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.


FAA TALPA ARC

Slide 4

Why Operational Landing Distances?

FAA TALPA ARC

1


3 Runway Condition Assessment

2

Contents

5 Operations

6 Conclusion

© A

IRBU

S S.

A.S.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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.


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.


Runway Condition Assessment

FAA TALPA ARC

Slide 8



1


3

2

Contents

5 Operations

6 Conclusion

© A

IRBU

S S.

A.S.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Landing Performance Assessment


FAA TALPA ARC

Slide 14



1

4

3

2

Contents

5 Operations

6 Conclusion

© A

IRBU

S S.

A.S.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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.


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.


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.


Operations



FAA TALPA ARC

Slide 21


Operations

1

4

3

2

Contents

5

6 Conclusion

© A

IRBU

S S.

A.S.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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.


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.


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.


Conclusion

Operations



FAA TALPA ARC

Slide 25


Conclusion

1

4

3

2

Contents

5

6

© A

IRBU

S S.

A.S.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.


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

Documents

10 Faa Talpa Arc