Do you really trust that wet runway performance data

[pelmet]

OK, once again, how do you determine that any particular SAFO is no longer valid?

Because subsequent regulation that particularly pertains to those recommendations has been passed that we all have to adhere to now.

Not hard Pelmet.

Well, it looks like Rockie has come to a conclusion on who he feels is right about our tangent to this subject about wet runway performance. He sent me a message titled "Dick Measuring" and among his statements said "...don't for a second think you know more about this stuff than I do."

Well, maybe he is right(or maybe just arrogant). But for now, I would suggest following the SAFO I posted earlier for very wet runways in moderate to heavy rain as applicable to the runway surface construction as long as it is still posted, which it is. Maybe I will look into it further.

As for Rockie, I did send him a couple of videos of who his personality closely resembles....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nALb4lEbSbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8

After watching the videos, you might conclude that NOBODY knows more about wet runway performance than Rockie. But I did hear that he needs both hands to properly grasp the sidestick.

[Rockie]

I also said some nice things about you in that private message along with a request not to turn everything into a dick measuring contest. Lost message I guess. And each time you ask the same question over again despite getting the answer you betray how little you know about wet runways. Do I need to repeat the answer for a third (or was it fourth) time?

Your SAFO is older than the TALPA regulations that specifically address and amend landing distances higher for the very same reason they wrote that older SAFO to begin with.

Give it a few seconds real thought Pelmet and see if it dawns on you a little bit.

[pelmet]

I also said some nice things about you

Ahh gee. After starting a thread to try and promote safety by discussing overruns and an FAA Safety Alert for Operators and an accident report link, I end up being called a moron and an idiot by Rockie.

Yes, you did say that I bring up worthwhile safety subjects and in the end you said you are not my enemy. But after reading through the replies on this thread from you, I am reminded of the quote..."with friends like you, who needs enemies".

Anyways....this part is not adding to the thread. If I find any further information, I will post it.

[Rockie]

Great Pelmet, post the TALPA landing distance requirements. That’s the “further information” you haven’t yet discovered through your own exhaustive search. If you need it I’ll send you a link via private message and you can pretend you found it all by yourself.

Actually, forget the private message, you don’t really understand how those work either. Here’s a link to a FAA advisory circular that if you check real close came out over four months after your SAFO. If you read it carefully enough you’ll find it considers wet runways and runways with a depth of water on it as separate things, and it even defines them for you.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/med ... _25-32.pdf

This is guidance the FAA came out with for older airplanes that for one reason or other do not have landing data calculated under TALPA criteria. It came out two years after your SAFO.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/t ... 3-2017.pdf

Here is AC 91-79A chg 1&2 titled "Mitigating the risk of a runway overrun upon landing" which came out just last February (over 2 years later than your SAFO). In its list of related SAFO's it doesn't mention yours for some reason. An oversight I'm sure...you should correct them.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _Chg_2.pdf

This is the further information you’re scouring the planet for on our behalf Pelmet. You’re welcome, keep up the good work.

[pelmet]

Great Pelmet, post the TALPA landing distance requirements. That’s the “further information” you haven’t yet discovered through your own exhaustive search. If you need it I’ll send you a link via private message and you can pretend you found it all by yourself.

Actually, forget the private message, you don’t really understand how those work either. Here’s a link to a FAA advisory circular that if you check real close came out over four months after your SAFO. If you read it carefully enough you’ll find it considers wet runways and runways with a depth of water on it as separate things, and it even defines them for you.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/med ... _25-32.pdf

This is guidance the FAA came out with for older airplanes that for one reason or other do not have landing data calculated under TALPA criteria. It came out two years after your SAFO.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/t ... 3-2017.pdf

Here is AC 91-79A chg 1&2 titled "Mitigating the risk of a runway overrun upon landing" which came out just last February (over 2 years later than your SAFO). In its list of related SAFO's it doesn't mention yours for some reason. An oversight I'm sure...you should correct them.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _Chg_2.pdf

This is the further information you’re scouring the planet for on our behalf Pelmet. You’re welcome, keep up the good work.

Just because updated information has been issued, it does not mean that older information is automatically invalidated. As I have stated already, I have every confidence that the FAA considers the earlier SAFO(suggesting that certain runways|(Non-grooved/non-PFC) can require 30-40% more landing distance under certain condition such as moderate to heavy rain.

You have only made an assumption which can be a dangerous thing to do for a pilot.


Insults do not make you right. I strongly suggest that people reading this thread and any others with commentary by Rockie get a second opinion and information from alternate sources.

[Rockie]

I strongly suggest that people reading this thread and any others with commentary by Rockie get a second opinion and information from alternate sources.

And I strongly advise people reading this thread to use the most current available data, guidance and direction especially if it is required by your regulator and/or the operator.

[pelmet]

I can't explain why the FAA has on their website a SAFO recommendation that has been superceded by the TALPS-ARC recommendations - now regulation. Maybe you should ask them

Well, wet runway conditions are not "ideal" conditions. And when the FAA made their original 30-40% additive recommendations it was a gouge, a rough hack, a wild ass guess. TALPA is not. Do not make any kind of equivalence between the two.

It’s like talking to a wall. Maybe I will ask them.

[pelmet]

Pelmet? Hello....

Rockie? Hello....

[Rockie]

Pelmet? Hello....

Rockie? Hello....

What? I'm waiting to hear what the FAA tells you.

[pelmet]

A quick review of the discussion on this thread…

In simply trying to provide information to prevent accidents, I started it by giving warning not to trust the wet runway data in Aircraft Flight Manuals because it may not always be reliable. I mentioned that this information is not flight tested and is in fact made by calculation. Along with that, I then posted an accident report that happened to a business jet in Texas that discusses this very fact. I also posted a reference to an FAA issued Safety Alert For Operators(SAFO) that basically says the same thing. In fact, the SAFO 15009 says that on certain runways in moderate to heavy rain, the landing distances may be 30-40% longer than the AFM wet landing distances.

Another poster, Rockie, stated that his airline uses a fairly new procedure called TALPA(Takeoff Landing And Performance Assessment) which was implemented subsequent to this accident report and SAFO 15009 being issued. Basically, it is a new runway condition reporting system at many large American airports along with modification to AFM landing performance calculations.

I thanked him for the reply but pointed out that the new style of runway condition reports(or any reports) are not available at many airports that business jets used which has been a source of concern for the National Business Aircraft Association. The same thing applies outside the US.

After some polite back and forth discussion I mentioned about a 737 overrun in YUL where the pilot got a surprise when intentionally approaching the runway end at a relatively high speed. Rockie stated that the 737 incident wasn't a case of not being able to trust wet runway performance numbers, which is what the thread title is about.

So I pointed out that the FAA still has SAFO 15009 that I originally provided a link to on their website even though we have the TALPA procedure. And I made common sense statements about this discussion about aircraft performance such as quoting the SAFO statement of "Analysis of this data indicates that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may be required in certain cases where the runway is very wet, but not flooded." And then stating “Yet as far as I know, the TALPA performance calculations for wet runway did not increase landing distance requirements by 30-40%. So as far as I am concerned, the wet performance data cannot be trusted as it was likely made under ideal conditions.”

This is when the really unprofessional stuff started getting posted by Rockie such as…
“when the FAA made their original 30-40% additive recommendations it was a gouge, a rough hack, a wild ass guess” as well as saying that even though the SAFO is still on their website, it is no longer applicable because it pre-dates the TALPA procedure and how he knows that it is no longer applicable(as shown below)…

I can't explain why the FAA has on their website a SAFO recommendation that has been superceded by the TALPS-ARC recommendations - now regulation. Maybe you should ask them.

Check the dates on your documents versus the TALPA regulation implementation date Pelmet. The ones you're quoting are at least a year before the implementation of TALPA and do not even mention it. Really...stop. Betraying yourself as a moron is not worth another pointless argument with me. Or...continue. This should be good...

By simply looking at the date on the SAFO which is 8/11/15. TALPA regulations came in force October 2016.

All this was followed by the usual insults such as idiot and moron being posted by him whenever he is challenged. And of course sending me a message saying "...don't for a second think you know more about this stuff than I do" (which shows more about a personality disorder than anything else).

Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to convince him that this SAFO likely still has applicability, so as suggested, I have decided to ask the FAA for clarification.

[pelmet]

SAFO 15009 has a contact phone number. I called it and asked for the appropriate person to talk to. Apparently the appropriate person's phone is broken so I sent an email as written word for word below(except for de-identification)....


From:
XXXXXXXXX

To:
<sung.shin@faa.gov>

Subject:
SAFO 15009

Dear Sir,

I am writing you for more information about SAFO 15009 issued by the FAA also known as Turbojet Braking Performance on Wet Runways. As you know, this SAFO, issued in 2015 discusses the fact that advisory data for wet runway landings may not provide a safe stopping margin under all conditions and that analysis of this data indicates that 30 to 40 percent additional stopping distance may be required in certain cases where the runway is very wet, but not flooded. It therefore was recommended that operators should consider additional conservatism in their time-of-arrival assessment depending on the nature of the runway.

In 2016, SAFO 16009 was published to notify operators, pilots, training providers and other personnel of changes in runway condition reporting when a runway is other than dry. A new methodology was developed for conveying actual runway conditions which communicates actual runway conditions to pilots in terms that directly relate to expected aircraft performance. This methodology was based on recommendations from the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).

The FAA implemented the use of the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM) which is now used by airport operators to perform assessments of runway conditions as well as by pilots to interpret reported runway conditions. The RCAM is presented in a standardized format, based on airplane performance data supplied by airplane manufacturers, for each of the stated contaminant types and depths and replaces subjective judgments of runway surface conditions with objective assessments tied directly to contaminant type and depth categories.

My question to you is about the fact that earlier published SAFO 15009 is still on the FAA website and has not been removed. I have had discussions with fellow pilots who believe that SAFO 15009 is no longer valid because the TALPA SAFO was published at a later date and therefore has, in effect, replaced SAFO 15009 and that its information no longer has any validity. In addition, I have been told by other pilots that the information in SAFO 15009 was, to put it mildly, only "a guess" in the first place.

Could you please let me know if SAFO 15009 is considered by the FAA to still be valid information to be considered by turbojet operators and if so, should I consider the performance numbers of 30-40% issued at the time to be based on scientific data.

Thanks,

XXXXXXX

[pelmet]

I strongly suggest that people reading this thread and any others with commentary by Rockie get a second opinion and information from alternate sources.

And I strongly advise people reading this thread to use the most current available data, guidance and direction especially if it is required by your regulator and/or the operator.

This is the reply from the FAA word for word except for de-identification and some highlighting(it appears to have been forwarded to an appropriate inspector for reply). As I like to say.....be careful where you get your information from.



Hi XXXXXXX,

I believe the SAFOs listed above have different messages. The main point in 15009 is the potential that some wet runway conditions can exceed the commonly referred to “safety margin.” Data was available during the time of creation and publication of 15009 that increases the margin by two and beyond, in “certain conditions.” SAFO 16009 is a “Runway Assessment and Condition Reporting” safety alert reflecting the methodology coming out of the TALPA ARC, in contrast to 15009s braking performance in certain conditions alert.

We are in the process of updating 15009, but the current version will remain in play until the update is published. I assure you 15009 is relevant, as is 16009, and the information of both should be something we all absorb, especially if we are flying outside of this country, and encounter wet runway conditions, etc. I have 10000 hours in three different, and increasing weight, models of the B-737 (mentioned in the 16009), and have experienced the increase in the subject of 15009. I discussed this with the author of SAFO 15009 (he is completing the update also), and he is in agreement with this position. Please let fellow pilots know the SAFO remains in active status, and having been a critical player (ASAP) during American Airline’s Jamaica accident in 2009, conditions can be different than those reported, even with today’s technologies.


Please feel free to give me a call.

Thanks!

bl

“Observe – Orient – Decide – Act” John Boyd

Buddy Lott, Aviation Safety Inspector | FAA
AFS-220, Air Carrier Branch
Fort Worth Texas 76126
( Office: 817.249.2721 | ( Cell: 817.689.8752

Calvin.Lott@faa.gov
Federal Aviation Administration

We value your feedback. Click here and pick AFS-560 http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... fs/afs200/

[Rockie]

Thanks Pelmet.

We in the industry are required to calculate landing distance according to TALPA including wet runway, and runways contaminated with more than 1/8th inch of water. We do not arbitrarily add 30-40%, or any amount on top of any numbers derived therein. We do not adhere to anything whatsoever contained in SAFO 15009 because it is old news and not relevant to our operation. If you continue to take issue with that I suggest you contact Transport Canada, the manufacturers and operators and take it up with them. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I am required to do despite your misguided opinion on this topic. As before, I strongly advise all other pilots do the same.

However I do look forward to reading the revised SAFO 15009 when it comes out. I wonder why they're revising it...?

By the way, we are permitted to downgrade a RCAM report through pilot observation of actual conditions, we are not allowed to upgrade them. Moderate to heavy rain is the equivalent of level 2 (medium to poor braking), and slippery when wet (rubber deposits) is level 3. A straight wet runway is level 5. Much more scientific than adding 30-40% I would say.

[pelmet]

Thanks Pelmet.

We in the industry are required to calculate landing distance according to TALPA including wet runway, and runways contaminated with more than 1/8th inch of water. We do not arbitrarily add 30-40%, or any amount on top of any numbers derived therein. We do not adhere to anything whatsoever contained in SAFO 15009 because it is old news and not relevant to our operation. If you continue to take issue with that I suggest you contact Transport Canada, the manufacturers and operators and take it up with them. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I am required to do despite your misguided opinion on this topic. As before, I strongly advise all other pilots do the same.

However I do look forward to reading the revised SAFO 15009 when it comes out. I wonder why they're revising it...?

By the way, we are permitted to downgrade a RCAM report through pilot observation of actual conditions, we are not allowed to upgrade them. Moderate to heavy rain is the equivalent of level 2 (medium to poor braking), and slippery when wet (rubber deposits) is level 3. A straight wet runway is level 5. Much more scientific than adding 30-40% I would say.

Well there you have it folks. Rockie insisted that SAFO 15009 was no longer applicable due to date of issue and that it was based on a wild ass guess(and threw out insults when I said that this was wrong). Then after he suggested I contact the FAA, I did and asked them specifically about these two items and I have been backed up BY THE FAA.

Like the FAA has requested in their email, I am advising all pilots to consider what the FAA says. It is not doing something arbitrary as Rocky has stated. Under certain conditions of rainfall and certain runway friction characteristics, add 30-40%.

As for TC on the subject...they say basically what the FAA says about TALPA itself with this caution...."All personnel should use their best judgement in making conservative calculations of the effects of wet and contaminated runway conditions on aircraft performance."

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... -2211.html

I guess I do know as much on the subject as Rockie...or more

[pelmet]

And here is something that is really important from the FAA letter keeping in mind that I questioned wet runway performance calculations(code 5). The FAA said the obvious...."conditions can be different than those reported, even with today’s technologies".

Yet we were told by Rockie earlier in this thread ..... "

First, you determine yourself what the runway conditions are either from the ATIS (wet / dry) or runway condition report in winter conditions. From that you use RCAM codes, or more detailed analysis to determine your landing distance under TALPA.

But how old is the ATIS, how old is the runway report. The information could be no longer applicable. Use the ATIS as a reference and then use whatever means necessary to update the ATIS information. It has been light rain all day and the runway is wet, but you can see on the radar that moderate or possibly even more intense precipitation is approaching the airfield, adjust according to a more conservative performance value. Runway report in the winter is two hours old and it is not only snowing but wet snow, better do the same thing. I suppose that would be your more detailed analysis.

[Rockie]

As for TC on the subject...they say basically what the FAA says about TALPA itself with this caution...."All personnel should use their best judgement in making conservative calculations of the effects of wet and contaminated runway conditions on aircraft performance."

That means using TALPA Pelmet, and amending the used RCAM down if necessary. All part of TALPA. You're also leaving out many quotes from your link that discredits your argument including the very next paragraph:

All personnel should use their best judgement in making conservative calculations of the effects of wet and contaminated runway conditions on aircraft performance.

From October 1, 2016 onwards, pilots who are not familiar with the new TALPA runway assessment procedures and the newly formatted FICON NOTAM may not be able to interpret and utilize this important information correctly and effectively.

And this:

Some aircraft manufacturers and performance data providers have produced performance information (data) which conforms to the TALPA RCAM format and terminology. This Operational Landing Distance data is advisory data which is based on the recommendations of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25-32, Landing Performance Data for Time-of-Arrival Landing Performance Assessments.

For some older airplanes which are still in service, the manufacturer may not provide advisory data which conforms to the TALPA RCAM format and terminology. For these aircraft, FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 4, Chap. 3, Section 1, Subsection 4-503 provides advisory information, including Landing Distance Factors (LDF) in Table 4-11.

And this:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Transport Canada reminds all pilots, flight dispatchers, air operators and private operators, who will be conducting flight operations to and from the United States from October 1, 2016 onwards, to ensure that they are familiar with the new TALPA runway assessment procedures and the newly formatted FICON NOTAMs.


I don't see SAFO 15009 referenced anywhere in either the FAA or TC documentation regarding landing distance calculations since it's been written Pelmet. Other SAFO's like 16009 yes...but not 15009. Why is that do you suppose? Again Pelmet, the letterhead on any of this stuff doesn't include the word "Rockie", it says "FAA" or "TC". It isn't me coming up with this stuff. But you keep right on doing what you're doing - whatever that is - and leave the professionals to do what they're required to do.

[pelmet]

And this:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Transport Canada reminds all pilots, flight dispatchers, air operators and private operators, who will be conducting flight operations to and from the United States from October 1, 2016 onwards, to ensure that they are familiar with the new TALPA runway assessment procedures and the newly formatted FICON NOTAMs.


I don't see SAFO 15009 referenced anywhere in either the FAA or TC documentation regarding landing distance calculations since it's been written Pelmet. Other SAFO's like 16009 yes...but not 15009. Why is that do you suppose? Again Pelmet, the letterhead on any of this stuff doesn't include the word "Rockie", it says "FAA" or "TC". It isn't me coming up with this stuff. But you keep right on doing what you're doing - whatever that is - and leave the professionals to do what they're required to do.

You can find SAFO 15009 on the FAA website as a reference along with the FAA's interpretation of its validity on this very thread. I that it is your turn to contact the FAA inspector who wrote the letter this time. Take the time to do it and let us know what he says.

But lets get away from this airline mentality. Bizjets, turboprops, piston twins, etc. You TALPA comments mean nothing to most of them. Private operators with their wet runway charts are the ones who should be most concerned. And of course, this thread started off with a bizjet operator accident.

[Rockie]

Bizjets use RCAM Pelmet. Read the RCAM information again.

This is the last time I'm going to say this Pelmet, and then I'm going to go do something more enjoyable like pulling my fingernails out one by one with a pair of plyers.

We are REQUIRED by Transport Canada to use manufacturer landing distance information, who are in turn REQUIRED to calculate those distances using TALPA criteria. As a pilot employed by an operator I am personally REQUIRED to use those performance figures because my company, the manufacturer and Transport Canada says so. Still confused?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/required

[pelmet]

As I said, email the FAA inspector and ask him for more detail. I know you won't, as it will just prove me right(which he already did). But don't worry, your method will work 99.9% of the time you encounter very marginal conditions(which is fairly rare in itself), but it is the professionals who really earn their pay when they successfully deal with the remaining 0.1%.

[Rockie]

Yes Pelmet, plyers.

And it isn't "my" method, something that seems virtually impossible to penetrate that bone in your forehead.