Part 91 900EX MMEL

[Hugh Johnson]

Section 32 gives you relief to land on wet runways w/o antiskid if you have "Approved Performance Data?" Anyone have relief here and how did you get it? Thanks.

 

[LJ45]

Why? Why would you want to do that? Why would you take time to have that approved?

 

[Gulfstream 200]

900 brakes are bad enough without anti-skid

no anti-skid, the one useless TR, AND a wet runway???...

hummm.....not me!

 

[h25b]

Admittedly not having the slightest clue about specific Falcon performance numbers I can't imagine why in the world anyone would actually elect to dispatch under those conditions let alone spend the energy and money to get the performance data.

I would guess the numbers the data gives you would be very restrictive any way.

I mean really, how many times do you foresee a situation where that data would come in handy? So far in 6 years of corporate jet experience I haven't had an anti-skid failure...

 

[Vastly Underemp]

Landing performance data is calculated without reverse thrust or anti-skid. You already have your data

 

[banned username 2]

Landing performance data is calculated without reverse thrust or anti-skid. You already have your data

Uh, actually it IS calculated WITH Anti-Skid... We have a correction factor for Anti-Skid Inop... He is asking about a "Dual Corrected" performance number (Anti-Skid Inop / Contaminated Runway)... All the contaminated runway factors consider Anti-Skid Operative, all the Anti-Skid Inop factors consider the runway non-contaminated...

Me thinks you do NOT want to land on a contaminated runway with Anti-Skid Inop, period...

 

[rice]

Landing performance data is calculated without reverse thrust or anti-skid. You already have your data

This quote might explain your screen name :laugh: .
Just having a little holiday fun with you.
Sorry but the internet can be a brutal place, especially on this forum at times.