Results 1 to 12 of 12
-
Username ProtectedReally Frequent Poster
- Posts
- 161 Posts
- Thanked 77 times
- Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
- Join Date
- Joined Oct 2020
01-14-2023, 11:37 AM #1Contaminated Runway SOP’s
With some of the recent incidents, I heard quite a few great pieces of information of individual techniques or thoughts that operators use. I was looking to start a fresh discussion with maybe the idea to create an SOP for ourselves or others to evaluate if they want to adopt for their own operations.
There are lots of items hidden all over the POH or FOLs such as:
Anyone willing to help think through this with me and put some criteria together?
As mentioned previously, if it’s a non-grooved runway that is wet the thought would be to not use wet numbers rather use at a minimum the .125 standing numbers landing distances.
As always you should make your own judgements on what you deem safe to operate. This discussion is intended to provide additional inputs for you to consider. -
Username ProtectedFrequent Poster
- Posts
- 102 Posts
- Thanked 123 times
- Phenom Instructor/Mentor
- Join Date
- Joined Oct 2020
01-14-2023, 01:40 PM #2(Username Protected)-
It's an important question, and an issue I've spent a lot of time working on.
Here is what I teach, which assumes use of APG or FF runway analysis to make the calculations very easy, and accurate.
1) Always use a minimum of a 25% safety factor, or stated otherwise "80% landing factor". This is a select-able option in both apps. There are situations where using 66% safety factor (or "60% landing factor") is more appropriate- low time in type/ recent currency or lack of an approach with vertical guidance being the two big ones.
2) Any time landing with any presumption of rain calculate factored landing distance for contaminated conditions (standing water), as well as wet. This way if conditions worsen, you know ahead of time if the transition to contaminated will require diverting, or if you'll still have adequate margins even in the worse conditions.
3) Based on the guidance from the FOL you mention, SAFO 19003 published by the FAA in 2019, as well as NASA data and accidents that have occurred on concrete runways, for Phenoms I use the following guidance:
If a runway condition code is recent and present, a code of 5 can also be used to indicate "wet" numbers are appropriate, 4 or less means use contaminated data.
So for example, if I run runway 5 at KBED (5107' LDA) with calm winds and ISA conditions at 8500 pounds for a Phenom 100 I get:
Wet: 3860' factored distance (80% factoring)
1/8 inch water contaminated: landing impossible at any weight
Knowing 5 is grooved, I am prepared to land there in no more than light rain, and/ or an RCC of 5. Any signs (including visual), that the precip is more than light, or water is standing from previous precip, and I need another runway. -
Username ProtectedStar Contributor
- Posts
- 746 Posts
- Thanked 509 times
- Phenom 300 Owner & Pilot
- Join Date
- Joined Oct 2020
01-14-2023, 07:35 PM #3(Username Protected) that is a great chart. I was thinking over New Years about creating a one-sheeter with something similar along with a section for Stabilized Approach criteria and another one for Anti-Icing/De-Icing considerations, and we got 90% of accidents covered.
-
Username ProtectedFrequent Poster
- Posts
- 111 Posts
- Thanked 27 times
- Researching Phenom 100
- Join Date
- Joined Sep 2021
01-15-2023, 12:19 PM #4Indeed, it is a great chart. It helps whole concept of wet/contaminated/grooved/non grooved etc.
it would be even more helpful if we had a simpler algorithm and round numbers for factoring.
perhaps, something like…If there is anything OTHER THAN A DRY RUNWAY, numbers/charts for non grooved and contaminated runways ONLY. Then, one can perhaps reduced those numbers by 20% for non grooved runway etc…just a thought!
(Username Protected), do you have the availability to make changes to the Phenom app or is Ron Grueter the only one who can do that? For example, could another row be added for grooved vs non grooved runway? Do you know if the current app data consider grooved vs non grooved runway?
Please forgive me if all 5is has been hashed out already here as I am new to the site , relatively speaking. -
06-15-2023, 09:47 AM #5
Hey guys, new to the phenom here. I am looking for the references that describe the landing factors for grooved runways as well as how to properly use the ForeFlight wet and adding factors or just wet factored. Any help would be appreciated.
-
Username ProtectedMember
- Posts
- 54 Posts
- Thanked 28 times
- Phenom 100 Owner & Pilot
- Join Date
- Joined Jan 2021
06-15-2023, 11:54 AM #6(Username Protected), this does not directly answer your question, but check out this thread: iOS app: Operational Landing Distance Calculator
The free app Diogo created in that thread is a great in addition to ForeFlight. -
Username ProtectedFrequent Poster
- Posts
- 111 Posts
- Thanked 27 times
- Researching Phenom 100
- Join Date
- Joined Sep 2021
06-16-2023, 11:42 PM #7(Username Protected),
The best resource is Tom Norton’s runway analysis he did at the phenom conference recently. That provides you with everything you need to know. For the phenom 100:
In short, and Tom or (Username Protected) can correct me, assuming you are flying part 91:
Wet runway (grooved): add 60% to the unfactored landing distance.
Contaminated runway (grooved): add 100% to the unfactored landing distance.
Wet runway Non grooved: I simply add 100% to the unfactored landing distance personally.
Contaminated Non grooved runway: I personally would not land unless it’s lonnng (Tom can comment on the official teaching). -
06-18-2023, 06:48 AM #8
Unfortunately I am part 135. For example, I was told to add 1.92 to dry unfactored landing distance for a grooved runway that is wet. Where is that found in any of the official publications?
-
Username ProtectedFrequent Poster
- Posts
- 111 Posts
- Thanked 27 times
- Researching Phenom 100
- Join Date
- Joined Sep 2021
06-18-2023, 01:27 PM #9Here is the link to Tom Norton’s talk at the Orange County meeting. While I was not there, the link was posted to this site.
if the link does not work, please PM me with your email and I will try to send it that way.
Or are you referring to another potential source?
https://www.phenompilots.org/attachm...3&d=1672280659 -
Username ProtectedFrequent Poster
- Posts
- 111 Posts
- Thanked 27 times
- Researching Phenom 100
- Join Date
- Joined Sep 2021
06-18-2023, 02:10 PM #10While we all know the 60% factor for part 135, the company Ops Specs should, in most cases address the issue of wet and contaminated runway numbers for their company pilots.
As far as grooved vs non grooved, Part91, for wet, non grooved, my understanding is that you use the distance for contaminated grooved runway if the non grooved runway is wet. That is, approx. 100% of the dry runway. So, if the dry runway distance Is 5000, wet non grooved runway should be 90-100% more or 9000-10,000 ft.
This is my understanding.
I hope Tom or someone pipes in to determine the formula for numbers for the non grooved runway, contaminated distance calculation. After that, the calculation for Part 135 becomes a function of the individual company Ops Specs. -
06-19-2023, 06:36 AM #11
And somewhere, Embraer should specify in the AFM, POH, or FOLS all of these factors. I have never seen grooved runway vs un-grooved landing distance factors. However, I qualify that with being new to Part 135 ops. I was also hoping that someone from CAE would chime in as well...
-
Username ProtectedMember
- Posts
- 9 Posts
- Thanked 11 times
- Phenom Instructor/Mentor
- Join Date
- Joined Feb 2021
07-12-2023, 08:32 AM #12There is no performance credit given for a grooved runway anymore, with certification criteria. In EASA land grooved runway may only be credited for Takeoff unless the manufacturer as completed addition certification, which Embraer hasn't, and will not be doing.
This is one of the primary reasons Embraer is now drawing everyones attention to the Operational Landing Distance Data now included within the QRH. This will give a far more realistic number, and can be used for the appropriate RWYCC under new ICAO GRF.
Please encourage reading of:
- GP 8143 - Landing Procedure Best Practices and Recommendations.
- QRH PD-35-30 Operational Landing.
Note that Operational Landing data / LDTA (FAA AC 25-32), recommends an additional 1.15 factor to the final number calculated within the section. This is now a requirement in EASA land for all operations, commercial and non-commercial.
ARINC as a third party provider already has an LDTA module built into their performance package.
- Quick Links
- New Posts
- Participated
- Subscribed
- Today's Posts
- Hot This Week