10 Faa Talpa Arc
description
Transcript of 10 Faa Talpa Arc
FAA TALPA ARCStandardizing In-Flight Landing Distance Assessments
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar – Miami, 15-16 June 2010
Presented by
Lars KornstaedtManager A380 Operational PerformanceAIRBUS SAS / or ATC Miami
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT Slide 2
……….Why Operational Landing Distances?1
4 Landing Performance Assessment
3 Runway Condition Assessment
2 FAA TALPA ARC
Contents
5 Operations
6 Conclusion
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Systematic Time of Arrival Performance Check
Shared operational landing performance computationRealistic Air Distance
Representative Friction
All physical effects considered
Standardized performance to match reported conditionsStandardized runway condition assessment
Allow performance determination for all types of reports
15-18 March 2010Page 3
Objectives of the Proposals
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
FAA TALPA ARC
Slide 4
Why Operational Landing Distances?
FAA TALPA ARC
1
4 Landing Performance Assessment
3 Runway Condition Assessment
2
Contents
5 Operations
6 Conclusion
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment Aviation Rulemaking Committee
Formed in 2008 further to– Runway overrun Chicago Midway 2006
– NTSB SAFO 06012
– FAA AC 91-79
Composed of representatives from– Regulation Authorities
– Airlines
– Airport Operators
– Pilot and Operator Associations
– Aircraft Manufacturers including Airbus
Proposals finalized in May 2009
15-18 March 2010 Page 5
FAA TALPA ARC
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT Slide 6
Members
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Four workgroupsOperations: Policy and Training
Certification: In-Flight Performance
(91/91K/135 Operations)
Airports: Runway condition assessment and reporting
15-18 March 2010Page 7
Structure
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Runway Condition Assessment
FAA TALPA ARC
Slide 8
Why Operational Landing Distances?
Runway Condition Assessment
1
4 Landing Performance Assessment
3
2
Contents
5 Operations
6 Conclusion
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Contaminant Type and Depth
AdvantagesSimple Observation– No need for preceding aircraft
– No need for friction tester
– No interruption of operations
Simple equivalence to published performance data
DisadvantagesMay be incomplete and/or misleading– Dry Snow / Slush over Ice
– “Patchy”
– Friction tends to be worse if contaminant melting
Depth Assessment difficult (just Wet or already Flooded?)
15-18 March 2010 Page 9
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Friction Measurement
AdvantagesPrecise Numbers
No need for preceding aircraft
DisadvantagesNo direct correlation with aircraft performance
Issues with reproducibility
Optimistic on fluid contaminants
Requires runway closure for measurement
Lack in timeliness
15-18 March 2010 Page 10
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Pilot Braking Action Report
AdvantagesUsually most recent information
Quantifies effect of contaminant on aircraft
DisadvantagesSubjective assessment– Pilot experience
– Aircraft characteristics
Mix of Braking friction, aerodynamic drag and reverse thrust effects
No correlation with published aircraft performance
15-18 March 2010 Page 11
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT May 200916th Performance and Operations conference Page 12
FAA TALPA ARC – Runway Assessment Matrix
Reporting Code
Primary Assessment by Contaminant Type
Contaminant differentiation by
surface temperature
Assessment Downgrading:Friction and/or Pilot Report
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Airport Rules
Attempt to maintain runways “bare and dry”
Make observationsAs accurately as possible
As frequently as required
ReportRunway Codes by thirds of runway length
Contamination from 10%, then in 25% steps
PiReps
No measured friction values (downgrade only)
Close runwayOne report of “Nil” condition
Two consecutive reports of “Poor” condition15-18 March 2010 Page 13
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Landing Performance Assessment
Runway Condition Assessment
FAA TALPA ARC
Slide 14
Why Operational Landing Distances?
Landing Performance Assessment
1
4
3
2
Contents
5 Operations
6 Conclusion
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Certified Landing Distance on DryMaximum aircraft capability
Very short air part, minimal flare
Not typical of operational landings
Minimal delay before braking initiation
Clean runway friction
Landing Distance on WetRegulatory friction and demonstrated anti-skid efficiency
Landing Distance on ContaminatedExcessive speed bleed off during flare
Neglect of significant impact of runway slope and ambient temperature
15-18 March 2010 Page 15
What is wrong with ALD?
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Performance available only for specific contaminant types and depths
Some contaminant types and depths covered by equivalences (dry and wet loose snow)
No means for flight crew to consider reported braking action or friction reports as indicators for degraded conditions
No standards for runway condition reporting that actually match published aircraft performance levels
15-18 March 2010 Page 16
What is wrong with ALD? (cont’d)
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT May 2009
Concepts for Operational Landing Distance
Introduce realistic airborne part7 seconds at VAPP from threshold to touchdown
Touchdown at 96% VAPP
Introduce six aircraft landing performance levelsCover typical runway conditions
Allow performance determination for
– Reported contaminant type and depth
– Reported braking action
Consider all parameters that influence landing distance– Pressure altitude
– Planned approach speed
– Outside temperature and wind
– Runway slope
– Reverse thrust use
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT May 2009Page 18
Concepts for Operational Landing Distance
6 friction levelsDry
– 90% of demonstrated dry runway wheel to ground friction
Good– demonstrated wet runway friction combined with A-SKD efficiency for ASD
Good to Medium– μ = 0.20
Medium– μ = 0.16
Medium to Poor– μ = ½ μ wet capped at 0.16 and 0.05 above hydroplaning speed
– Credit for precipitation drag up to ½ reported contaminant depth
Poor– μ = 0.08, slightly better than current Icy μ = 0.05
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Performance Level to match Runway Assessment
Code 6 for Dry
Performance level for Good = Wet SmoothCompact Snow (cold) = Good to MediumDry/Wet Snow (cold) = Medium
Water/Slush = Medium to Poor (hydroplaning)
Ice (cold) = Poor
Ice (melting) = Nil
15-18 March 2010 Page 19
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT May 2009Page 20
Retroactivity
Will be regulated via 14 CFR part 26
• PossibilitiesFull compliance with new FAR 25.125Use of existing JAR25X1591 data,
• Provided all friction levels covered(interpolation permissible)
• Corrections published for • Temperature effect• Runway slope effect• Approach speed increment effect
Intermediate solutions may be acceptable
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Operations
Landing Performance Assessment
Runway Condition Assessment
FAA TALPA ARC
Slide 21
Why Operational Landing Distances?
Operations
1
4
3
2
Contents
5
6 Conclusion
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Dispatch
Existing FAA dispatch requirementsDry runway RLD dry = 1.67 ALD dry
Wet/slippery runway RLD wet = 1.92 ALD dry
No specific performance for contaminated runways
Slide 22
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Time of Arrival Assessment
Systematic Landing Performance computation in approach
ExemptionsDispatch to same dry runway under same conditions
Dispatch to same wet grooved runway under same conditions
Slide 23
Systematic Safety margin of 15%
1.15 x OLD = Factored OLD (FOLD) ≤ LDA
Only exemption from safety margin:Landing with in-flight failures affecting landing performance
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Use of Automation
Automatic LandingIncrements must be applied to adjust airborne distance as applicable
Automatic BrakingIf standard 15% margin is available for manual braking
FOLD manual ≤ LDAAutobrake may be used operationally even when lower margin
if OLD a/brk ≤ LDA then FOLD a/brk > LDA allowed
Slide 24
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Conclusion
Operations
Landing Performance Assessment
Runway Condition Assessment
FAA TALPA ARC
Slide 25
Why Operational Landing Distances?
Conclusion
1
4
3
2
Contents
5
6
© A
IRBU
S S.
A.S.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
Flight Operations Safety Awareness Seminar Miami 2009 – Title of the PPT
Timeline
FAAMay 2009 – TALPA ARC proposals submitted to FAA
Early 2011 – FAA should publish NPRM
6 Month Comment Period
Late 2011 – Regulation Publication
+2 years – End of Retrofit Grace Period
ICAO Friction Task Force2009/10 – Phase 1
2010- – Phase 2
EASAMarch 2010 – Runway Friction and Aircraft Braking Workshop
15-18 March 2010 Page 26