted Minimum Runway Width.
- Added Operations on Narrow Runways.