10 Faa Talpa Arc

Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami, 15-16 June 2010
Presented by
Lars Kornstaedt
Manager A380 Operational Performance AIRBUS SAS / or ATC Miami
FAA TALPA ARC

Standardizing In-Flight Landing Distance Assessments
Contents
1
Why . Operational Landing Distances? FAA TALPA ARC Runway Condition Assessment Landing Performance Assessment Operations Conclusion
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 Title of the PPT Slide 2
AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.
Objectives of the Proposals

Systematic Time of Arrival Performance Check Shared operational landing performance computation

Realistic Air Distance Representative Friction All physical effects considered
Standardized performance to match reported conditions

Standardized runway condition assessment Allow performance determination for all types of reports
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 Title of the PPT
15-18 March 2010
Page 3
Contents
1
Why Operational Landing Distances? FAA TALPA ARC Runway Condition Assessment Landing Performance Assessment Operations Conclusion
FAA TALPA ARC

Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee

Formed in 2008 further to

Runway overrun Chicago Midway 2006 NTSB SAFO 06012 FAA AC 91-79
Composed of representatives from

Regulation Authorities Airlines Airport Operators Pilot and Operator Associations Aircraft Manufacturers including Airbus
Proposals finalized in May 2009

15-18 March 2010 Page 5
Members
Slide 6
Structure
Four workgroups

Operations: Policy and Training Certification: In-Flight Performance (91/91K/135 Operations) Airports: Runway condition assessment and reporting
15-18 March 2010
Page 7
Contents
1
Contaminant Type and Depth

Advantages
Simple Observation
No need for preceding aircraft No need for friction tester No interruption of operations

Simple equivalence to published performance data
Disadvantages
May be incomplete and/or misleading

Dry Snow / Slush over Ice Patchy Friction tends to be worse if contaminant melting
Depth Assessment difficult (just Wet or already Flooded?)
15-18 March 2010
Page 9
Friction Measurement
Advantages

Precise Numbers No need for preceding aircraft
Disadvantages

No direct correlation with aircraft performance Issues with reproducibility Optimistic on fluid contaminants Requires runway closure for measurement Lack in timeliness
15-18 March 2010
Page 10
Pilot Braking Action Report
Advantages

Usually most recent information Quantifies effect of contaminant on aircraft
Disadvantages
Subjective assessment
Pilot experience Aircraft characteristics
Mix of Braking friction, aerodynamic drag and reverse thrust effects No correlation with published aircraft performance
15-18 March 2010
Page 11
FAA TALPA ARC Runway Assessment Matrix

Primary Assessment by Contaminant Type Assessment Downgrading: Friction and/or Pilot Report
Reporting Code
Contaminant differentiation by surface temperature
16th Performance and Operations conference
May 2009
Page 12
Airport Rules

Attempt to maintain runways bare and dry Make observations

As accurately as possible As frequently as required
Report

Runway Codes by thirds of runway length Contamination from 10%, then in 25% steps PiReps No measured friction values (downgrade only)

Close runway

One report of Nil condition Two consecutive reports of Poor condition

15-18 March 2010 Page 13
Contents
1
What is wrong with ALD?

Certified Landing Distance on Dry

Maximum aircraft capability Very short air part, minimal flare Not typical of operational landings Minimal delay before braking initiation Clean runway friction
Landing Distance on Wet

Regulatory friction and demonstrated antiskid efficiency

Landing Distance on Contaminated

Excessive speed bleed off during flare
Neglect of significant impact of runway slope and ambient temperature

15-18 March 2010 Page 15
What is wrong with ALD? (contd)

Performance available only for specific contaminant types and depths Some contaminant types and depths covered by equivalences (dry and wet loose snow)
No means for flight crew to consider reported braking action or friction reports as indicators for degraded conditions No standards for runway condition reporting that actually match published aircraft performance levels
15-18 March 2010 Page 16
Concepts for Operational Landing Distance

Introduce realistic airborne part

7 seconds at VAPP from threshold to touchdown Touchdown at 96% VAPP
Introduce six aircraft landing performance levels

Cover typical runway conditions Allow performance determination for Reported contaminant type and depth Reported braking action
Consider all parameters that influence landing distance

Pressure altitude Planned approach speed Outside temperature and wind Runway slope Reverse thrust use
May 2009
Concepts for Operational Landing Distance

6 friction levels
Dry
90% of demonstrated dry runway wheel to ground friction
Good
demonstrated wet runway friction combined with A-SKD efficiency for ASD
Good to Medium
= 0.20
Medium
= 0.16
Medium to Poor
= wet capped at 0.16 and 0.05 above hydroplaning speed Credit for precipitation drag up to reported contaminant depth

Poor
= 0.08, slightly better than current Icy = 0.05
May 2009
Page 18
Performance Level to match Runway Assessment
Code 6 for Dry Performance level for Good = Wet Smooth Compact Snow (cold) = Good to Medium Dry/Wet Snow (cold) = Medium Water/Slush = Medium to Poor (hydroplaning)
Ice (cold) = Poor Ice (melting) = Nil

Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 Title of the PPT 15-18 March 2010 Page 19
Retroactivity
Will be regulated via 14 CFR part 26
Possibilities
Full
compliance with new FAR 25.125 Use of existing JAR25X1591 data,

Provided all friction levels covered (interpolation permissible) Corrections published for
Temperature effect Runway slope effect Approach speed increment effect Intermediate solutions may be acceptable
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 Title of the PPT May 2009 Page 20
Contents
1
Dispatch
Existing FAA dispatch requirements

Dry runway Wet/slippery runway
RLD dry = 1.67 ALD dry RLD wet = 1.92 ALD dry
No specific performance for contaminated runways
Slide 22
Time of Arrival Assessment

Systematic Landing Performance computation in approach Exemptions

Dispatch to same dry runway under same conditions Dispatch to same wet grooved runway under same conditions
Systematic Safety margin of 15%
1.15 x OLD = Factored OLD (FOLD) LDA

Only exemption from safety margin:

Landing with in-flight failures affecting landing performance

Slide 23
Use of Automation
Automatic Landing
Increments must be applied to adjust airborne distance as applicable
Automatic Braking
If standard 15% margin is available for manual braking FOLD manual LDA Autobrake may be used operationally even when lower margin if OLD a/brk FOLD a/brk LDA > LDA allowed then
Slide 24
Contents
1
Timeline
FAA

May 2009 TALPA ARC proposals submitted to FAA Early 2011 FAA should publish NPRM 6 Month Comment Period Late 2011 Regulation Publication +2 years End of Retrofit Grace Period
ICAO Friction Task Force

2009/10 Phase 1 2010 Phase 2

EASA
March 2010 Runway Friction and Aircraft Braking Workshop
15-18 March 2010
Page 26

10 Faa Talpa Arc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Faa Talpa Arc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami, 15-16 June 2010

FAA TALPA ARC

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Objectives of the Proposals

Realistic Air Distance Representative Friction All physical effects considered

Standardized performance to match reported conditions

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

15-18 March 2010

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

FAA TALPA ARC

Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee

Formed in 2008 further to

Composed of representatives from

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Proposals finalized in May 2009

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

15-18 March 2010

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Contaminant Type and Depth

Simple equivalence to published performance data

May be incomplete and/or misleading

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Depth Assessment difficult (just Wet or already Flooded?)

15-18 March 2010

Precise Numbers No need for preceding aircraft

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

15-18 March 2010

Pilot Braking Action Report

Usually most recent information Quantifies effect of contaminant on aircraft

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

15-18 March 2010

FAA TALPA ARC Runway Assessment Matrix

Contaminant differentiation by surface temperature

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

16th Performance and Operations conference

Attempt to maintain runways bare and dry Make observations

As accurately as possible As frequently as required

One report of Nil condition Two consecutive reports of Poor condition

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

What is wrong with ALD?

Certified Landing Distance on Dry

Landing Distance on Wet

Regulatory friction and demonstrated antiskid efficiency

Landing Distance on Contaminated

Excessive speed bleed off during flare

Neglect of significant impact of runway slope and ambient temperature

What is wrong with ALD? (contd)

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Concepts for Operational Landing Distance

Introduce realistic airborne part

7 seconds at VAPP from threshold to touchdown Touchdown at 96% VAPP

Introduce six aircraft landing performance levels

Consider all parameters that influence landing distance

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Concepts for Operational Landing Distance

Performance Level to match Runway Assessment

Ice (cold) = Poor Ice (melting) = Nil

Will be regulated via 14 CFR part 26

compliance with new FAR 25.125 Use of existing JAR25X1591 data,

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved.

Existing FAA dispatch requirements

Dry runway Wet/slippery runway