Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Technical Technical aspects of flying
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-08-2019, 08:34 AM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 777F FO
Posts: 3,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousMrX View Post
again, I think I’m overthinking it and confusing myself! But thanks for the responses.
The max weight may indeed be something to do with the runway but it was DFW and all runways are very long.

But on ACARS landing data, surely everyone gets the same info: which includes the unfactored length and the longer 60% factored length.
First, the fact that DFWs runways are "very long" doesn't automatically mean your MTOGW for takeoff on a particular runway, on a particular day is going to be the max certified weight for your aircraft. Factors such as winds, temperature, assumed/flex temps, 10/20 % derated thrust for some aircraft, obstacles, flap settings, etc. may not allow takeoff at max certified weight.

Second, each airline has specific methods they use to compute performance. Mine doesn't use ACARs. We use a program incorporated into our EFB and compute all the data ourselves, both for takeoff and landing. My previous aircraft at the same company used quick reference data in the QRH for landing distance.

Third, information received from whatever source(s) an airline uses may be presented very differently. Assuming we all can decipher the end product you receive and help you with your questions is a big assumption. Along those same lines, your assumption that "everyone" gets the same information when computing landing distance isn't valid. On my a/c, we input landing weight, ATIS information and runway condition, max or idle reverse, MELs/CDLs. The output is landing distance for each autobrake setting and XW/TW components. We don't get unfactored blah blah.... 60% factored whatever and start doing math. It's one number for a particular set of conditions and autobrake setting.

I think the recommendations that you contact your training/standards department are a good start. Having a solid working knowledge of the performance information provided to you by whatever method you use is pretty important when you start getting close to the edges of the envelope dealing with windshear precautions, cluttered takeoffs, runway shortening and obviously landing under less than optimal conditions.
Adlerdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 03:04 PM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
Your questions have been answered. I will try to simply it. Once you take off, the 60% rule does not matter, that number is only used to plan the flight.
Not so fast, some operators require the factored distance for actual landings.
vessbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 11:24 PM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Twin Wasp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Asst. button pusher
Posts: 2,398
Default

Yes but the factored distance isn't the "stop within 60% of the LDA" used to release the aircraft.
Twin Wasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 01:22 PM   #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousMrX View Post
Had a flight the other day (fly CRJ-900) ..
Dispatch paperwork said planned takeoff weight was something like 74,200 lbs. Max takeoff weight 79,000lbs, roughly.
Loaded the numbers into ACARS.. said our weight was about 74.2.. as planned.. however it said our max weight was 74.7 or something like that. Why?

Am I missing something basic here? Letís say we had extra bags and were overweight? We canít go....
Your structural max takeoff weight is 84,500. The 79,000 is probably max landing weight plus fuel burn. Was your fuel burn about 3,900? If you took off at a higher weight, you would be overweight for landing. The 74.7 is probably based on a FLX temp (although flaps 8 vs 20 could be an additional factor). If you were to select NO FLEX, AeroData (ACARS) would probably come back with a higher weight. Entering a higher weight would also likely give you good data with a resultant increase in take off N1 (Lower flex temp or even full thrust)

What might be causing some confusion is that there are several different takeoff weights listed in different places throughout a release:

Max structural: 84500 for CRJ 900
Manufacturers performance baseline (my term): often several thousand pounds higher than even max structural
Max flight plan: The most you can takeoff with (considering planned fuel load and burn) and not exceed other weight limitations (usually landing weight, but I'm sure a scenario containing ramp weight or ZFW could be created)
Planned takeoff: Usually right at your planned weight, often with an extra line for 1000/2000# over that. This is where you get your numbers for takeoff if your ACARS is inop.

All of these will make some reference to MAX, TAKEOFF, and WEIGHT, but they are not the same.

In your initial scenario, it is possible that 79,000 was your max flight plan takeoff weight (for max landing weight) and 74.7 was your planned takeoff weight. Maybe there was another line for plus 1000#. Even if there wasn't, you could call dispatch and have them send you a new release with higher numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteriousMrX View Post
Other question, re: required landing length.
We need a certain length to stop the aircraft, but we add 60% to be legal and safe. ACARS will say our min length is, letís say 3000í but 4800í is the required. SO, if you if you get letís say, a Spoileron fail caution or whatever, you add 20% to the landing distance. Is that 20% of the lower or higher number?...
Again, this is a situation that requires attention to detail. Your QRH most likely references Actual Landing Distance. In that case you would determine Actual Landing Distance (probably from your speed book) and add the 20%. Minimum Landing Distance is a different number (without looking it up, I believe it is a factored number used for dispatch legalities). However, some airlines also require you use a Minimum Field Length number to land (ie, you can't use Actual Landing Distance for normal operations). Using the QRH waives that requirement in most cases.

Best advice: Read the related sections (Performance/Release/Loading/Etc) of your GOM/FOM and your POH/FCOM. Read the QRH items in question. Read them all in detail. Small words make big differences. Also might not hurt to ask other pilots. Like has been said previously, this should have been covered in initial. It will definitely be covered in the upgrade oral/KV.
uboatdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Open Time Release ... Pathetic GetRealDude FedEx 16 11-29-2016 03:44 PM
Ozone RA tool on flight plan release 155mm Cargo 9 01-25-2016 06:05 AM
Delta to buy stake in China Eastern Airlines snowdawg Delta 263 08-19-2015 01:17 PM
ACARS technical info thingsthatfly Technical 4 04-06-2010 04:10 PM
ACARS chime? GOCKY Major 17 10-28-2009 03:11 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:13 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1