Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Accelerate/Stop Question

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

flyinsocal

New member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Posts
2
I'd appreciate some comments on the following scenerio:

You are operating a King Air 90 under Part 91.

You are planning a flight to a runway 4200 feet long at an airport 3,500 MSL in the desert southwest - summertime temps.

Your aircraft performance section says the accelerate/stop distance is approximately 5000 feet.

Reducing weight doesn't help though a good headwind, if you could count on it, would. No other airport is convienantly located. Waiting for the temperature to drop is also not an option.

Your supervisor tells you that it is legal under Part 91 and this is "just part of flying in the real world" of corporate aviation.

What would you do?

My background:
Besides flight instructing, my background is primarily Part 121 where by regulation accelerate/stop is required. I am told that under part 91 taking off from a runway that is less than accelerate/stop is legal and is done frequently under Part 91. Corporate flying is new to me and I would like to hear the forums opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.
 
Is the airplane manual FAA approved ? If so, I'd think if the performance chart says it's no-go... Airplane performance is a physics problem and the airplane doesn't know anything about Part 91.


Plus, wouldn't you want to see the section of Part 91 your boss is using to justify his telling you to go anyway ?

I suppose anything's possible but I'd be surprised if operating outside the airplane persformance parameters is legal under any part of the FAR's.
 
acc stop

Interestingly enough I have had this very problem with my company. I was to fly a trip to
a 3000ft strip and my accelerate stop showed I needed 3400ft. This is in a be200. I said no
and did not go. If it is in your FAA approved aircraft flight manual it certainly is binding. If you
were to have an accident or incident you certainly would be accountable to explain why you went
knowing your manual showed you did not have enough runway. I was certainly willing to put
up with my company being inconvenienced, but they have no choice but to comply. I wouldn't go.
 
Bafanguy

Good question.

FAA Performance section of the AFM does not list accelerate/stop. It does list takeoff distance required. However, the Beechcraft AFM lists accelerate/stop in "Supplemental Ops Data" section. Does that make it any less binding?
 
I've heard the arguement before. And still not sure. Lets compare a BE-58 and a BE-200. Both have charts for accel-stop & go. If you comply with Accel-stop do you also comply with the Accelerate-Go figures for? It's the difference between Part 23 vs 25 certified aircraft. Applicable Part 91 regs maybe 91.9, 91.13. Is the Performance section in the AFM also considered Limitations? Part 135 & 121 address aircraft performance in more detail.
 
It is legal. I used to fly 402's in and out of 2300 foot strips under 135. Other carriers flew Navajo's and Beech 18's out of the same strip. It is certainly more risky than having a longer runway, but how is it any different than flying a single engine airplane? Lose one on takeoff, and you are going to run off the end. The hard part of flying a twin on a short runway is having the discipline to pull back the good one and roll into the weeds.
 
No one ever said Legal meant safe! This is one of those cases, its certainly legal, but might not be the safest thing.

Incidentally, it would also be legal under 135, since the BE90 is a Small, nontransport (135.399) airplane, and one only needs to consider available runway.
 
Last edited:
I think the ACC/stop mins, per 135/121 apply to those aircraft over 12,500 lbs.

We operate King Air 200s out of 3000’ foot strips year round.

We were looking at getting a KA-350, but then we would have to adhere to the balanced field.

Mark

 
Yeah, I’ve run into that mentality before. Here’s the problem with your scenario – under Part 91 (and probably 135 as well) no one is really going to care as long as everything goes well. But if there is an accident or incident and the FAA starts asking questions I’m sure that you will end up spending some “quality” one-on-one time with one of your friendly local feds. Among other things, the discussion would center around FAR 91.13 (Careless and Reckless Operation) and several other potential violations.

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but flying is nothing more that an exercise in risk management. You take acceptable risks and eliminate or at least minimize unacceptable ones. I only earn my money on those very infrequent days that I have to tell my boss "no". When the weather is good and when the equipment is operating correctly it doesn't take much of a pilot to do my job. It's when we have to deal with "difficult" weather, "belligerent" equipment, and/or "challenging" airports that I earn my money. In other words, I get paid to say "no". However, they expect me to have the skill and experience to only say "no" when it is the only safe option. Inexperienced pilots get into trouble when they say "no" and it wasn't necessary or when they don't say "no" when it was.

I love guys who advocate the philosophy that "if we loose an engine, we'll just close the other throttle and land straight ahead - just like if we were in a single." That's fine, and in many cases, it’s a viable option. However, you need to consider the effect that the heavier weight of most multiengine aircraft has on the survivability of an off field landing...

The FAA mandates that all certified single engine aircraft have a stalling speed no greater than 61 knots. (There are some exceptions to this rule, but it requires special equipment and certification.) There is no such requirement for multiengine aircraft. A few multiengine aircraft are light enough to come in with a stall speed less than 61 knots, but many designers will take the opportunity to take advantage of higher wing loadings to increase a light twin’s performance. What you end up with is aircraft with stall speeds significantly higher than the equivalent single engine airplane. Take the Beech A36 Bonanza and the Baron 58. Essentially, they are single and multiengine versions of the same airframe, with more or less comparable performance and capabilities. The Bonanza has a stall speed of 59 knots and the Baron, a stall speed of 73 knots.

So, what’s my point? If you double the stall speed, you multiply the kinetic energy four times. The survivability of a crash is a function of how quickly the kinetic energy is dissipated. What you end up with is a scenario where, in the event of an off field landing in a twin, you have nearly twice the kinetic energy to dissipate. If you’re lucky you’ll have a flat smooth surface, but throw in some rocks, trees, etc. and you quickly see why survivability is a big question. The same principle applies when you start trying to rationalize taking a plane like a KA-200 off the runway or trying to horse it into the air too early.

Personally, operating an airplane in the manner you described is “Faith-Based Aviation” – you’re betting your life (and the lives of your passengers) that an engine won’t quit during takeoff and for a certain period afterward. Personally, I believe that is an unacceptable risk.



I really don’t think that operating an aircraft with in its performance capabilities is limits their utility. (No more than saying that you shouldn’t fly single engine aircraft over weight is limiting, but there will always be those who are willing to ignore the W&B envelope and fill all of the seats, load the baggage, top off the tanks and go. To me, this is exactly the same principle.) We had a similar discussion a while back at FlightSafety. We occasionally have to deal with the same mentality in the corporate world – “The engine isn’t going to quit, why shouldn’t we load our passengers with enough fuel to make it to ‘where ever’ without having to make a fuel stop…” or (this is my personal favorite) “They build in a big enough safety margin that we can ignore the charts…”

So what if a lot of people operate their aircraft in a way that that leaves them “exposed”? Let’s assume that they have done it for hundreds of hours and have never had a problem – does this mean that the operation is safe or are they merely lucky? What do you think? You can fail to plan for your eventual engine failure and place your trust in the laws of probability. But remember, if you choose this path, the danger doesn’t go away, it merely lies in wait and when the inevitable occurs, the laws of physics (and gravity) take precedence.

As I said earlier, I believe that flying is essentially an exercise in “risk management” – you accept reasonable risks and try to eliminate or, at least, minimize the rest. Can you make flying totally risk free? Of course not, no more than you can make any other activity that we do risk free. However, if you go about it properly, flying is as about as benign an activity as you can possibly do. I have a framed photo of an old biplane hung up in the limbs of a tree. (You’ve probably seen the one I’m talking about; they’re in just about every pilot shop in the country.) The photo’s caption reads, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” I agree with that statement.

Remember, it’s all too easy to let bad operating practices creep into our day-to-day flying. Like the guy said when St. Peter met him at the Pearly Gates, “It never killed me before!” Oh well, I better get off my soap box.

Lead Sled
 
A well-reasoned essay, Mr. Lead Sled. You make good points about the increase of kinetic energy with the higher abort speeds of twins. It is definitely a riskier operation to operate on shorter fields. We can argue the differences between Part 23 and 25 aircraft all day long but the fact remains that it is legal to operate some multi-engine aircraft on un-balanced fields. You can claim it is not safe and refuse to fly that flight, but you can also be fired with cause. In Alaska, this is a standard procedure. I'm not aware of any accident that has occurred during that five second period of vulnerabiltiy that we are describing here. In all candor, that is probably why it is still legal, but legal it is.

Your boss gives you a charter. There are three other carriers on the field. You could turn it down but you can expect to get some grief from your employer when the other carrier fires up and launches for this legal excercise. How safe is a 600 RVR takeoff in a single-pilot piston twin with an alternate an hour away over mountains? You are being paid to operate an aircraft within the regulations. ...I'm starting to sound like a management type here, but I'm staunchly pro-union. I'm not sure why I offer the "get the job done" opinion here, perhaps because I did that for 3000 hours and relished it. I have flown 121 for 4500 hours since then, but I don't see a huge difference between the two. ON PAPER, I can survive now, but most of the pax weigh a lot more than 180 pounds, the engines aren't brand new, and let's not even talk about the "25 pound" bags.
 
Singlecoil...

I've done my share of flying in Alaska and Canada and I've been there and done that when it comes to what you're talking about. A wise pilot once said, "What's legal isn't always safe and what's safe ain't always legal..." The point remains, engines nowadays seldom fail and you can get a way with certain practices for a long, long time but if you routinely operate "on the back side of the curve" so to speak, you will get bit if and when it happens to you. In reality, you seldom see reputable operators demand this type of operation from their flight crews. The typical scenario involves a less than financially stable company and a young pilot - eager to build up his flight time. We at one time or another were all in that same boat.

Flyinsocal...

If you're "fired for cause" I would dare say that you're not working for a company that could be considered as a long-term career position. If you were to have a problem, I'm sure that your boss whould run right up to the FAA's office and say, "Don't blame him, I told him to do it." (Yeah right. He'll leave you to hang all by your self.) There will come a point in your career when you will refuse to fly operations like that. Whether it comes sooner or later depends upon you.

Lead Sled
 
FAR 135.361, FAR 135.367.

" unless it is possible to stop the airplane safely on the runway, as shown by the accelerate-stop distance data"



3 5 0
 
350, we're not talking about "large transport category airplanes". We're talking about small, non-transport category airplanes like KingAir's, 402's etc. The relevant reg is 135.399, which makes no mention of accelerate stop, only takeoff and landing.
 
If I was in the original poster's situation, I would consider the single engine performance for that day at that field. Then I would study the terrain around it. If I found I could safely climb at say, 150 fpm with an engine loss, but there are only some 50' high trees in the area, and I could manuever back to the runway, then I would go.

Accelerate-Stop is assuming brand new engines, brakes, perfect reaction time, etc. It's unrealistic anyhow. I suppose the same could be said for SE climb, but I would think it comes closer to the truth in that scenario.
 
You should always consider the reduced performance applicable to an engine out. Regardless of the runway or surrounding terrain.

You're legal to depart under the situation given. Accelerate stop asumes an engine failure at V1. A failure or a reason to stop that occurs sooner than V1 means a shorter actual accelerate-stop distance.

Convsersely, if it's safety you'e concerned about, most likely your accelerate-go distance will be longer, especially for the aircraft you've indicated. If you lose an engine and attempt to go, you're out of luck if you've predicated on just meeting accelerate-stop criteria. If you're going to seriously consider reduced climb performance based on an engine-out, then you MUST consider accelerate-go criteria...after all, if you're going to be climbing on one engine, then obviously you are not stopping.

The truth is that many times you may be faced with situations operationally in which you don't have 12,000' of runway to use, and you won't have the performance to meet all of the Part 25 criteria you're accustomed to meeting under Part 121. Not gonna happen. You then need decide if you're going to do the job, or not.

I routinely operate in one of my jobs in situations that use all the runway, or even a little more in some cases. V1 occurs as you taxi onto the runway...after that, you're going. Period. Lose an engine, and life gets tough, no matter how you slice it. That's part of the job. You must decide what you can and cannot accept, and live within those means.

You indicated that "waiting for temperature to drop is not an option." It's always an option. I've been in situations in which the passenger arrived, and said he wanted to depart at eleven o' clock, and by the way, we'll be bringing two extra people, and...so on. Running performance in that airplane, I looked at the weather, the rate at which it was warming up and told the passenger fine, but you won't be departing at eleven o clock. It's going to be after six tonight when the temperature is less. Or you can go now. What will it be?

If the charter is predicated on a specific time and can't go at any other time, and you can't live or operate with the temperature, then clearly you can't take the flight.

Under Part 135, you needn't observe accelerate stop distance in a Part 23 airplane...but you do need to observe takeoff distance.

Part of the utility of a King Air is the ability to go into small places and stop in short distances, and then come back out of them. That's part of the reason it's being used. To be employed in an airplane that is featured because of these capabilities, you need to be able and willing to take advantage of them.

You also need to be able and willing to set your own limitations, and not budge from them. More than a few times I have stopped short of a destination in a light airplane to get a hotel, due to weather or other conditions that were beyond my own personal limitations set. I won't go beyond them. If an employer doesn't like it, he can find a new pilot. I've refused to fly aircraft, and refused trips, even under heavy pressure from employers, clients, etc. I once turned back a flight with a medical team on board, enroute to pick up a waiting heart during the flight as conditions changed. I've refused to deliver retardant to a fire, or to put the airplane into situations when clients, employers, agencies, or others demanded it be put, and I will do so again. Don't you do any less.

Do the math before the employer accepts the flight. Tell the employer you can't do it. Tell the employer that it's beyond the performance limitations of the airplane. Yes, it can be done when everything is working, but we don't plan flights with the idea that everything will be working. We plan for emergencies, failures, etc. That's what we do. Carrying passengers off of a field means that you needn't take chances.

You indicated that reducing takeoff weight won't change your aircraft performance. Of course it will. Less weight reduces accelerate stop distances, takeoff distances, accelerate-go distances, and will ultimately reduce balanced field length where required or available. You may not see an appreciable distance change with a few pounds difference, but reduce that weight by a thousand pounds, and you'll see a difference.
 
flyinsocal said:
I'd appreciate some comments on the following scenerio:

You are operating a King Air 90 under Part 91.

You are planning a flight to a runway 4200 feet long at an airport 3,500 MSL in the desert southwest - summertime temps.



Would you depart from a runway that was 20 feet longer than the ground roll? it's legal under part 91, would you depart IFR in 0/0?

balanced field length is a critical performance measure, if you deliberately disregarded available performance data it would be a slam dunk for the Feds to say you were reckless.

An old, wise pilot once told me..."The worst thing a company can do to you is fire you or make you quit, the worse thing the FAA can do to you is take your license away...then the company will fire you anyway"

Later
 
Again, this is legal. Wise? That's up to you. Ever flown a single-engine airplane at night over mountains with passengers on a scheduled 135 flight? I have. It's also legal. I can't say that I'm not glad those days are over, though.

In the first example, the NTSB report would read something like, "Probable cause: The failure of the left engine and the insufficient runway length available for stopping or continuing the takeoff." If you didn't do anything wrong, I don't think they would fault you for flying out of a short strip, as long as you had takeoff ground roll/obstacle length available.
 
Singlecoil said:
Again, this is legal. Wise? That's up to you. Ever flown a single-engine airplane at night over mountains with passengers on a scheduled 135 flight? I have. It's also legal. I can't say that I'm not glad those days are over, though.

In the first example, the NTSB report would read something like, "Probable cause: The failure of the left engine and the insufficient runway length available for stopping or continuing the takeoff." If you didn't do anything wrong, I don't think they would fault you for flying out of a short strip, as long as you had takeoff ground roll/obstacle length available.
The NTSB opinion will have as much impact on the Feds as doing a hula for the inspector, they don't care if the NTSB doesn't blame the pilot in BIG BOLD LETTERS, just the fact that their was "insufficient runway length available for stopping" is plenty of rope to hang a pilot with.

Later
 
Like I said in a previous post, "no one is really going to care as long as everything goes well. But if there is an accident or incident and the FAA starts asking questions I’m sure that you will end up spending some “quality” one-on-one time with one of your friendly local feds. Among other things, the discussion would center around FAR 91.13 (Careless and Reckless Operation) and several other potential violations." The fact that "everyone does it" and/or "it never was a problem before" won't be a defense.

There is also one other potiential ramification that hasn't been discussed - what might happen to your insurance coverage when and if it is determined that you willfully and intentionally operated in a careless and reckless manner.

A true professional knows when to say no.

Lead Sled
 
flyinsocal said:
Your supervisor tells you that it is legal under Part 91 and this is "just part of flying in the real world" of corporate aviation.
Unfortunately, you're scenario is 100% legal....though not safe. Any aircraft 12,500lbs or under that is not a jet does not legally have to meet the acc/stop or acc/go distances. Any aircraft over 12,500 and any jet regardless of weight is legally required to meet those numbers. It happens all too often. If everything goes well, nobody will say a word to you....but if you take the thing off the end of the runway because you tried a high speed RTO and didn't have enough room for it....you'll be the one to get a violation or suspension.

Me? In the immortal words of George Bush Sr.....Not gonna do it..
 
There are Part 135 scheduled flights operating twins into these airports right now, every day. This is an FAA approved scheduled operation. I don't see how that could be considered reckless. Taxiing out on one engine and trying to takeoff? That would be reckless. Taking off too heavy? That would be reckless. But operating within the regulations in this manner is not reckless.
 
Singlecoil said:
There are Part 135 scheduled flights operating twins into these airports right now, every day. This is an FAA approved scheduled operation. I don't see how that could be considered reckless. Taxiing out on one engine and trying to takeoff? That would be reckless. Taking off too heavy? That would be reckless. But operating within the regulations in this manner is not reckless.
Singlecoil...
Not to be repetitive here, but so what if the POI passes off on the operation? The expectation is that the PIC will not operate in way that would not compromise safety. The fact that you may have "the blessing" of your local FSDO means absolutely nothing - evidently you weren't around 15 or 20 years ago when the FAA's NASEP (Spelling ?) Team went around wreaking their havoc.

Lead SLed
 
Lead Sled said:
evidently you weren't around 15 or 20 years ago when the FAA's NASEP (Spelling ?) Team went around wreaking their havoc.
I started flying in 1987, and I don't seem to remember that. What was that about?

LAXSaabdude.
 
NASIP stands for National Aviation Safety Inspection Program. It simply is a VERY thorough compliance inspection , the FAA equivilent to a full IRS compliance audit or better yet - a Salem Witch Hunt. Back in the mid-80's the FAA conducted these inspection on most (if not all) 121 and 135 operators. These folks really created havoc. If they encountered ANY discrepency (regardless if your local POI or FSDO approved it) you were assessed the appropriate fines and penalties. Flight crews who thought that they were in full compliance also received fines and suspensions. Without going into a lot of detail (No, I was never violated, but friends and associates were.), the lesson to be learned is that the fact that the local federales sign off on something means ABSOLUTELY nothing if the NASIP folks disagree. Several operators had their operating certificates suspended by the FAA due to the results of a "NASIP" inspection conducted by the FAA. Some were able to regain their certificate and start operations; some were not able to make it back. They all believed that they were in compliance with FAA regulations and that their records and record keeping systems were in compliance.

The FAA doesn't approve each and every takeoff or landing of a "scheduled" operation. They will merely expect that the PIC and operator operate appropriately. Again, as long as nothing happens no one will ever care. It's just that if (when) it does, the caca is going to hit the fan.

Jetguy
 
Interesting Subject

Basically, I agree with the concept that this scenario is an exercise in risk management as opposed to a "legal" question. "One Level of Safety" does not in fact exist. That is why we do not have One Regulation that applies to this issue with which everyone must comply. From a safety perspective it makes little sense to have different rules based on whether one operates under Part 91, 135 or 121, but we do. The issue is economicis or more simply money. The rule maker (FAA) has a conflict of interest, the law requires it to establish safety rules but at the same time makes the Agency responsible for "economic viability" of its regulatory decisions. This is evident, to different degree, in all of the Regs (91, 135, & 121).

Think of these hypothetical scenarios.

Under 121, accelerate/stop and accelerate/go are both required by the Regs. When this adversely affects the potential operation a series of "variants" are permitted, e.g., balanced field vs. unbalanced field; the use of clearways, changes in heading, etc., and special exceptions granted on an individual basis. This is why Boeing 737's are not "grounded" when there are known anomalies in its rudder system that were not "fixed". The body count wasn't high enough to "justify" the grounding vs. the economic loss that would have occurred. So we continued to fly them while we guessed at how to "fix" them. The same thought process was applied to the propeller problems experience by the EMB-120 and the inadequacy of ice detection and elimination in the ATR. Money vs. Safety, more often than not, errs in favor of money.

Under 135, we see similar scenarios (in the area of takeoff performance) but most importantly, the aircraft is "assumed" by the FAA to be capable of flying through obstructions in the flight path as opposed to over obstructions (121). Very different. Common sense tells you that no aircraft can successfully fly through an obstruction without an "accident". Nevertheless, the FAA "approves" procedures that assume it can. Why? Because if they did not, those aircraft would cease to operate. They simply are not capable of complying with 121 and, due to economic considerations we create 135 and attempt to "manage the risk" by presuming that many engines just aren't going to "quit" in that particular area of the operation. Statistically they don't. If it is not your day and you crash because of this, you will merely become a "bump" in the statistics and nothing will change. In the opinion of the FAA, the "risk" is adequately managed. The Public, which knows nothing about any of this, doesn't have a clue that there is more than "one level of safety". In fact they are deliberately led to believe that they are being "protected" by the Agency. In fact, they are not; certainly not to the same degree.

Under 91, very nearly any risk that you choose to take is permitted under the law. The FAA changes its focus and shifts the "burden" from itself, to the pilot or operator. Why do you think they have 91.13? That is nothing more than a CYA program designed to protect the Agency from it's failure to accept responsibility. If the same rules (121) were applied to "light twins" many if not most of them would never fly. Their "single-engine" peformance is either non-existant or so marginal as to be irrelevant in the takeoff/climb out phase. They can't climb over obstructions on one engine, so what does it matter if they can't accelerate and stop either? The only thing that will change in that scenario is the physical point of impact. In the eyes of the FAA it's perfectly OK for you to kill yourself if you want to and if someone tries to blame them well, your "careless and reckless" operation will cover their butts, courtesy of 91.13. Part 91 is a classic case of tokenism. When a little airplane doesn't make it, the body count doesn't make the front page and you don't see it on FOX news for a week. In fact you don't see it at all, unless some big-wig happens to be on board.

I'm not suggesting what anyone should do but I will say that my own decisions are not based on some rule in a book. Yes, I follow the law but my decisions are based on my judgement which is tempered by my experience. The Regs expect this to a certain extent. That is why we give the PIC the authority to deviate from any rule in the interest of safety. Uner Part 91, what is "safe" and what is not rests mainly on the shoulders of the PIC and not the FAR's. That may be a cynical view, but it's pretty close to the mark.

To the maker of the thread: I believe it is legal for you to depart without accelerate/stop. Your "risk" is much higher in the accelerate/go phase of flight --- you will NOT be able to climb over most obstructions in any light twin (with and engine failure), but you aren't even required to consider that. If you were required to consider it, the data you have available makes it impossible to do so. You don't really have a clue as to where the obstructions are or how high they might be on any runway. Bottom line: If you're not comfortable, don't do it. The life you save will be your own. That's more valuable than any job and more importan than any FAR.
 
surplus1 said:
......I'm not suggesting what anyone should do but I will say that my own decisions are not based on some rule in a book. Yes, I follow the law but my decisions are based on my judgement which is tempered by my experience. The Regs expect this to a certain extent. That is why we give the PIC the authority to deviate from any rule in the interest of safety. Uner Part 91, what is "safe" and what is not rests mainly on the shoulders of the PIC and not the FAR's. That may be a cynical view, but it's pretty close to the mark......
Best worded post I've seen in awhile. They can't be expected to print every rule to keep every operator out of trouble or to provide goverment oversight. The operator has to take the responsibility some of the time.
 
cvsfly said:
I've heard the arguement before. And still not sure. Lets compare a BE-58 and a BE-200. Both have charts for accel-stop & go. If you comply with Accel-stop do you also comply with the Accelerate-Go figures for? It's the difference between Part 23 vs 25 certified aircraft. Applicable Part 91 regs maybe 91.9, 91.13. Is the Performance section in the AFM also considered Limitations? Part 135 & 121 address aircraft performance in more detail.

Part 23 and 25 establish airworthiness standards for aircraft certification and unless that's what you're doing have no bearing on your operation of an airplane. Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 set forth operational requirements and establish performance criteria for you to follow.

The military is the largest operator of King Airs in the world. I had 74 C-12's in my last command. The Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps all require that accelerate - stop requirements be met.

GV
 
GVFlyer said:
Part 23 and 25 establish airworthiness standards for aircraft certification and unless that's what you're doing have no bearing on your operation of an airplane. Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 set forth operational requirements and establish performance criteria for you to follow.

........ The Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps all require that accelerate - stop requirements be met.

GV
Well that's the problem here. The regs don't specifically support requiring Accl-stop/go under 91 & 135 for small non-transport, non-turbojet aircraft. Unless the interpretation is that all performance data published in the AFM is limiting. Did you also meet accel-go? Professional safety standards suggest that you do limit yourself to the given data. I for one in the BE-200 do not give up accel-stop, but there are many instances where accel-go cannot be met. For most operations accel-stop at SL, flaps appr, 30*C, 12,500 lbs (no mods) = 3600' & accel-go is 5100'. We always pick the best available runway, fuel load - by-pass the airports that don't meet our standards - and brief every departure and landing.
 
ask any air ambulance driver how often he flys out of short strips and see what he says


good luck
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom