Turbojet part 135 takeoff numbers

[CAP E TON]

Flightsafety, simuflite, etc. takeoff and landing numbers are part 91 in their checklists. If your landing u must multiply 1.67 to the 91 number. If your taking off and it's wet you must add 15% to the 91 number. Does a percentage need to be added to the checklist for takeoff numbers if it's dry to make it a part 135 Checklist? Please answer only if you fly a part 135 jet.

 

[learflyer]

No. My understanding is the AFM times 1.67 IS the dry part 135 numbers. If it's wet then AFM landing dist times 1.92.

 

[CAP E TON]

So you believe as long as it is dry you can use the takeoff numbers right out of the checklist? Why would we have to add distance to make it part 135 for landing but not takeoff dry?

 

[Pickle]

HS125 numbers from the book/tab data in the checklist are factored numbers, ie they are already x 1.67.

 

[stupidpilot]

I looked in the checklist and it says takeoff field length and landing distance. Isn't the term "field length" used to represent a factored number where the term "distance" is used for raw numbers?

 

[minitour]

I've never heard of having to add 15% to a "takeoff" number for a wet runway. For landing, yes, but never for takeoff. Where is everyone seeing this/being taught this?

-mini

 

[JAFI]

Flightsafety, simuflite, etc. takeoff and landing numbers are part 91 in their checklists. If your landing u must multiply 1.67 to the 91 number. If your taking off and it's wet you must add 15% to the 91 number. Does a percentage need to be added to the checklist for takeoff numbers if it's dry to make it a part 135 Checklist? Please answer only if you fly a part 135 jet.

1. It might be helpful if you list the CFR reference you are asking about.

2. What checklist for take off numbers? What is the process in your company manual for take off? Or are you writing a manual?

3. It has been a long time since I did 135 but as I recall a wet runway could increase your acc/stop distance and need to be accounted for.

 

[Pickle]

HS125 numbers from the book/tab data in the checklist are factored numbers, ie they are already x 1.67.

These are landing numbers I was talking about. Didn't make that clear first time around.

 

[minitour]

Flightsafety, simuflite, etc. takeoff and landing numbers are part 91 in their checklists. If your landing u must multiply 1.67 to the 91 number. If your taking off and it's wet you must add 15% to the 91 number. Does a percentage need to be added to the checklist for takeoff numbers if it's dry to make it a part 135 Checklist? Please answer only if you fly a part 135 jet.

The way we do it:
First, APG. We use APG to give us a weight that we can land at given the 80% rule (it also gives us a weight for the wet runway numbers, which adds 15%).

Second, the FMS. We can use the 1.25, 1.67 or 1.92 factor in the FMS to give us a runway length. But by that point that number is pretty useless since the regulation just prohibits you from taking off at a weight greater than would allow for landing at your destination (given normal consumption of fuel, oil, etc.) within 60% or 80% of the runway length and factor the 15% in for a wet runway.

Also, we have our FSI/Cessna "checklist" (Flying the Cj3 for dummies) which gives us landing distances. If we REALLY wanted to be precise, we could haul the AFM inside and go into the performance section and do the work ourselves, but the software does it for us.

For takeoff, our takeoff distance (factored for wet runway and/or contaminants as necessary) just has to be equal to or less than the TODA, as I understand it. No factors need to be added because those numbers come straight from the AFM. Of course, if the numbers were exactly equal, we'd probably either wait for a dryer runway, cooler day, drop some bags, not take as much gas, etc. to get the required distance to be shorter to allow for some "oops" in the event of an aborted takeoff.

That's how we do it for 135 EOD ops. If we can't use EOD rules then we'd use the 60% factor. For our 91 flights with the owners, we use the 80% numbers almost exclusively.

Applicable regs for us: 135.398 (We're Part 23 Commuter category). That reg references 135.385 and 135.387. Those regs give us our 60% (or 80% for EOD) factor for destination and alternate airports. They also specify the 15% factor for wet or "slippery" runways at the destination.

Hope that helped some.

-mini

 

[say again]

Deleted

 

[JAFI]

(We're Part 23 Commuter category).
-mini

You may want to check that. The CJ3 is not propeller driven:

23.3 Airplane categories.

(d) The commuter category is limited to propeller-driven, multiengine airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.1.59.3&idno=14

I would bet you are:

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation.

 

[U of I Tweak]

You may want to check that. The CJ3 is not propeller driven:

23.3 Airplane categories.

(d) The commuter category is limited to propeller-driven, multiengine airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.1.59.3&idno=14

I would bet you are:

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation.

I've never flow the CJ3, but it's similar in size to they Citation V, which had a MTOW of 16,300...well over the 12,500 cited I the normal category reg above.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[JAFI]

U of I,

That is because the Citation V is certified under part 25, Transport Catagory. Those aircraft get a lot heaver.....

Here is the type data sheet:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...A0FF9E2FA169C02F86257833005A6BDB?OpenDocument

 

[U of I Tweak]

U of I,

That is because the Citation V is certified under part 25, Transport Catagory. Those aircraft get a lot heaver.....

Here is the type data sheet:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...A0FF9E2FA169C02F86257833005A6BDB?OpenDocument

Having flown the V, I remember it is a transport category airplane. An above post referenced normal category airplanes, specifically limiting them to 12,500 lbs. I was saying I'd be surprised if a CJ3 could weigh that little. I was curious, so I looked up the CE525 TCDS. The CJ1 and CJ2 are normal category, while the CJ3, weighing in at over 13K, is a commuter category.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7897696ff1dfcb5e862572ed005e7b2a/$FILE/A1WI.pdf

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[JAFI]

U of I and Minitour, I read the TCDS and see you are correct.

Wow, now I've see it all. Only FAA HQ could classify a (6 seat?) corporate turbo jet under the 19 passenger turboprop category. I need to go buy some more asprin now..........

 

[U of I Tweak]

I need to go buy some more asprin now..........

A common effect of the FAA!


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[minitour]

U of I and Minitour, I read the TCDS and see you are correct.

Wow, now I've see it all. Only FAA HQ could classify a (6 seat?) corporate turbo jet under the 19 passenger turboprop category. I need to go buy some more asprin now..........

8 Seats if you count the spacious lav and sideways vomit-inducing, refreshment center replacing seat.

...9 if you count the right seat ballast seat.

I was also surprised to see the aircraft certified the way it is, but I'm sure stranger things have happened.

And yeah, I've done 9 pax part 91 flights in this thing. Thaaaaaat's a real treat. "Please don't touch...ple..pl...really don't touch that!"

"Why did you yell at my son/daughter?"

"...do you enjoy pressurization at 45,000'?"

"He/she was just curious."

-mini

 

[JAFI]

A common effect of the FAA!

I'm afraid you don't know the half of it. A story for another time.

Mini, A hundred years ago I flew an early Citation 501. On one flight one of the passengers ended up with blue all over them. After that we flew with it empty. The "good old days"........

 

[minitour]

Mini, A hundred years ago I flew an early Citation 501. On one flight one of the passengers ended up with blue all over them. After that we flew with it empty. The "good old days"........

I know several people have said they put kitty litter in theirs. Ours is a flushing potty, so that wouldn't be good, I'm sure.

I particularly found amusing when the service center had to remove the entire interior a few months ago to clean up a leaking tank.

-mini

 

[JAFI]

I particularly found amusing when the service center had to remove the entire interior a few months ago to clean up a leaking tank.

-mini

Not so amusing for the tech's at the service center..... Also a prime spot for corrosion. Nasty stuff.