EJets - EOPerformance For Contaminated Runways

Flight Operations Panel
June, 2008 – Marco Island, FL – USA

Agenda – Jun 09 – Morning
10:00 – 10:15 Flight Operations
Panel Opening
10:15 – 11:15 Performance for
Contaminated
Runways
11:15 – 11:30 MMEL and DDPM
Update
11:30 – 11:40 Flyembraer
11:40 – 12:30 FMS Overview – by
Honeywell
12:30 – 13:30 Lunch
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS THE PROPERTY OF EMBRAER AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR USED WITHOUT EMBRAER’S WRITTEN CONSENT.
Performance for Contaminated Runways
Background (1/3)
Industry has experienced takeoff and landing overrun accidents on contaminated
runways in past years and they are not unique to U.S.
Despite of efforts and technical talent, previous attempts to put together specific
requirements for contaminated runways didn't succeed in the U.S.
An overrun accident in Chicago Midway Airport in 2005 has taken this issue to a higher
exposure. The investigation conducted by the NTSB and supported by several players in
the industry, such as manufacturers, airlines and the FAA itself, revealed many aspects
that could be improved.
Among the recommendations proposed by the FAA, an immediate action was to propose
operational changes regarding Landing Performance Policy through mandatory OpSpec
C082.
Policy and guidance material was published in Federal Register June 2006 for public
notification and comment.
Background (2/3)
Considerable opposing comments were received from some parts in the industry and a
Runway Conditions Workshop was held at FAA Headquarters in August 2006.
Rescinded planned issuance of mandatory OpSpec C082.
Issued SAFO 06012 containing same elements as policy statement without the
regulatory language and provided OpSpec C382 for voluntary compliance with SAFO
06012.
NTSB Urgent Safety Recommendation to the FAA: immediately make mandatory the
safety elements identified in SAFO 06012.
Background (3/3)
FAA has started working towards updating regulations to address that recommendation
in a wider range.
Pieces of the Puzzle:
Landing Performance Operations and Training (pilot assessment at time of arrival);
Contaminated Runway Landing Performance Certification Requirements;
Contaminated Runway Takeoff Performance Certification Requirements;
Airport Contaminated Runway Reporting Operating Requirements;
More accurate and Timely Runway Condition Determination and Reporting.
For this presentation, we will concentrate on Contaminated Performance Data.
Main goals for today:

What is this contaminated performance we hear about?
Let's have a better understanding of some key regulations out there today;
How they standardize contaminant types into specific engineering models?
What factors (inputs) are important for those calculations?
Where does Embraer stand on this subject?

What rules are applied to our airplanes under EASA certification?
Guidance information for FAA:
Where to find it;
How it's calculated.
Review existing SAFO with “Performance Engineer” eyes.
Contaminated Performance Data

European Contaminated Runway Performance Requirements:
AMJ 25X1591: Supplementary Performance Information for Take-off from Wet Runways and
for Operation on Runways Contaminated by Standing Water, Slush, Loose Snow, Compacted
Snow or Ice
AMC 25.1591: The derivation and methodology of performance information for use when
taking-off and landing with contaminated runway surface conditions
Embraer Guidance Data

SAFO Review
Some Thoughts on AOM Landing Distance Tables

Snow or Ice

SAFO Review
AMJ 25X1591(1/12):
“Supplementary Performance Information for Take-off from Wet Runways and for
Operation on Runways Contaminated by Standing Water, Slush, Loose Snow,
Compacted Snow or Ice”.
No requirement for specific data for landing on wet runways.
Runway conditions:
Dry
Wet
Standing Water, Slush, Loose Snow
Compacted Snow
Wet Ice
AMJ 25X1591(2/12):
Wet Runways:
TAKE-OFF
Later superseded by JAR-25 Change 15.
NOTE: For FAA operators, there is no need for EASA-based information as specific
requirement for take-off on wet runways exists via FAR 25 Amendment 92.
LANDING
FAA and EASA in the same page. No specific requirement for unfactored distance on wet
runways. Only factored wet, calculated from factored dry:
FACTORED WET = FACTORED DRY * 1.15, where
FACTORED DRY = UNFACTORED DRY / 0.60
No available additional EASA guidance for FAA operators here.
AMJ 25X1591(3/12):
Contaminated Runways - Definitions:
Contaminant Definitions:
Standing Water, Slush and Loose Snow: “A runway is considered to be contaminated when
more than 25% of the runway surface area (whether in isolated areas or not) within the
required length and width being used, is covered by surface water, more than 3mm (0.125
inch) deep, or by slush, or loose snow, equivalent to more than 3mm (0.125 inch) of water.”
Compacted Snow: “A runway is considered contaminated by compacted snow when covered

by snow which has been compressed into a solid mass which resists further compression and
will hold together or break into lumps if picked up.”
Wet Ice: “A runway surface condition where braking action is expected to be very low, due to
the presence of wet ice.”
AMJ 25X1591(4/12):
Contaminated Runways – Air Distance (landing only):
The airborne distance should be calculated by assuming 7 seconds to elapse between

passing through 50 ft height and touchdown. In the absence of flight test data to
substantiate a lower value, the touchdown speed should be assumed to be 93% of the
threshold speed.
Vref
50 ft 0.93Vref
7 sec
AMJ 25X1591(5/12):
Contaminated Runways - Calculation Assumptions:
Standing Water, Slush and Loose Snow
Wheel-braking coefficient of friction, and;
Precipitation drag.
Compacted Snow
Wheel-braking coefficient of friction.
Wet Ice
Wheel-braking coefficient of friction.
AMJ 25X1591(6/12):
Contaminated Runways – Wheel-braking coefficient of friction:
Standing water, slush or loose snow:
µ = 0.25 µBDRY, if V ≤ 0.9Vp
µ = 0.05, if V > Vp
Vp= estimated aquaplaning speed, µBDRY = measured wheel-braking coefficient of friction on a dry runway when not torque limited
Compacted snow:
µ = 0.20.
Wet ice:
µ = 0.05.
AMJ 25X1591(7/12):
Contaminated Runways – Precipitation drag:
Take-off acceleration: account should be taken of precipitation drag.
Accelerate-stop deceleration and landing: credit may be taken for precipitation drag.
It should be assumed that the whole maneuver takes place in precipitation having a
depth equal to the nominal average depth of precipitation.
Two main drag components, both subject to aquaplaning effect:
Landing Gear Displacement Drag;
Spray Impingement Drag.
AMJ 25X1591(8/12):
Contaminated Runways – Landing Gear Displacement Drag:
Basic Tire Drag
Specific guidance on how to calculate it, based on variables such as speed, contaminant density and
the frontal area of the tires underneath the contaminant.
D = CD. ½ρ. V 2.S,
Multiple Wheels
The drag on two wheels side by side is usually less than that of two separate wheels.
A single tire clears a path of about 3 times its own footprint width. If two tires set side by side are
close enough, the cleared paths will overlap and the total amount of slush displaced will be reduced.
However, there is an interference effect caused by the spray from one wheel striking its neighbor
and the landing gear structure.
A typical dual wheel trailing arm arrangement shows a drag 1.6 times the single wheel drag
(including interference) whereas the factor can be up to twice the single wheel drag if the wheels are
in front of the main leg.
AMJ 25X1591(9/12):
Contaminated Runways – Spray Impingement Drag:
Spray thrown up by the wheels, particularly the nose-wheels, may strike the airframe and
cause further drag.
It is necessary to know the angles (generally between 10º and 20º) of the spray plumes
so that they can be compared with the geometry of the aircraft.
This information should used to indicate those parts of the airframe which will be struck
by spray:
the nose-wheel plumes will strike the main landing gear or open wheel wells?
the main-wheel plumes will strike the rear fuselage or flaps?
The resulting skin drag (or even direct impact drag) on those areas should be properly
considered in the calculations.
AMJ 25X1591(10/12):
Contaminated Runways – Effect of Aquaplaning Speed on Precipitation Drag:
Above Vp the precipitation drag decreases (Displacement and Impingement) as the tires
rise and the angle of the spray plumes decreases. Function of P tire pressure and
specific gravity of the precipitation.
An acceptable method of calculating the drag above VP is to reduce CD as shown by the

curve below. It applies to both displacement and spray drag.
AMJ 25X1591(11/12):
Contaminated Runways – Precipitation Depth:
In order to reduce the number of contaminated runway charts in the AFM, aircraft
manufacturers may present the contaminated runway performance as a function of WED
– Water Equivalent Depth.
WED is the contaminant depth multiplied by its specific gravity.
The average specific gravity for slush is 0.85 and for loose snow is 0.2.
As a runway is considered contaminated if it has more than 3 mm of water, it could also
be considered contaminated if:
It has more than 3 / 0.85 = 3.6 mm of slush; or
It has more than 3 / 0.2 = 15 mm of loose snow.
NOTE: Following AMC 25.1591 changes it! Check next slides.
Behind the scenes, the calculation engine for depth contaminants is the same.
AMJ 25X1591(12/12):
Contaminated Runways – Wrap-up:
Theoretical air distance: not subject to flight test techniques.
Compacted Snow and Wet Ice, both calculated as “Slippery Runways”
Braking friction reducing;
Braking coefficient (µ): 0.20 and 0.05 respectively.
Standing Water, Slush and Loose Snow all calculated as “depth-contaminants”, which
can be reduced to WED via specific gravity numbers.
Braking friction reducing and drag producing;
Braking coefficient (µ): If V ≤ 0.9Vp, µ = 0.25 µBDRY; else µ = 0.05, if V > Vp;
Precipitation drag = Displacement + Impingement; which depends on the contaminant depth,
amongst other factors. Decreases after Vp.

Snow or Ice

SAFO Review
AMC 25.1591 (1/9):

“The derivation and methodology of performance information for use when taking-off and
landing with contaminated runway surface conditions.”
Updates AMJ 25x1591 with:
More specific contaminant definitions;
A few different formulas;
Comment and guidance on related issues.
Let's focus on relevant differences and topics.
AMC 25.1591 (2/9):

Standard Assumptions:
“Due to the wide variation in possible conditions when operating on contaminated

runways and the limitations inherent in representing the effects of these conditions
analytically, it is not possible to produce performance data that will precisely correlate
with each specific operation on a contaminated surface. Instead, the performance data
should be determined for a standardized set of conditions that will generally and
conservatively represent the variety of contaminated runway conditions occurring in
service.”
AMC 25.1591 (3/9):

Contaminant Definitions:
Standing Water: water of a depth greater than 3mm. A surface condition where there is a layer of water of
3mm or less is considered wet for which AMC 25.1591 is not applicable.
Slush: partly melted snow or ice with a high water content, from which water can readily flow, with an
assumed specific gravity of 0.85. Slush is normally a transient condition found only at temperatures close to
0°C.
Wet Snow: snow that will stick together when compressed, but will not readily allow water to flow from it
when squeezed, with an assumed specific gravity of 0.5.
Dry Snow: fresh snow that can be blown, or, if compacted by hand, will fall apart upon release (also
commonly referred to as loose snow), with an assumed specific gravity of 0.2. The assumption with respect
to specific gravity is not applicable to snow which has been subjected to the natural ageing process.
Compacted Snow: snow which has been compressed into a solid mass such that the airplane wheels, at
representative operating pressures and loadings, will run on the surface without causing significant rutting.
Ice: water which has frozen on the runway surface, including the condition where compacted snow
transitions to a polished ice surface – is the former wet ice.
AMC 25.1591 (4/9):

Range of Contaminants:
Note that AMC now also specifies

the calculation of some contaminant
depths that lead to WED lower than
3mm (not as wet runways anymore).
AMC 25.1591 (5/9):

Contaminant Drag:
Two separate models:
Standing Water, Slush and Wet Snow
Dry Snow
Standing Water, Slush and Wet Snow:

Close to previous AMJ drag considerations, with some small differences.
Dry Snow:
Different methodology.
AMC 25.1591 (6/9):

Contaminant Drag - Standing Water, Slush and Wet Snow :
Aquaplaning speed: not a function of precipitation density anymore, only tire pressure.
Composed by displacement drag and spray impingement drag:

Text is different, similar structure, formulas are the same as AMJ´s. However, it is a but clearer on
the alerts for extreme scenarios that may require specific analysis beyond provided formulas.
Similar drag decrease above Vp.
AMC 25.1591 (7/9):

Contaminant Drag - Dry Snow :
No aquaplaning effect.
Spray impingement drag: can be neglected.
Displacement drag is now composed of two pieces:
Drag due to the compression of the snow by the tire;
Drag due to the displacement of the snow particles in a vertical direction.
Specific formulas and valid only for a specific gravity of 0.2.

Interference for multiple wheels can be ignored.
Drag on the trailing tires can be neglected and the drag on a bogie landing gear is assumed to
be equal to that of a dual tire configuration.
AMC 25.1591 (8/9):

Braking Coefficient – Default Values:
A table with conservative default values for each contaminant is provided.
Allows the applicant to optionally provide performance data as a function of airplane braking
coefficient.
AMC 25.1591 (9/9):

Braking Coefficient - Use of Ground Friction Measurement Devices:
“Ideally it would be preferable to relate airplane braking performance to a friction index

measured by a ground friction device that would be reported as part of a Surface Condition
Report.”
“However, there is not, at present, a common friction index for all ground friction measuring
devices. Hence it is not practicable at the present time to determine airplane performance on
the basis of an internationally accepted friction index measured by ground friction devices.”
The applicant may optionally choose to present take-off and landing performance data as a
function of an airplane braking coefficient or wheel braking coefficient constant with ground
speed for runways contaminated with wet snow, dry snow, compacted snow or ice.
The responsibility for relating this data to a friction index measured by a ground friction device
will fall on the operator and the operating authority.

Snow or Ice

SAFO Review
Embraer Guidance Data: FAA E-Jets

TAKE-OFF and LANDING
Guidance information based on AMJ 25x1591 rules;
Contaminant types: “touches” of the AMC 25.1591 on the labels and respective specific
gravity numbers.
Standing Water (σ=1.0)
Braking friction reducing and drag producing.
Slush (σ=0.85)
Calculated via same methodology.
Wet Snow (σ=0.5)
Dry Snow (σ=0.2)
Braking friction reducing and drag producing.
Compacted Snow (µ=0.20)
Calculated via same methodology.
Ice (µ=0.05)
Free of charge, available via:

CAFM / SCAP module / Runway Analysis

Snow or Ice

SAFO Review
SAFO 06012 Review (1/4)

Published for turbojet aircraft operators recommending the development of procedures to
assure that sufficient landing distance exists with acceptable safety margin:
On the runway to be used
In the conditions existing at the time of arrival
With the deceleration means and airplane configuration to be used;
It considers a 15% margin between the expected actual (unfactored) airplane landing
distance and the landing distance available at the time of arrival as the minimum
acceptable safety margin for normal operations.
Landing distance determination: 2 methods.

METHOD 1 - Turbojet operators will be required to have a safety margin of fifteen
percent (15%) added to the actual (unfactored) landing distance and the resulting
distance must be within the landing distance available of the runway used for landing.
Unfactored Landing Distance (ULD) 1.15
Unfactored Landing Distance (ULD) is the one provided by the manufacturer, for the
corresponding runway condition.
For contaminated runways, guidance performance data from respective manufacturer can be
used for making these landing distance assessments at the time of arrival, even if it is
European requirements based data.

METHOD 2 - If wet or contaminated runway landing distance data are unavailable from
the manufacturer, the following factors should be applied to the pre-flight planning
(factored) dry runway landing distances.
FAA
ULD - DRY 1.667 Factor 1.2*
* For operations without reverse thrust (or without credit for the use of reverse thrust)
multiply these factors by 1.2.

E-Jets Quick Comparison
(Informative data for EOC purposes only. Subject to changes.)

Snow or Ice

SAFO Review
Current AOM Tables

Advantages
Easy to obtain landing distance.
Just a few interpolations are required.
Disadvantages
Unfactored landing distances published
only for dry runway (contaminated landing
data not available).
Too many tables to cover all the airplane
configurations (landing flaps, anti-ice, etc),
runway conditions, weights and altitudes
Hard to handle
AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (1/11)

Keep current tables for dry distances
Add a new set of tables as an option to the airline:
Simplified and intended for normal landing assessment;
Several runway conditions, including contaminated data;
Adding corrections for different configurations and conditions:
Altitude, wind, slope and temperature (EASA only), autobrake settings, thrust reversers, Vref
additives.
Keeping it all in one or two pages.

* Data for wet runways still under discussion due the absence of a specific methodology
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

2 altitude ranges to minimize
penalties at lower altitudes:
-1000 to 4000 and Above 4000ft
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Several runway conditions
displayed in a single table
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Distances are provided for a
REFERENCE condition
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Distances are adjusted for weights:
Heavier than REF: Increase distance
Lighter than REF: Reduce distance
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Distances are adjusted for altitudes:
Higher than REF: Increase distance
Lower than REF: Reduce distance
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Distances are adjusted for winds:
Tailwind: Increase distance
Headwind: Reduce distance
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Distances are adjusted
for Vref overspeed
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Credit for thrust reversers
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE

Autobrake settings for each
runway condition
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE
Comments?
Let us know what you think.
SAMPLE DATA
DO NOT USE
Thank You!

EJets - EOPerformance For Contaminated Runways

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EJets - EOPerformance For Contaminated Runways

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flight Operations Panel

June, 2008 – Marco Island, FL – USA

For this presentation, we will concentrate on Contaminated Performance Data.

Main goals for today:

Where does Embraer stand on this subject?

Review existing SAFO with “Performance Engineer” eyes.

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

No available additional EASA guidance for FAA operators here.

Compacted Snow: “A runway is considered contaminated by compacted snow when covered

The airborne distance should be calculated by assuming 7 seconds to elapse between

An acceptable method of calculating the drag above VP is to reduce CD as shown by the

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

AMC 25.1591 (1/9):

Let's focus on relevant differences and topics.

AMC 25.1591 (2/9):

“Due to the wide variation in possible conditions when operating on contaminated

AMC 25.1591 (3/9):

AMC 25.1591 (4/9):

Note that AMC now also specifies

AMC 25.1591 (5/9):

Standing Water, Slush and Wet Snow:

AMC 25.1591 (6/9):

Composed by displacement drag and spray impingement drag:

Similar drag decrease above Vp.

AMC 25.1591 (7/9):

Specific formulas and valid only for a specific gravity of 0.2.

AMC 25.1591 (8/9):

AMC 25.1591 (9/9):

“Ideally it would be preferable to relate airplane braking performance to a friction index

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

Embraer Guidance Data: FAA E-Jets

Free of charge, available via:

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

SAFO 06012 Review (1/4)

SAFO 06012 Review (2/4)

Unfactored Landing Distance (ULD) 1.15

SAFO 06012 Review (3/4)

SAFO 06012 Review (4/4)

Contaminated Performance Data

Embraer Guidance Data

Current AOM Tables

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (1/11)

Keeping it all in one or two pages.

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (2/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (3/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (4/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (5/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (6/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (7/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (8/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (9/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (10/11)

AOM Tables Redesign – Proposal (11/11)

You might also like