FAA's new 15% pilot landing rule

[SKYMASTER]

The FAA has sunk to a new low. More B.S. from the FAA. Calculate an extra 15% for landing on a snowy or wet runway? Only for passenger carriers?

First of all, as I understand, this new proposal is in response to the Southwest Midway accident. Secondly, the fatality was a non-passenger, off-airport civilian.

How does this fix anything at all? A recent article claimed airlines don't calculate for contaminated runway. This is news to me! I also heard a while back that Southwest calulates reverser thrust into landing. I've never heard of this at any other airline (I'm not sure if this is indeed true).

My final question, why commercial-passenger airlines only? Only in the brilliance of the FAA. The fatality in the "precedent-accident" was an off-airport civilian. How is this a commercial airline problem (and not freight airline problem)?

Bottom line-this whole new rule seems bogus. Typical FAA.

 

[HighSpeedClimb]

Can we expect anything less from a government agency

 

[pilotyip]

That has in the C ops specs, C-57 I believe, as long as I have teaching it. If RVR is less than 4000, you must add 15% to landing field length.

 

[abxaviator]

Ops Specs are the same for us, we too are being affected by BIG changes; how about no Pre-Takeoff Contamination Checks allowed?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Ops Specs are the same for us, we too are being affected by BIG changes; how about no Pre-Takeoff Contamination Checks allowed?

I have done them anyway. We have had 4 or 5 of my type roll and crash on takeoff with fatalities. There have been zero reported instances of crazed First Officers running out on active runways in the snow. When we are a hundred feet from where we boarded up, I see a distinction being made without any real difference. I rather be safe than right.

 

[labbats]

I'm glad the FAA has found a way to instantly change this vital rule while disregarding our rest rules. Top notch.uke:

 

[Draginass]

The real problem is information. The FAA authorities on the field do not monitor the runway conditions minute by minute like they should, nor is there any objective scientific measurement of braking action reading (RCR) given to aircrews. Nor does the FAA require comprehensive RCR braking distance charts. The FAA is in the pockets of the airlines and the airlines want everything to remain vague and unaccountable.

It's all guess and hope . . . . then "blame the crew" when the braking action isn't what was advertised. Midway airport is a poster child example of an airport that should be bulldozed for safety reasons, but isn't due to greed and politics.

 

[atldc9]

The real problem is information. The FAA authorities on the field do not monitor the runway conditions minute by minute like they should, nor is there any objective scientific measurement of braking action reading (RCR) given to aircrews. Nor does the FAA require comprehensive RCR braking distance charts. The FAA is in the pockets of the airlines and the airlines want everything to remain vague and unaccountable.

It's all guess and hope . . . . then "blame the crew" when the braking action isn't what was advertised. Midway airport is a poster child example of an airport that should be bulldozed for safety reasons, but isn't due to greed and politics.

AMEN!

 

[xjhawk]

The FAA only acts when there is a death (and a big news story) take a look at many of the rules, enacted because of death...even though many of the problems already were known.

I for one do not like flying into an airport where on a good day heavy braking is needed so as not to be so close to the end of the runway, i could spit on the red lights! Maybe i should have said pee on the red lights.

 

[dash8driver]

The FAA has sunk to a new low. More B.S. from the FAA. Calculate an extra 15% for landing on a snowy or wet runway? Only for passenger carriers?

linky?





.

 

[mynameisjim]

I thought we always have added 15% for wet/low vis runways. Has this not always been the case? If so what have wet numbers provided in the past?

 

[Bringupthebird]

What happened to 135.385.(d) ?

 

[firstthird]

I'm no expert, but the way I understand it: dispatch added 15% to landing numbers pre-takeoff in determining if they could legally release the flight. Once in the air, the FAA only requires/required actual performance, not the 15% buffer.

Judging by the news stories, some air carriers added the 15% anyway and some didn't, now they want all carriers to do calculations in the air including the extra 15%.

 

[castle bravo]

"Midway airport is a poster child example of an airport that should be bulldozed for safety reasons, but isn't due to greed and politics.[/quote]"


Funny how Chicago had no trouble doing just that to Meigs.

 

[The_Russian]

You guys know as well as I do how many people actually get the aircraft in the touchdown zone on every landing. We all sit and watch at the hold short line!

 

[Stearmandriver]

You guys know as well as I do how many people actually get the aircraft in the touchdown zone on every landing. We all sit and watch at the hold short line!

Ummm... I do.

 

[The_Russian]

Good!

Seriously. When I sit at the end of the runway at any airport I watch some of the guys float past the touchdown zone. That some is enough that if you added snow and ice there could be some trouble.

 

[HalinTexas]

You guys know as well as I do how many people actually get the aircraft in the touchdown zone on every landing. We all sit and watch at the hold short line!

D@mn near every SWA and ATA pilot that I've seen. And I've seen a lot.

My suggestion is to put all wind reports in real time to the cockpit, and forbid all operations with tailwind components on runways less than 7000'.

I also think the River Visual 19 KDCA and the Freeway Visual to 31 KLGA are as equal if not more dangerous, but there's nothing equivalent for KMDW to Rwy 13, and the ILS 13C has to be begged for.

 

[ReportCanoa]

D@mn near every SWA and ATA pilot that I've seen. And I've seen a lot.

I'd say you missed the best ones.

 

[canyonblue737]

i haven't been out of the touchdown zone in 8 years at least in a 121 aircraft. there is no excuse.

 

[atpcliff]

Part
Hi!

The short version, not guaranteed to be reliable:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-06-11-faa-rules_x.htm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060609faa,1,1023401.story?coll=chi-newsroom-hed

One of the current problems that I didn't know about is this (according to the above info):
All 121 airlines are required to figure LD/LFL for the runway the plane is dispatched to,
HOWEVER:
Over 1/2 of the 121 carriers do NOT (and they aren't required to!) revise the LD/LFL numbers when the aircraft gets to its destination/alternate, even if the runway condition is worse than when the calculations were made for the original dispatch.

The LONG Version, straight from the FAA:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-5196.htm
"[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32877-32882]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-30]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
etc., etc., ..........................."

Cliff
YIP