Manufacturer approved vs Faa approved

[PlaneJohn]

Had to cancel a flight this morning on account of a wet runway at EYW, and I’m a little confused on the difference between FAA approved and Manufacturer approved with regard to landing distance tables. Prior to the issuance of the supplemental landing distance charts for the Beechjet 400a there was no contaminated runway values published. This supplement for take off and landing charts only has a manufacturer approval and not FAA. My question is are these numbers binding? If not and you elect to go contrary to what these numbers say do you chance having your insurance not cover and accident should you land long or could you be found in violation of the of the regs by not adhering to a manufacturers recommendation? If this is the case, we Beechjet drivers are going to have a difficult time flying anytime there is rain or snow on anything less then 7000ft. Thanks for any insight anyone might have.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My understanding is that since this data isn't FAA-approved, it's not binding. On the other hand, it's in the manual because the FAA required manufacturers to provide the advisory data.

According to the 142 schools, insurance is the big issue...they can deny coverage or renewal if you have an accident/incident due to not following the data.

Fly safe!

David

edit: I'm sitting around waiting for my EFB to update, so here are some excerpts from the Hawker 800 data:

This performance data has been prepared and approved by Raytheon Aircraft Company to assist operators in developing suitable guidance, recommendations, or instructions for use by their flight crews when operating under adverses runway conditions....

The applicable regulations in some countries may require certain elements of supplementary performance information to be established as additional limitations for the operation of the airplane....

Up in the "FAA-approved" (well, CAA-approved in this case) section, it has a paragraph on SLIPPERY RUNWAY SURFACES...

The field length data in Figure 5-20 to 5-25 is based on a dry surface. However the effect of a slippery surface is given for information.

A slippery surface with a coefficient of friction of 0.15 will greatly increase the accelerate-stop distance required. In order that the distance on a slippery runway should not exceed the distance available, the stopping speed should be 40 knots lower than the V1 obtained from the graphs for a dry surface....

NOTE: The 40 knot lower stopping speed is not a V1 (decision speed) but a speed from which the aeroplane can be stoped within the accelerate-stop distance available.

 

[PlaneJohn]

David,
Thanks for your insight, Ive always thought its a catch 22 with regard to contanminated runways. Thankfully our owners are very understanding of our decisions when electing not to go. Factoring into my decision making I always consider if this is a catch all "Careless and Reckless Operation". As for insurance, I'll have to check with our carrier as to how they interpret this information.

 

[hiflyer731]

It's the same situation with the Citation, once the runway gets wet our distances practically double, especially with part 135 flying. The contaminated runway info is "advisory" but like you said it's mostly an insurance thing not an FAA thing. We figured if it was published by the manufacturer or the FAA we should follow it, even if it was just advisory.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Personally, I like the Canadian Runway Friction Index...much better information regarding different contaminants and their effects, but it only applies to landing distance.

It seems to be fairly accurate, too.

It's in the Canadian AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication--like our AIM).

Fly safe!

David

 

[gulfstream2345]

Contaminated runway info

If the data is not FAA approved then you can't use it for 135 operations. 91 might be able to get away with it but that is another issue.

If you look at a Challenger flight manual you will find different colored pages for about the last half of the manual. The cover page says that this data is not FAA approved.

So the question is that you have just landed on a wet/icy/snow covered runway and taxied in to the ramp. All is well.

The FAA guy shows up and and it was a 135 flight. He/she asks you to show the landing data you used for runway requirements. You promptly whip out the flight manual and go to the back of the book, colored pages, and show the numbers you used.

The FAA person (who has to be the smartest FAA person in the world because most of them have no clue-I was one, I know) says but wait, this page here says this data isn't approved.

Oops. Violation time.

Quickly fill out a NASA report and have the company do a self-disclosure, ASAP report or whatever your company uses.