Announcement of Policy for Landing Performance Assessments After Departure for All Turbojet Operators, 32877-32882 [06-5196]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket No. FAA–2006–24858/Airspace
Docket No. 06–ASO–8.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter. All communications
received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered
before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this
notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NRPMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://dms.dot.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at https://www.faa.gov or the
Superintendent of Document’s Web
page at https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Additionally, any person may obtain a
copy of this notice by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Air Traffic
Airspace Management, ATA–400, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267–8783. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this
notice Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM’s should contact the FAA’s
Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to
establish Class E airspace at
Mooresville, NC. Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9N, dated September 1,
2005, and effective September 16, 2005,
which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the
Order.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will
only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9N,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated September 1, 2005, and
effective September 16, 2005, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
ASO NC E5
*
*
Mooresville, NC [NEW]
Lake Norman Airpark, NC
(Lat. 35°36′50″ N, long. 80°53′58″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.3—radius of
Lake Norman Airpark; excluding that
airspace within the Statesville, NC, Class E
airspace area.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00005
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
32877
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 31,
2006.
Mark D. Ward,
Acting Area Director, Air Traffic Division,
Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 06–5183 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135
Announcement of Policy for Landing
Performance Assessments After
Departure for All Turbojet Operators
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of policy
statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The following advance notice
of policy and information would
provide clarification and guidance for
all operators of turbojet aircraft for
establishing operators’ methods of
ensuring that sufficient landing distance
exists for safely making a full stop
landing with an acceptable safety
margin, on the runway to be used, in the
conditions existing at the time of arrival,
and with the deceleration means and
airplane configuration to be used.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry
Ostronic, Air Transportation Division,
AFS–200, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, and
Telephone (202) 267–8166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) considers a 15% margin between
the expected actual (unfactored)
airplane landing distance and the
landing distance available at the time of
arrival as the minimum acceptable
safety margin for normal operations.
Accordingly, the agency intends to issue
Operations Specification/Management
Specification (OpSpec/MSpec) C082
later this month implementing the
requirements discussed in this notice.
The FAA acknowledges that there are
situations where the flightcrew needs to
know the absolute performance
capability of the airplane. These
situations include emergencies or
abnormal and irregular configurations of
the airplane such as engine failure or
flight control malfunctions. In these
circumstances, the pilot must consider
whether it is safer to remain in the air
or to land immediately and must know
the actual landing performance
capability (without an added safety
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32878
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
margin) when making these evaluations.
This policy is not intended to curtail
such evaluations from being made for
these situations.
This policy does not apply to Land
and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Definitions
The following definitions are specific
to this policy and may differ with those
definitions contained in other published
references.
Actual Landing Distance. The landing
distance for the reported meteorological
and runway surface conditions, airplane
weight, airplane configuration, use of
autoland or a Head-up Guidance
System, and ground deceleration
devices planned to be used for the
landing. It does not include any safety
margin (i.e., it is unfactored) and
represents the best performance the
airplane is capable of for the conditions.
Airplane Ground Deceleration
Devices. Any device used to aid in the
onset or rate of airplane deceleration on
the ground during the landing roll out.
These would include, but not be limited
to: brakes (either manual braking or the
use of autobrakes), spoilers, and thrust
reversers.
At Time of Arrival. For the purpose of
this notice and related OpSpec/MSpec
means a point in time as close to the
airport as possible consistent with the
ability to obtain the most current
meteorological and runway conditions
considering pilot workload and traffic
surveillance, but no later than the
commencement of the approach
procedures or visual approach pattern.
Braking Condition Terms. The
following braking condition terms are
widely used in the aviation industry
and are furnished by air traffic
controllers when available. The
definitions provided below are
consistent with how these terms are
used in this notice.
Good—More braking capability is
available than is used in typical
deceleration on a non-limiting runway
(i.e., a runway with additional stopping
distance available). However, the
landing distance will be longer than the
certified (unfactored) dry runway
landing distance, even with a well
executed landing and maximum effort
braking.
Fair/Medium—Noticeably degraded
braking conditions. Expect and plan for
a longer stopping distance such as might
be expected on a packed or compacted
snow-covered runway.
Poor—Very degraded braking
conditions with a potential for
hydroplaning. Expect and plan for a
significantly longer stopping distance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
such as might be expected on an icecovered runway.
Nil—No braking action and poor
directional control can be expected.
Note: Conditions specified as ‘‘nil’’ are not
considered safe, therefore operations under
conditions specified as such will not be
conducted. Do not attempt to operate on
surfaces reported or expected to have nil
braking action.
Factored Landing Distance. The
certificated landing distance increased
by the preflight planning safety margin
additives.
Landing Distance Available. The
length of the runway declared available
for landing. This distance may be
shorter than the full length of the
runway.
Meteorological Conditions. Any
meteorological condition that may affect
either the air or ground portions of the
landing distance. Examples may include
wind direction and velocity, pressure
altitude, temperature, and visibility. An
example of a possible effect that must be
considered includes crosswinds
affecting the amount of reverse thrust
that can be used on airplanes with tail
mounted engines due to rudder
blanking effects.
Reliable Braking Action Report. For
the purpose of this notice and related
OpSpec/MSpec, means a braking action
report submitted from a turbojet
airplane with landing performance
capabilities similar to those of the
airplane being operated.
Runway Contaminant Conditions. The
type and depth (if applicable) of the
substance on the runway surface, e.g.,
water (wet), standing water, dry snow,
wet snow, slush, ice, sanded, or
chemically treated.
Runway Friction or Runway Friction
Coefficient. The resistance to movement
of an object moving on the runway
surface as measured by a runway
friction measuring device. The resistive
force resulting from the runway friction
coefficient is the product of the runway
friction coefficient and the weight of the
object.
Runway Friction Enhancing
Substance. Any substance that increases
the runway friction value.
Safety Margin. The length of runway
available beyond the actual landing
distance. Safety margin can be
expressed in a fixed distance increment
or a percentage increase beyond the
actual landing distance required.
Unfactored Landing Distance. The
certificated landing distance without
any safety margin additives.
Background
After any serious aircraft accident or
incident, the FAA typically performs an
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
internal audit to evaluate the adequacy
of current regulations and guidance
information in areas that come under
scrutiny during the course of the
accident investigation. The Southwest
Airlines landing overrun accident
involving a Boeing 737–700 at Chicago
Midway Airport in December 2005
initiated such an audit. The types of
information that were evaluated in
addition to the regulations were FAA
orders, notices, advisory circulars, ICAO
and foreign country requirements,
airplane manufacturer-developed
material, independent source material,
and the current practices of air carrier
operators.
This internal FAA review revealed the
following issues:
(1) A survey of operators’ manuals
indicated that approximately fifty
percent of the operators surveyed do not
have policies in place for assessing
whether sufficient landing distance
exists at the time of arrival, even when
conditions (including runway,
meteorological, surface, airplane weight,
airplane configuration, and planned
usage of decelerating devices.) are
different and worse than those planned
at the time the flight was released.
(2) Not all operators who perform
landing distance assessments at the time
of arrival have procedures that account
for runway surface conditions or
reduced braking action reports.
(3) Many operators who perform
landing distance assessments at the time
of arrival do not apply a safety margin
to the expected actual (unfactored)
landing distance. Those that do are
inconsistent in applying an increasing
safety margin as the expected actual
landing distance increased (i.e., as a
percentage of the expected actual
landing distance).
(4) Some operators have developed
their own contaminated runway landing
performance data or are using data
developed by third party vendors. In
some cases, these data are less
conservative than the airplane
manufacturer’s data for the same
conditions. In other cases, an autobrake
landing distance chart has been misused
to generate landing performance data for
contaminated runway conditions. Also,
some operators’ data have not been kept
up to date with the manufacturer’s
current data.
(5) Credit for the use of thrust
reversers in the landing performance
data is not uniformly applied and pilots
may be unaware of these differences. In
one case, the FAA found differences
within the same operator from one
series of airplane to another within the
same make and model. The operator’s
understanding of the data with respect
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
to reverse thrust credit, and the
information conveyed to pilots, were
incorrect for both series of airplanes.
(6) Airplane flight manual (AFM)
landing performance data are
determined during flight-testing using
flight test and analysis criteria that are
not representative of everyday
operational practices. Landing distances
determined in compliance with 14 CFR
part 25, section 25.125 and published in
the FAA-approved airplane flight
manual (AFM) do not reflect operational
landing distances (Note: some
manufacturers provide factored landing
distance data that addresses operational
requirements.) Landing distances
determined during certification tests are
aimed at demonstrating the shortest
landing distances for a given airplane
weight with a test pilot at the controls
and are established with full awareness
that operational rules for normal
operations require additional factors to
be added for determining minimum
operational field lengths. Flight test and
data analysis techniques for determining
landing distances can result in the use
of high touchdown sink rates (as high as
8 feet per second) and approach angles
of -3.5 degrees to minimize the airborne
portion of the landing distance.
Maximum manual braking, initiated as
soon as possible after landing, is used in
order to minimize the braking portion of
the landing distance. Therefore, the
landing distances determined under
section 25.125 are shorter than the
landing distances achieved in normal
operations.
(7) Wet and contaminated runway
landing distance data are usually an
analytical computation using the dry,
smooth, hard surface runway data
collected during certification. Therefore,
the wet and contaminated runway data
may not represent performance that is
achieved in normal operations. This
lack of operational landing performance
repeatability from the flight test data,
along with many other variables
affecting landing distance, are taken into
consideration in the preflight landing
performance calculations by requiring a
significant safety margin in excess of the
certified (unfactored) landing distance
that would be required under those
conditions. However, the regulations do
not specify a particular safety margin for
a landing distance assessment at the
time of arrival. This safety margin has
been left largely to the operator and/or
the flightcrew to determine.
(8) Manufacturers do not provide
advisory landing distance information
in a standardized manner. However,
most turbojet manufacturers make
landing distance performance
information available for a range of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
runway or braking action conditions
using various airplane deceleration
devices and settings under a variety of
meteorological conditions. This
information is made available in a wide
variety of informational documents,
dependent upon the manufacturer.
(9) Manufacturer-supplied landing
performance data for conditions worse
than a dry smooth runway is normally
an analytical computation based on the
dry runway landing performance data,
adjusted for a reduced airplane braking
coefficient of friction available for the
specific runway surface condition. Most
of the data for runways contaminated by
snow, slush, standing water, or ice were
developed to show compliance with
European Aviation Safety Agency and
Joint Aviation Authority airworthiness
certification and operating
requirements. The FAA considers the
data developed for showing compliance
with the European contaminated
runway certification and operating
requirements to be acceptable for
making landing distance assessments for
contaminated runways at the time of
arrival.
Guidance: Existing Requirements
A review of the current applicable
regulations indicates that the
regulations do not specify the type of
landing distance assessment that must
be performed at the time of arrival, but
operators are required to restrict or
suspend operations when conditions are
hazardous. Failure to ensure an
operation can be conducted safely may
be considered a careless or reckless
operation. The FAA considers it
necessary for operators to perform such
an assessment in order to ensure that
the flight can be safely completed.
Part 121, section 121.195(b), part 135,
section 135.385(b), and part 91, section
91.1037(b) and (c) require operators to
comply with certain landing distance
requirements at the time of takeoff. (Part
125, section 125.49 requires operators to
use airports that are adequate for the
proposed operation.) These
requirements limit the allowable takeoff
weight to that which would allow the
airplane to land within a specified
percentage of the landing distance
available on: (1) The most favorable
runway at the destination airport under
still air conditions; and (2) the most
suitable runway in the expected wind
conditions. Sections 121.195(d),
135.385(d), and 91.1037(e) further
require an additional 15% be added to
the required landing distance when the
runway is wet or slippery, unless a
shorter distance can be shown using
operational landing techniques on wet
runways. Although an airplane can be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32879
legally dispatched under these
conditions, compliance with these
requirements alone does not ensure that
the airplane can land safely within the
distance available on the runway
actually used for landing in the
conditions that exist at the time of
arrival, particularly if the runway,
runway surface condition,
meteorological conditions, airplane
configuration, airplane weight, or use of
airplane ground deceleration devices is
different than that used in the preflight
calculation. Part 121, sections 121.533,
121.535, and 121.537, part 135, section
135.77, part 125, section 125.351, and
part 91, sections 91.3 and 91.1009 place
the responsibility for the safe operation
of the flight jointly with the operator,
pilot in command, and dispatcher as
appropriate to the type of operation
being conducted.
Sections 121.195(e) and 135.385(e),
allow an airplane to depart even when
it is unable to comply with the
conditions referred to in item (2) of the
paragraph above if an alternate airport is
specified where the airplane can comply
with conditions referred to in items (1)
and (2) of the paragraph above. This
provision implies that a landing
distance assessment is accomplished
before landing to determine if it is safe
to land at the destination, or if a
diversion to an alternate airport is
required.
Part 121, sections 121.601 and
121.603, require dispatchers to keep
pilots informed, or for pilots to stay
informed as applicable, of conditions,
such as airport and meteorological
conditions, that may affect the safety of
the flight. The operator and flightcrew
use this information in their safety of
flight decision making. Part 121,
sections 121.551, 121.553, and part 135,
section 135.69, require an operator, and/
or the pilot in command as applicable,
to restrict or suspend operations to an
airport if the conditions, including
airport or runway surface conditions,
are hazardous to safe operations. Part
125 section 125.371 prohibits a pilot in
command from continuing toward any
airport to which it was released unless
the flight can be completed safely. A
landing distance assessment must be
made under the conditions existing at
the time of arrival in order to support
a determination of whether conditions
exist that may affect the safety of the
flight and whether operations should be
restricted or suspended.
Runway surface conditions may be
reported using several types of
descriptive terms including: type and
depth of contamination, a reading from
a runway friction measuring device, an
airplane braking action report, or an
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32880
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
airport vehicle braking condition report.
Unfortunately, joint industry and multinational government tests have not
established a reliable correlation
between runway friction under varying
conditions, type of runway
contaminants, braking action reports,
and airplane braking capability.
Extensive testing has been conducted in
an effort to find a direct correlation
between runway friction measurement
device readings and airplane braking
friction capability. However, these tests
have not produced conclusive results
that indicate a repeatable correlation
exists through the full spectrum of
runway contaminant conditions.
Therefore, operators and flightcrews
cannot base the calculation of landing
distance solely on runway friction meter
readings. Likewise, because pilot
braking action reports are subjective,
flightcrews must use sound judgment in
using them to predict the stopping
capability of their airplane. For
example, the pilots of two identical
aircraft landing in the same conditions,
on the same runway could give different
braking action reports. These differing
reports could be the result of differences
between the specific aircraft, aircraft
weight, pilot technique, pilot experience
in similar conditions, pilot total
experience, and pilot expectations.
Also, runway conditions can degrade or
improve significantly in very short
periods of time dependent on
precipitation, temperature, usage, and
runway treatment and could be
significantly different than indicated by
the last report. Flightcrews must
consider all available information,
including runway surface condition
reports, braking action reports, and
friction measurements.
Operators and pilots must use the
most adverse reliable braking action
report or the most adverse expected
conditions for the runway, or portion of
the runway, that will be used for
landing when assessing the required
landing distance prior to landing.
Operators and pilots must consider the
following factors in assessing the actual
landing distance: the age of the report,
meteorological conditions present since
the report was issued, type of airplane
or device used to obtain the report,
whether the runway surface was treated
since the report, and the methods used
for that treatment. Operators and pilots
are expected to use sound judgment in
determining the applicability of this
information to their airplane’s landing
performance.
The following table provides an
example of a correlation between
braking action reports and runway
surface conditions:
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAKING ACTION REPORTS AND RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION (CONTAMINANT TYPE)
Braking Action
Dry
(not reported)
Contaminant .................
Dry ................................
Relationship between braking action
reports and runway surface condition
(contaminant type)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Note: Under extremely cold temperatures,
these relationships may be less reliable and
braking capabilities may be better than
represented. This table does not include any
information pertaining to a runway that has
been chemically treated or where a runway
friction enhancing substance has been
applied.
Some advisory landing distance
information uses a standard air distance
of 1000 feet from 50 feet above the
runway threshold to the touchdown
point. A 1000 foot air distance is not
consistently achievable in normal
operations. Operators are expected to
apply adjustments to this air distance to
reflect their specific operations,
operational practices and experience.
To ensure that an acceptable landing
distance safety margin exists at the time
of arrival, the FAA, through Operation/
Management Specifications paragraph
C082, for turbojet operations, will
specify that at least at fifteen percent
safety margin be provided. This safety
margin represents the minimum
distance margin that must exist between
the expected actual landing distance at
the time of arrival and the landing
distance available, considering the
meteorological and runway surface
conditions, airplane configuration and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:35 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
Good
Wet, Dry Snow
(< 20 mm).
Fair/Medium
Packed or Compacted
Snow.
weight, and the intended use of airplane
ground deceleration devices. In other
words, the landing distance available of
the runway to be used for landing must
allow a full stop landing, in the actual
conditions and airplane configuration at
the time of landing, and at least an
additional fifteen percent safety margin.
New Requirements
The FAA will soon be issuing
mandatory OpSpec/MSpec C082,
‘‘Landing Performance Assessments
After Dispatch’’ for all turbojet
operators. This OpSpec/MSpec will
allow operations based on provisions as
set forth in this notice. If not currently
in compliance, all turbojet operators
shall be brought into compliance with
this notice and the requirements of
OpSpec/MSpec C082 no later than
October 1, 2006. The FAA anticipates
that operators will be required to submit
their proposed procedures for
compliance with this notice and
OpSpec/MSpec to their POI no later
than September 1, 2006. When the
operator demonstrates the ability to
comply with the C082 authorization for
landing distance assessments, and has
complied with the training, and training
program requirements below, OpSpec/
MSpec C082 should be issued. OpSpec/
MSpec C082 will be available from the
FAA by June 30, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Poor
Wet Snow, Slush Standing Water, Ice.
Nil
Wet ice.
The FAA anticipates that operator
compliance with OpSpec/MSpec C082
could be accomplished by a variety of
methods and procedurally should be
accomplished by the method that best
suits the operator’s current procedures.
Under OpSpec/MSpec C082, the
operator’s procedures would need to be
approved by the Principal Operations
Inspector and, if an operations manual
is required for the operator, the
procedures would need to be clearly
articulated in the operations manual
system for effected personnel. The
following list of methods is not all
inclusive, or an endorsement of any
particular methods, but provided as
only some examples of methods of
compliance.
• Establishment of a minimum
runway length required under the worst
case meteorological and runway
conditions for operator’s total fleet or
fleet type that will provide runway
lengths that comply with this notice and
OpSpec/MSpec C082.
• The requirements of this paragraph
could be considered along with the
other applicable preflight landing
distance calculation requirements and
the takeoff weight adjusted to provide
for compliance at time of arrival under
the conditions and configurations
factored in the calculation. This
information could be provided to the
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
flightcrew as part of the release/dispatch
documents.
• Tab or graphical data accounting for
the applicable variables provided to the
flightcrew and/or dispatcher as
appropriate to the operator’s
procedures.
• Electronic Flight Bag equipment
that has methods for accounting for the
appropriate variables.
Note: These are only some examples of
methods of compliance. There are many
others that would be acceptable as
determined through coordination between
the operator and the POI.
Requirements
No later than September 1, 2006,
turbojet operators will be required to
have procedures in place to ensure that
a full stop landing, with at least a 15%
safety margin beyond the actual landing
distance, can be made on the runway to
be used, in the conditions existing at the
time of arrival, and with the
deceleration means and airplane
configuration that will be used. This
assessment must take into account the
meteorological conditions affecting
landing performance (airport pressure
altitude, wind velocity, wind direction,
etc.), surface condition of the runway to
be used for landing, the approach speed,
airplane weight and configuration, and
planned use of airplane ground
deceleration devices. Turbojet operators
will be required to ensure that
flightcrews comply with the operator’s
approved procedures. In other words,
absent an emergency, after the
flightcrew makes this assessment using
the air carrier’s FAA-approved
procedures, if at least the 15% safety
margin is not available, the pilot may
not land the aircraft.
This assessment does not mean that a
specific calculation would be made
before every landing. In many cases, the
before takeoff criteria, with their large
safety margins, will be adequate to
ensure that there is sufficient landing
distance with at least a 15% safety
margin at the time of arrival. Only when
the conditions at the destination airport
deteriorate while en route (e.g., runway
surface condition, runway to be used,
winds, airplane landing weight/
configuration/speed/deceleration
devices) or the takeoff is conducted
under sections 121.195(e) or 135.385(e)
would a calculation or other method of
determining the actual landing distance
capability normally be needed. The
operator will need to develop
procedures to determine when such a
calculation or other method of
determining the expected actual landing
distance is necessary to ensure that at
least a 15% safety margin will exist at
the time of arrival.
Operators may require flight crews to
perform this assessment, or may
establish other procedures to conduct
32881
this assessment. Whatever method(s) the
operator develops, their procedures
must account for all factors upon which
the preflight planning was based and
the actual conditions existing at time of
arrival.
The FAA expects that turbojet
operators will likely need to confirm
that the procedures and data used to
comply with paragraphs above for
actual landing performance assessments
yields results that are at least as
conservative as the manufacturer’s
approved or advisory information for
the associated conditions provided
therein.
Turbojet operators will be required to
have a safety margin of fifteen percent
added to the actual (unfactored) landing
distance and the resulting distance must
be within the landing distance available
of the runway used for landing. Note
that the FAA considers a 15% margin to
be the minimum acceptable safety
margin.
If contaminated runway landing
distance data are unavailable from the
manufacturer (or STC holder if there is
an STC that affects landing
performance), the following factors
should be applied to the pre-flight
planning (factored) dry runway landing
distances determined in accordance
with the applicable operating rule (e.g.,
sections 91.1037, 121.195(b) or
135.385(b):
Runway condition
Reported braking
action
Dry ...................................................................................................................................................
Wet Runway, Dry Snow ..................................................................................................................
Packed or Compacted Snow ...........................................................................................................
Wet snow, slush, standing water, ice ..............................................................................................
Wet ice .............................................................................................................................................
None ..........................
Good ..........................
Fair/Medium ..............
Poor ...........................
Nil ..............................
Factor to apply to
(factored) dry runway
landing distance*
0.8.
0.9.
1.2.
1.6.
Landing prohibited.
* If unfactored dry runway landing distances are used, multiply these factors by 1.667.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Note: These factors assume that maximum
manual braking, autospoilers (if so
equipped), and reverse thrust will be used.
For operations without reverse thrust (or
without credit for the use of reverse thrust)
multiply these factors by 1.2.
The FAA anticipates that turbojet
operators will be required to accomplish
the landing distance assessment as close
to the time of arrival as practicable,
taking into account workload
considerations during critical phases of
flight, using the most up-to-date
information available at that time. The
most adverse braking condition, based
on reliable braking reports, runway
contaminant reports (or expected
runway conditions if no reports are
available) for the portion of the runway
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
that will be used for the landing must
be used in the actual landing
performance assessment. For example, if
the runway condition is reported as fair
to poor, or fair in the middle, but poor
at the ends, the runway condition must
be assumed to be poor for the
assessment of the actual landing
distance. (This example assumes the
entire runway will be used for the
landing). If conditions change between
the time that the assessment is made
and the time of landing, the flightcrew
must consider whether it would be safer
to continue the landing or reassess the
landing distance.
The operator’s flightcrew and
dispatcher training programs will need
to include elements that provide
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
knowledge in all aspects and
assumptions used in landing distance
performance determinations. This
training must emphasize the airplane
ground deceleration devices, settings,
and piloting methods (e.g., air distance)
used in determining landing distances
for each make, model, and series of
airplane. Elements such as braking
action reports, airplane configuration,
optimal stopping performance
techniques, stopping margin, and the
effects of excess speed, delays in
activating deceleration devices, and
other pilot performance techniques
must be covered. All dispatchers and
flightcrew members must be trained on
these elements prior to being issued
OpSpec/MSpec C082.
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
32882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Under OpSpec/MSpec C082, it is
likely that turbojet operators will also
need to have procedures for obtaining
optimal stopping performance on
contaminated runways included in
flight training programs. All flight
crewmembers must be made aware of
these procedures for the make/model/
series of airplane they operate prior to
being issued OpSpec/MSpec C082. In
addition, if not already included, these
procedures shall be incorporated into
each airplane or simulator training
curriculum for initial qualification on
the make/model/series airplane, or
differences training as appropriate. All
flight crewmembers must have hands-on
training and validate proficiency in
these procedures during their next flight
training event, unless previously
demonstrated with their current
employer in that make/model/series of
airplane.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2006.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 06–5196 Filed 6–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Chapter II
Fiscal Year 2006 Program for
Systematic Review of Commission
Regulations; Request for Comments
and Information
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of systematic review of
current regulations.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC or Commission)
announces its fiscal year 2006 program
for systematic review of its current
substantive regulations to ensure, to the
maximum practical extent, consistency
among them and with respect to
accomplishing program goals. In fiscal
year 2006, the following three
regulations will be evaluated: Safety
standard for matchbooks, 16 CFR part
1202; toy rattles, 16 CFR part
1500.18(a)(1); and baby bouncers,
walker-jumpers, and baby walkers, 16
CFR part 1500.18(a)(6).
The primary purpose of the review is
to assess the degree to which the
regulations under review remain
consistent with the Commission’s
program policies. In addition, each
regulation will be examined with
respect to the extent that it is current
and relevant to CPSC program goals.
Attention will also be given to whether
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:51 Jun 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
the regulations can be streamlined, if
possible, to minimize regulatory
burdens, especially on small entities. To
the degree consistent with other
Commission priorities and subject to the
availability of personnel and fiscal
resources, specific regulatory or other
projects may be undertaken in response
to the results of the review.
The Commission solicits written
comments from interested persons
concerning the designated regulations’
currentness and consistency with
Commission policies and goals, and
suggestions for streamlining where
appropriate. In so doing, commenters
are requested to specifically address
how their suggestions for change could
be accomplished within the statutory
frameworks for Commission action
under the Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084, and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278.
DATE: Comments and submissions in
response to this notice must be received
by August 7, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and other
submissions should be captioned
‘‘Fiscal Year 2006 Regulatory Review
Project’’ and be submitted by e-mail to
cpsc-os@cpsc.gov or by facsimile to
(301) 504–0127. Comments may also be
submitted by mail or delivered to the
Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 502,
4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Edwards, Office of Hazard
Identification and Reduction, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504–
7535; e-mail eedwards@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. The Review Program
The President’s Office of Management
and Budget has designed the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to
provide a consistent approach to rating
programs across the Federal
government. A description of the PART
process and associated program
evaluation materials is available online
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budintegration/part_assessing
2004.html.
Based on an evaluation of the
Commission’s regulatory programs
using the PART, the recommendation
was made that CPSC develop a plan to
systematically review its current
regulations to ensure consistency among
them in accomplishing program goals.
In FY 2004, the Commission conducted
a pilot review program as the initial step
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in implementing that recommendation.
The notice announcing the pilot
program appeared in the Federal
Register on January 28, 2004. 69 FR
4095. Based on the success of the pilot
program, the Commission announced
the continuation of the program for
subsequent fiscal years.
B. The Regulations Undergoing Review
A summary of each of the regulations
being reviewed in fiscal year 2006 is
provided below. The full text of the
regulations may be accessed at: https://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/
waisidx_03/16cfrv2_03.html.
1. Safety Standard for Matchbooks
The safety standard for matchbooks
appears at 16 CFR part 1202. The
standard prescribes the safety
requirements, including labeling
requirements, for matchbooks. It applies
to all matchbooks manufactured in or
imported into the United States and is
intended to address certain burn and
eye injuries.
2. Toy Rattles
The standard for toy rattles appears at
16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(1). It applies to
toy rattles containing, either internally
or externally, rigid wires, sharp
protrusions, or loose small objects that
have the potential for causing
lacerations, puncture wound injury,
aspiration, ingestion, or other injury.
Such toy rattles are included as banned
toys and other banned articles intended
for use by children.
3. Baby Bouncers, Walker-Jumpers, or
Baby Walkers
The standard for baby bouncers,
walker-jumpers, and baby-walkers
appears at 16 CFR part 1500.18(a)(6).
The standard applies to any article
known as a ‘‘baby bouncer,’’ walkerjumper,’’ or ‘‘baby walker,’’ and any
other similar article which is intended
to support very young children while
sitting, walking, bouncing, jumping,
and/or reclining, and which because of
its design has any exposed parts capable
of causing amputation, crushing,
lacerations, fractures, hematomas,
bruises, or other injuries to fingers, toes,
or other parts of the anatomy of young
children. Such articles are included as
banned toys and other banned articles
intended for use by children.
C. Solicitation of Comments and
Information
The Commission invites interested
persons to submit comments on each of
the regulations being reviewed in the
fiscal year 2006 program. In particular,
commenters are asked to address:
E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM
07JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32877-32882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135
Announcement of Policy for Landing Performance Assessments After
Departure for All Turbojet Operators
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The following advance notice of policy and information would
provide clarification and guidance for all operators of turbojet
aircraft for establishing operators' methods of ensuring that
sufficient landing distance exists for safely making a full stop
landing with an acceptable safety margin, on the runway to be used, in
the conditions existing at the time of arrival, and with the
deceleration means and airplane configuration to be used.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Ostronic, Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
and Telephone (202) 267-8166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers a 15% margin
between the expected actual (unfactored) airplane landing distance and
the landing distance available at the time of arrival as the minimum
acceptable safety margin for normal operations. Accordingly, the agency
intends to issue Operations Specification/Management Specification
(OpSpec/MSpec) C082 later this month implementing the requirements
discussed in this notice.
The FAA acknowledges that there are situations where the flightcrew
needs to know the absolute performance capability of the airplane.
These situations include emergencies or abnormal and irregular
configurations of the airplane such as engine failure or flight control
malfunctions. In these circumstances, the pilot must consider whether
it is safer to remain in the air or to land immediately and must know
the actual landing performance capability (without an added safety
[[Page 32878]]
margin) when making these evaluations. This policy is not intended to
curtail such evaluations from being made for these situations.
This policy does not apply to Land and Hold Short Operations
(LAHSO).
Definitions
The following definitions are specific to this policy and may
differ with those definitions contained in other published references.
Actual Landing Distance. The landing distance for the reported
meteorological and runway surface conditions, airplane weight, airplane
configuration, use of autoland or a Head-up Guidance System, and ground
deceleration devices planned to be used for the landing. It does not
include any safety margin (i.e., it is unfactored) and represents the
best performance the airplane is capable of for the conditions.
Airplane Ground Deceleration Devices. Any device used to aid in the
onset or rate of airplane deceleration on the ground during the landing
roll out. These would include, but not be limited to: brakes (either
manual braking or the use of autobrakes), spoilers, and thrust
reversers.
At Time of Arrival. For the purpose of this notice and related
OpSpec/MSpec means a point in time as close to the airport as possible
consistent with the ability to obtain the most current meteorological
and runway conditions considering pilot workload and traffic
surveillance, but no later than the commencement of the approach
procedures or visual approach pattern.
Braking Condition Terms. The following braking condition terms are
widely used in the aviation industry and are furnished by air traffic
controllers when available. The definitions provided below are
consistent with how these terms are used in this notice.
Good--More braking capability is available than is used in typical
deceleration on a non-limiting runway (i.e., a runway with additional
stopping distance available). However, the landing distance will be
longer than the certified (unfactored) dry runway landing distance,
even with a well executed landing and maximum effort braking.
Fair/Medium--Noticeably degraded braking conditions. Expect and
plan for a longer stopping distance such as might be expected on a
packed or compacted snow-covered runway.
Poor--Very degraded braking conditions with a potential for
hydroplaning. Expect and plan for a significantly longer stopping
distance such as might be expected on an ice-covered runway.
Nil--No braking action and poor directional control can be
expected.
Note: Conditions specified as ``nil'' are not considered safe,
therefore operations under conditions specified as such will not be
conducted. Do not attempt to operate on surfaces reported or
expected to have nil braking action.
Factored Landing Distance. The certificated landing distance
increased by the preflight planning safety margin additives.
Landing Distance Available. The length of the runway declared
available for landing. This distance may be shorter than the full
length of the runway.
Meteorological Conditions. Any meteorological condition that may
affect either the air or ground portions of the landing distance.
Examples may include wind direction and velocity, pressure altitude,
temperature, and visibility. An example of a possible effect that must
be considered includes crosswinds affecting the amount of reverse
thrust that can be used on airplanes with tail mounted engines due to
rudder blanking effects.
Reliable Braking Action Report. For the purpose of this notice and
related OpSpec/MSpec, means a braking action report submitted from a
turbojet airplane with landing performance capabilities similar to
those of the airplane being operated.
Runway Contaminant Conditions. The type and depth (if applicable)
of the substance on the runway surface, e.g., water (wet), standing
water, dry snow, wet snow, slush, ice, sanded, or chemically treated.
Runway Friction or Runway Friction Coefficient. The resistance to
movement of an object moving on the runway surface as measured by a
runway friction measuring device. The resistive force resulting from
the runway friction coefficient is the product of the runway friction
coefficient and the weight of the object.
Runway Friction Enhancing Substance. Any substance that increases
the runway friction value.
Safety Margin. The length of runway available beyond the actual
landing distance. Safety margin can be expressed in a fixed distance
increment or a percentage increase beyond the actual landing distance
required.
Unfactored Landing Distance. The certificated landing distance
without any safety margin additives.
Background
After any serious aircraft accident or incident, the FAA typically
performs an internal audit to evaluate the adequacy of current
regulations and guidance information in areas that come under scrutiny
during the course of the accident investigation. The Southwest Airlines
landing overrun accident involving a Boeing 737-700 at Chicago Midway
Airport in December 2005 initiated such an audit. The types of
information that were evaluated in addition to the regulations were FAA
orders, notices, advisory circulars, ICAO and foreign country
requirements, airplane manufacturer-developed material, independent
source material, and the current practices of air carrier operators.
This internal FAA review revealed the following issues:
(1) A survey of operators' manuals indicated that approximately
fifty percent of the operators surveyed do not have policies in place
for assessing whether sufficient landing distance exists at the time of
arrival, even when conditions (including runway, meteorological,
surface, airplane weight, airplane configuration, and planned usage of
decelerating devices.) are different and worse than those planned at
the time the flight was released.
(2) Not all operators who perform landing distance assessments at
the time of arrival have procedures that account for runway surface
conditions or reduced braking action reports.
(3) Many operators who perform landing distance assessments at the
time of arrival do not apply a safety margin to the expected actual
(unfactored) landing distance. Those that do are inconsistent in
applying an increasing safety margin as the expected actual landing
distance increased (i.e., as a percentage of the expected actual
landing distance).
(4) Some operators have developed their own contaminated runway
landing performance data or are using data developed by third party
vendors. In some cases, these data are less conservative than the
airplane manufacturer's data for the same conditions. In other cases,
an autobrake landing distance chart has been misused to generate
landing performance data for contaminated runway conditions. Also, some
operators' data have not been kept up to date with the manufacturer's
current data.
(5) Credit for the use of thrust reversers in the landing
performance data is not uniformly applied and pilots may be unaware of
these differences. In one case, the FAA found differences within the
same operator from one series of airplane to another within the same
make and model. The operator's understanding of the data with respect
[[Page 32879]]
to reverse thrust credit, and the information conveyed to pilots, were
incorrect for both series of airplanes.
(6) Airplane flight manual (AFM) landing performance data are
determined during flight-testing using flight test and analysis
criteria that are not representative of everyday operational practices.
Landing distances determined in compliance with 14 CFR part 25, section
25.125 and published in the FAA-approved airplane flight manual (AFM)
do not reflect operational landing distances (Note: some manufacturers
provide factored landing distance data that addresses operational
requirements.) Landing distances determined during certification tests
are aimed at demonstrating the shortest landing distances for a given
airplane weight with a test pilot at the controls and are established
with full awareness that operational rules for normal operations
require additional factors to be added for determining minimum
operational field lengths. Flight test and data analysis techniques for
determining landing distances can result in the use of high touchdown
sink rates (as high as 8 feet per second) and approach angles of -3.5
degrees to minimize the airborne portion of the landing distance.
Maximum manual braking, initiated as soon as possible after landing, is
used in order to minimize the braking portion of the landing distance.
Therefore, the landing distances determined under section 25.125 are
shorter than the landing distances achieved in normal operations.
(7) Wet and contaminated runway landing distance data are usually
an analytical computation using the dry, smooth, hard surface runway
data collected during certification. Therefore, the wet and
contaminated runway data may not represent performance that is achieved
in normal operations. This lack of operational landing performance
repeatability from the flight test data, along with many other
variables affecting landing distance, are taken into consideration in
the preflight landing performance calculations by requiring a
significant safety margin in excess of the certified (unfactored)
landing distance that would be required under those conditions.
However, the regulations do not specify a particular safety margin for
a landing distance assessment at the time of arrival. This safety
margin has been left largely to the operator and/or the flightcrew to
determine.
(8) Manufacturers do not provide advisory landing distance
information in a standardized manner. However, most turbojet
manufacturers make landing distance performance information available
for a range of runway or braking action conditions using various
airplane deceleration devices and settings under a variety of
meteorological conditions. This information is made available in a wide
variety of informational documents, dependent upon the manufacturer.
(9) Manufacturer-supplied landing performance data for conditions
worse than a dry smooth runway is normally an analytical computation
based on the dry runway landing performance data, adjusted for a
reduced airplane braking coefficient of friction available for the
specific runway surface condition. Most of the data for runways
contaminated by snow, slush, standing water, or ice were developed to
show compliance with European Aviation Safety Agency and Joint Aviation
Authority airworthiness certification and operating requirements. The
FAA considers the data developed for showing compliance with the
European contaminated runway certification and operating requirements
to be acceptable for making landing distance assessments for
contaminated runways at the time of arrival.
Guidance: Existing Requirements
A review of the current applicable regulations indicates that the
regulations do not specify the type of landing distance assessment that
must be performed at the time of arrival, but operators are required to
restrict or suspend operations when conditions are hazardous. Failure
to ensure an operation can be conducted safely may be considered a
careless or reckless operation. The FAA considers it necessary for
operators to perform such an assessment in order to ensure that the
flight can be safely completed.
Part 121, section 121.195(b), part 135, section 135.385(b), and
part 91, section 91.1037(b) and (c) require operators to comply with
certain landing distance requirements at the time of takeoff. (Part
125, section 125.49 requires operators to use airports that are
adequate for the proposed operation.) These requirements limit the
allowable takeoff weight to that which would allow the airplane to land
within a specified percentage of the landing distance available on: (1)
The most favorable runway at the destination airport under still air
conditions; and (2) the most suitable runway in the expected wind
conditions. Sections 121.195(d), 135.385(d), and 91.1037(e) further
require an additional 15% be added to the required landing distance
when the runway is wet or slippery, unless a shorter distance can be
shown using operational landing techniques on wet runways. Although an
airplane can be legally dispatched under these conditions, compliance
with these requirements alone does not ensure that the airplane can
land safely within the distance available on the runway actually used
for landing in the conditions that exist at the time of arrival,
particularly if the runway, runway surface condition, meteorological
conditions, airplane configuration, airplane weight, or use of airplane
ground deceleration devices is different than that used in the
preflight calculation. Part 121, sections 121.533, 121.535, and
121.537, part 135, section 135.77, part 125, section 125.351, and part
91, sections 91.3 and 91.1009 place the responsibility for the safe
operation of the flight jointly with the operator, pilot in command,
and dispatcher as appropriate to the type of operation being conducted.
Sections 121.195(e) and 135.385(e), allow an airplane to depart
even when it is unable to comply with the conditions referred to in
item (2) of the paragraph above if an alternate airport is specified
where the airplane can comply with conditions referred to in items (1)
and (2) of the paragraph above. This provision implies that a landing
distance assessment is accomplished before landing to determine if it
is safe to land at the destination, or if a diversion to an alternate
airport is required.
Part 121, sections 121.601 and 121.603, require dispatchers to keep
pilots informed, or for pilots to stay informed as applicable, of
conditions, such as airport and meteorological conditions, that may
affect the safety of the flight. The operator and flightcrew use this
information in their safety of flight decision making. Part 121,
sections 121.551, 121.553, and part 135, section 135.69, require an
operator, and/or the pilot in command as applicable, to restrict or
suspend operations to an airport if the conditions, including airport
or runway surface conditions, are hazardous to safe operations. Part
125 section 125.371 prohibits a pilot in command from continuing toward
any airport to which it was released unless the flight can be completed
safely. A landing distance assessment must be made under the conditions
existing at the time of arrival in order to support a determination of
whether conditions exist that may affect the safety of the flight and
whether operations should be restricted or suspended.
Runway surface conditions may be reported using several types of
descriptive terms including: type and depth of contamination, a reading
from a runway friction measuring device, an airplane braking action
report, or an
[[Page 32880]]
airport vehicle braking condition report. Unfortunately, joint industry
and multi-national government tests have not established a reliable
correlation between runway friction under varying conditions, type of
runway contaminants, braking action reports, and airplane braking
capability. Extensive testing has been conducted in an effort to find a
direct correlation between runway friction measurement device readings
and airplane braking friction capability. However, these tests have not
produced conclusive results that indicate a repeatable correlation
exists through the full spectrum of runway contaminant conditions.
Therefore, operators and flightcrews cannot base the calculation of
landing distance solely on runway friction meter readings. Likewise,
because pilot braking action reports are subjective, flightcrews must
use sound judgment in using them to predict the stopping capability of
their airplane. For example, the pilots of two identical aircraft
landing in the same conditions, on the same runway could give different
braking action reports. These differing reports could be the result of
differences between the specific aircraft, aircraft weight, pilot
technique, pilot experience in similar conditions, pilot total
experience, and pilot expectations. Also, runway conditions can degrade
or improve significantly in very short periods of time dependent on
precipitation, temperature, usage, and runway treatment and could be
significantly different than indicated by the last report. Flightcrews
must consider all available information, including runway surface
condition reports, braking action reports, and friction measurements.
Operators and pilots must use the most adverse reliable braking
action report or the most adverse expected conditions for the runway,
or portion of the runway, that will be used for landing when assessing
the required landing distance prior to landing. Operators and pilots
must consider the following factors in assessing the actual landing
distance: the age of the report, meteorological conditions present
since the report was issued, type of airplane or device used to obtain
the report, whether the runway surface was treated since the report,
and the methods used for that treatment. Operators and pilots are
expected to use sound judgment in determining the applicability of this
information to their airplane's landing performance.
The following table provides an example of a correlation between
braking action reports and runway surface conditions:
Relationship Between Braking Action Reports and Runway Surface Condition (Contaminant Type)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry (not
Braking Action reported) Good Fair/Medium Poor Nil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant.................. Dry............. Wet, Dry Snow Packed or Wet Snow, Slush Wet ice.
(< 20 mm)..... Compacted Snow. Standing
Water, Ice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship between braking action reports and runway surface
condition (contaminant type)
Note: Under extremely cold temperatures, these relationships may
be less reliable and braking capabilities may be better than
represented. This table does not include any information pertaining
to a runway that has been chemically treated or where a runway
friction enhancing substance has been applied.
Some advisory landing distance information uses a standard air
distance of 1000 feet from 50 feet above the runway threshold to the
touchdown point. A 1000 foot air distance is not consistently
achievable in normal operations. Operators are expected to apply
adjustments to this air distance to reflect their specific operations,
operational practices and experience.
To ensure that an acceptable landing distance safety margin exists
at the time of arrival, the FAA, through Operation/Management
Specifications paragraph C082, for turbojet operations, will specify
that at least at fifteen percent safety margin be provided. This safety
margin represents the minimum distance margin that must exist between
the expected actual landing distance at the time of arrival and the
landing distance available, considering the meteorological and runway
surface conditions, airplane configuration and weight, and the intended
use of airplane ground deceleration devices. In other words, the
landing distance available of the runway to be used for landing must
allow a full stop landing, in the actual conditions and airplane
configuration at the time of landing, and at least an additional
fifteen percent safety margin.
New Requirements
The FAA will soon be issuing mandatory OpSpec/MSpec C082, ``Landing
Performance Assessments After Dispatch'' for all turbojet operators.
This OpSpec/MSpec will allow operations based on provisions as set
forth in this notice. If not currently in compliance, all turbojet
operators shall be brought into compliance with this notice and the
requirements of OpSpec/MSpec C082 no later than October 1, 2006. The
FAA anticipates that operators will be required to submit their
proposed procedures for compliance with this notice and OpSpec/MSpec to
their POI no later than September 1, 2006. When the operator
demonstrates the ability to comply with the C082 authorization for
landing distance assessments, and has complied with the training, and
training program requirements below, OpSpec/MSpec C082 should be
issued. OpSpec/MSpec C082 will be available from the FAA by June 30,
2006.
The FAA anticipates that operator compliance with OpSpec/MSpec C082
could be accomplished by a variety of methods and procedurally should
be accomplished by the method that best suits the operator's current
procedures. Under OpSpec/MSpec C082, the operator's procedures would
need to be approved by the Principal Operations Inspector and, if an
operations manual is required for the operator, the procedures would
need to be clearly articulated in the operations manual system for
effected personnel. The following list of methods is not all inclusive,
or an endorsement of any particular methods, but provided as only some
examples of methods of compliance.
Establishment of a minimum runway length required under
the worst case meteorological and runway conditions for operator's
total fleet or fleet type that will provide runway lengths that comply
with this notice and OpSpec/MSpec C082.
The requirements of this paragraph could be considered
along with the other applicable preflight landing distance calculation
requirements and the takeoff weight adjusted to provide for compliance
at time of arrival under the conditions and configurations factored in
the calculation. This information could be provided to the
[[Page 32881]]
flightcrew as part of the release/dispatch documents.
Tab or graphical data accounting for the applicable
variables provided to the flightcrew and/or dispatcher as appropriate
to the operator's procedures.
Electronic Flight Bag equipment that has methods for
accounting for the appropriate variables.
Note: These are only some examples of methods of compliance.
There are many others that would be acceptable as determined through
coordination between the operator and the POI.
Requirements
No later than September 1, 2006, turbojet operators will be
required to have procedures in place to ensure that a full stop
landing, with at least a 15% safety margin beyond the actual landing
distance, can be made on the runway to be used, in the conditions
existing at the time of arrival, and with the deceleration means and
airplane configuration that will be used. This assessment must take
into account the meteorological conditions affecting landing
performance (airport pressure altitude, wind velocity, wind direction,
etc.), surface condition of the runway to be used for landing, the
approach speed, airplane weight and configuration, and planned use of
airplane ground deceleration devices. Turbojet operators will be
required to ensure that flightcrews comply with the operator's approved
procedures. In other words, absent an emergency, after the flightcrew
makes this assessment using the air carrier's FAA-approved procedures,
if at least the 15% safety margin is not available, the pilot may not
land the aircraft.
This assessment does not mean that a specific calculation would be
made before every landing. In many cases, the before takeoff criteria,
with their large safety margins, will be adequate to ensure that there
is sufficient landing distance with at least a 15% safety margin at the
time of arrival. Only when the conditions at the destination airport
deteriorate while en route (e.g., runway surface condition, runway to
be used, winds, airplane landing weight/configuration/speed/
deceleration devices) or the takeoff is conducted under sections
121.195(e) or 135.385(e) would a calculation or other method of
determining the actual landing distance capability normally be needed.
The operator will need to develop procedures to determine when such a
calculation or other method of determining the expected actual landing
distance is necessary to ensure that at least a 15% safety margin will
exist at the time of arrival.
Operators may require flight crews to perform this assessment, or
may establish other procedures to conduct this assessment. Whatever
method(s) the operator develops, their procedures must account for all
factors upon which the preflight planning was based and the actual
conditions existing at time of arrival.
The FAA expects that turbojet operators will likely need to confirm
that the procedures and data used to comply with paragraphs above for
actual landing performance assessments yields results that are at least
as conservative as the manufacturer's approved or advisory information
for the associated conditions provided therein.
Turbojet operators will be required to have a safety margin of
fifteen percent added to the actual (unfactored) landing distance and
the resulting distance must be within the landing distance available of
the runway used for landing. Note that the FAA considers a 15% margin
to be the minimum acceptable safety margin.
If contaminated runway landing distance data are unavailable from
the manufacturer (or STC holder if there is an STC that affects landing
performance), the following factors should be applied to the pre-flight
planning (factored) dry runway landing distances determined in
accordance with the applicable operating rule (e.g., sections 91.1037,
121.195(b) or 135.385(b):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor to apply to (factored) dry
Runway condition Reported braking action runway landing distance*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry................................... None............................... 0.8.
Wet Runway, Dry Snow.................. Good............................... 0.9.
Packed or Compacted Snow.............. Fair/Medium........................ 1.2.
Wet snow, slush, standing water, ice.. Poor............................... 1.6.
Wet ice............................... Nil................................ Landing prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If unfactored dry runway landing distances are used, multiply these factors by 1.667.
Note: These factors assume that maximum manual braking,
autospoilers (if so equipped), and reverse thrust will be used. For
operations without reverse thrust (or without credit for the use of
reverse thrust) multiply these factors by 1.2.
The FAA anticipates that turbojet operators will be required to
accomplish the landing distance assessment as close to the time of
arrival as practicable, taking into account workload considerations
during critical phases of flight, using the most up-to-date information
available at that time. The most adverse braking condition, based on
reliable braking reports, runway contaminant reports (or expected
runway conditions if no reports are available) for the portion of the
runway that will be used for the landing must be used in the actual
landing performance assessment. For example, if the runway condition is
reported as fair to poor, or fair in the middle, but poor at the ends,
the runway condition must be assumed to be poor for the assessment of
the actual landing distance. (This example assumes the entire runway
will be used for the landing). If conditions change between the time
that the assessment is made and the time of landing, the flightcrew
must consider whether it would be safer to continue the landing or
reassess the landing distance.
The operator's flightcrew and dispatcher training programs will
need to include elements that provide knowledge in all aspects and
assumptions used in landing distance performance determinations. This
training must emphasize the airplane ground deceleration devices,
settings, and piloting methods (e.g., air distance) used in determining
landing distances for each make, model, and series of airplane.
Elements such as braking action reports, airplane configuration,
optimal stopping performance techniques, stopping margin, and the
effects of excess speed, delays in activating deceleration devices, and
other pilot performance techniques must be covered. All dispatchers and
flightcrew members must be trained on these elements prior to being
issued OpSpec/MSpec C082.
[[Page 32882]]
Under OpSpec/MSpec C082, it is likely that turbojet operators will
also need to have procedures for obtaining optimal stopping performance
on contaminated runways included in flight training programs. All
flight crewmembers must be made aware of these procedures for the make/
model/series of airplane they operate prior to being issued OpSpec/
MSpec C082. In addition, if not already included, these procedures
shall be incorporated into each airplane or simulator training
curriculum for initial qualification on the make/model/series airplane,
or differences training as appropriate. All flight crewmembers must
have hands-on training and validate proficiency in these procedures
during their next flight training event, unless previously demonstrated
with their current employer in that make/model/series of airplane.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2006.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 06-5196 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
