Do you really trust that wet runway performance data

[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.

[pelmet]

Told you guys he wouldn't contact the FAA inspector who has the knowledge on the subject(although I was expected to). I wonder why?

[Rockie]

Because I know what the manufacturer, my operator and Transport Canada's position is. An FAA inspector is not part of that equation. Maybe once he finishes revising the SAFO it will more accurately reflect developments that have occurred in the 3 years since it was originally written. Who knows?

One thing I do know for sure, nothing Inspector whatever from Texas says is going to overrule FAA, TC, or my company policy. I can't think of anything more stupid off the top of my head than defying all of the above on the word of inspector whatever from Texas and Pelmet from the internet.

[pelmet]

One thing I do know for sure, nothing Inspector whatever from Texas says is going to overrule FAA, TC, or my company policy. I can't think of anything more stupid off the top of my head than defying all of the above on the word of inspector whatever from Texas and Pelmet from the internet.

Ok, I'll tell him Rockie from the internet said that.

Thanks for the replies.

[Rockie]

Ok, I'll tell him Rockie from the internet said that.

Please do, and post his response. I'm curious to see if like you he thinks I should violate Transport Canada and company directives, although I already know the answer to that.

[pelmet]

.... the word of inspector whatever from Texas ...

Partial background.....

Federal Aviation Administration
Company Name Federal Aviation Administration
Total Duration 11 yrs 4 mos
Title Aviation Safety Inspector
Dates Employed Mar 2017 – Present Employment Duration 1 yr 7 mos

Location FAA Headquarters
Title Change Management Advisor
Dates Employed Nov 2015 – Feb 2017 Employment Duration1 yr 4 mos

Title Supervisory Principal Operations Inspector - AALA
Dates Employed Feb 2013 – Nov 2015 Employment Duration2 yrs 10 mos
Location Fort Worth, Texas

Title AALA FAA Assistant Principal Operations Inspector
Dates Employed Oct 2010 – Feb 2013 Employment Duration2 yrs 5 mos

Title Aviation Safety Inspector, Operations
Dates Employed Jun 2007 – Oct 2010 Employment Duration3 yrs 5 mos
Location Dallas/Fort Worth Area
Manager, Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) for American Eagle Airlines and American Airlines

Education United States Air Force Academy
Degree Name BS - Engineering Mechanics Field Of Study Engineering Structures
Dates attended or expected graduation 1972 – 1976

United States Air Force Colonel
Company Name United States Air Force
Dates Employed Jun 1976 – Jul 2006 Employment Duration 30 yrs 2 mos
Instructor/Fighter Pilot, Staff, Director/Commander
Retired - Reserves

Delta Air Lines Captain/Check Airman
Company Name Delta Air Lines
Dates Employed Jun 1988 – Jun 2004 Employment Duration 16 yrs 1 mo
Great Time with a Great Airline! But, it was time to go.

General Dynamics Marketing Rep (F-16), Pilot Vehicle Interface Engineer
Company Name General Dynamics
Dates Employed Mar 1985 – Jun 1988 Employment Duration 3 yrs 4 mos
Sold F-16s (they sold themselves!!!)
Provided interface between the AF user and GD Software/Hardware Engineers



Rockie 7627 posts on AvCanada...most of them arguing with a variety of other posters

No guarantees but I'll stick with Inspector Whatever.

[Rockie]

No guarantees but I'll stick with Inspector Whatever.

Of course you do, and I believe I've already suggested that. Do what you like in your C150 Pelmet, but if you fly for a living you would be wise to follow your company requirements. Or don't...

[C.W.E.]

pelmet:

I used to fly for a company in Yellowknife that operated a DC6 and we often landed on the ice with it that was wet ice with no
snow cover at all.

It was just routine flying for us and of course there were no runway reports for us to figure out if we could land and at what cross wind component we could land and what landing distance we needed, we just let it stop when it could.



Could you discuss that with Rockie to get his opinion on that?

[Rockie]

Could you discuss that with Rockie to get his opinion on that?

Are you not able to discuss that with me yourself .? My opinion is that you are as experienced at doing what I do as I am landing on ice flows in the arctic. I'll keep in my lane, you keep in yours.

[pelmet]

pelmet:

I used to fly for a company in Yellowknife that operated a DC6 and we often landed on the ice with it that was wet ice with no
snow cover at all.

It was just routine flying for us and of course there were no runway reports for us to figure out if we could land and at what cross wind component we could land and what landing distance we needed, we just let it stop when it could.

I landed on many ice strips as well as an F/O. Have to admit, not much wet ice. On the small props, it could be anywhere as far as the north pole but with the big props, the ice was usually(but not always) scarified on frozen lakes which made the braking quite reasonable and a crosswind more comfortable. Old ocean ice is usually not so good as new ice as long as it is thick enough. Thickness obviously was critical. We didn't have TALPA in those days either if I remember right.

That's not to say that there were not other flights that had incidents like landing at the wrong and very short for type) ice strip or doing a 360.

Some here do rely on the numbers to be able to figure it all out.

We always had reverse on my flights but not all company aircraft did. Did you have reverse on the DC-6?

[C.W.E.]

Here is a nice video of reverse in a DC6 Pelmet.

On wet ice there would be no dust.


http://calclassic.proboards.com/thread/5526

[C.W.E.]

Are you not able to discuss that with me yourself .? My opinion is that you are as experienced at doing what I do as I am landing on ice flows in the arctic. I'll keep in my lane, you keep in yours.

Interesting comment Rockie.

Have you had any experience driving in both lanes ?

[pelmet]

Thanks,

We used to go into ice strips at night as well. Pitch black all around(except for a few camp lights) on cloudy or moonless night with no PAPI/VASI and marginal lighting powered off a generator(Have seen toilet paper rolls dipped in fuel once for departure as well). I remember one place had one half of the lights fairly bright but the other half quite dim which could really screw up your profile as the first half of the runway didn't come into view until quite close-in.

We did have GPS and I would plan on being configured with gear down and flaps fully extended at five miles and 1500'. Then a 700 fpm descent with a target altitude for each mile back from the runway. If I was PNF, I would act a bit like a PAR guy and say the desired altitude as we reached each mile back. "4 miles, 2300 feet, adjust your rate of descent". If we were at 2400 feet, the PF knew exactly what to do right away. Once within a couple of miles, things seemed to get much easier(except the one time we landed in what appeared to be 1/2 mile vis or less in shallow fog...no kidding).

Twin Otter ice work was all daytime flying for me. Usually it was on hard(and usually really hard) wind-packed snow on top of the ice. One could break a ski if not careful. Sunny skies giving good depth perception was key for an unfamiliar location. We filled black garbage bags with snow for runway markers at some locations. If I remember right, for a required depth of freshwater ice, one needs more saltwater ice depth.

[C.W.E.]

(Have seen toilet paper rolls dipped in fuel

That was the most common landing aids we had and we called them flare pots when I was flying the DC3 for Austin Airways in the late sixties and early seventies, actually they worked very well.

There was no GPS in those days, only ADF approaches at the northern villages.

The Twin Otter was a real nice airplane and the availability of GPS was like a miracle gift from God.

[Rockie]

You guys need a room?

[pelmet]

The Twin Otter was a real nice airplane and the availability of GPS was like a miracle gift from God.

There were even jet operations on ice but I never got to do that unfortunately. More than one airline in Canada has done that.

Wet ice......I know one crew who got a surprise. Watch out for wet ice. I suppose from a crosswind point of view, differential reverse could save the day, have seen it discussed in the landing briefing but who wants to be there. And there were no TALPA charts to look at for that.