FLOPS Phenom overrun

[rajflyboy]

a stall on final means death. plenty of accident reports that prove this

gusty winds require adding speed to ref

wet runway equals roughly double the stopping distance

lets not rush to judge the pilots until we get all the facts

 

[guido411]

wet runway equals roughly double the stopping distance

Huh?!

 

[rajflyboy]

Huh?!

135

oh yes sir

and you don't know this?

You might want to get into your uniform at the hotel and study the regs

 

[FR8DOG777]

Don't know where you came up with those calculations. AFM wet landing distance divided by .6 times 115% does not double your landing distance and is preflight planning only. The underlying factor of this whole debacle is managements unrealistic demands it places on its overly worked pilots. These guys unfortunately stepped into it.

On a higher note Flight Options L.L.C. has recently been named by the Forbes 500 list as the top employer to QUIT! The only way to protect your certificates at this point.

 

[guido411]

135

oh yes sir

and you don't know this?

You might want to get into your uniform at the hotel and study the regs

Regardless of whether you are using AFM distances or factored landing distances (60%) for 135 the penalty is still 15%. Apples to apples. Now if you're comparing part 91 dry to part 135 wet...then in this crazy world you live in you're right, landing distance is almost double. Apples to pomegranates.

Class dismissed

 

[rajflyboy]

Regardless of whether you are using AFM distances or factored landing distances (60%) for 135 the penalty is still 15%. Apples to apples. Now if you're comparing part 91 dry to part 135 wet...then in this crazy world you live in you're right, landing distance is almost double. Apples to pomegranates.

Class dismissed

Good summary!

 

[rajflyboy]

then you got this shiny surface issue?

and the grooved for pleasure issue?

water does hurt landing distance

 

[Praetorian]

On a higher note Flight Options L.L.C. has recently been named by the Forbes 500 list as the top employer to QUIT! The only way to protect your certificates at this point.

Really? I'd love to see a link to that article.

 

[gunfyter]

Perhaps we are looking at contaminated, not wet numbers

 

[rajflyboy]

Perhaps we are looking at contaminated, not wet numbers

funny

I mean if you are really interested in safety would you not take the worst case scenario? and go from there

 

[dicko]

funny

I mean if you are really interested in safety would you not take the worst case scenario? and go from there

Of course. When I run the landing distance for a wet runway, I use the contaminated tables for snow.

Muppet.

 

[Rupert.]

Don't know where you came up with those calculations. AFM wet landing distance divided by .6 times 115% does not double your landing distance and is preflight planning only. The underlying factor of this whole debacle is managements unrealistic demands it places on its overly worked pilots. These guys unfortunately stepped into it.

On a higher note Flight Options L.L.C. has recently been named by the Forbes 500 list as the top employer to QUIT! The only way to protect your certificates at this point.

Wrong again loud mouth dumbazz, its AFM DRY distance divided by .6 times 115 percent. Why dont you contribute some accurate information instead of your constant druel.

 

[jonjuan]

funny

I mean if you are really interested in safety would you not take the worst case scenario? and go from there

Sure-worse case would be mlw (nowhere near) and 3,500 feet of pavement, both of which should allow for plenty of stopping distance.

 

[gret]

Really? I'd love to see a link to that article.

Right on...I read the comment and tried to verify...couldn't find anything....

 

[rettofly]

Sure-worse case would be mlw (nowhere near) and 3,500 feet of pavement, both of which should allow for plenty of stopping distance.

One more factor: unstabilized approach

 

[rajflyboy]

One more factor: unstabilized approach

Define an un stable approach?

 

[Helmsalee]

Duh, one that does not meet the criteria for a stabilized approach. All of the outfits I worked for had very specific definitions.

 

[rettofly]

Define an un stable approach?

Stabilized approach was defined by every company I worked for as "landing configuration, Ref and 10 at 1000 AGL in IMC and 500 AGL for visual approach".

High and fast does not fit the definition regardless of aircraft configuration.

 

[X-rated]

Define an un stable approach?

Seriously???

Any approach that does not meet the criteria for a Stable approach. While most operators have their own specific criteria, In General...

Prior to 1000' in IMC or 500' in VMC:

The aircraft is on the correct flight path;
Only small changes in heading/pitch are necessary to maintain the correct flight path;
The airspeed is not more than VREF + 10kts indicated speed and not less than VREF;
The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration;
Sink rate is no greater than 1000 feet/minute; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1000 feet/minute a special briefing should be conducted;
Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for the approach as defined by the operating manual;
All briefings and checklists have been conducted.

Specific types of approach are stabilized if they also fulfil the following:
ILS approaches must be flown within one dot of the glide-slope and localizer;
a Category II or III approach must be flown within the expanded localizer band;
during a circling approach wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation; and,
Unique approach conditions or abnormal conditions requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach require a special briefing.
An approach that becomes unstabilised below 1000 feet above airport elevation in IMC or 500 feet above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around."

 

[dicko]

Define an un stable approach?

The term 'window licker' comes to mind.