Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Embraer, Landing Distance With Multiple Failures  
User currently offlinefly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1789 posts, RR: 19
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Dear all:

Certain abnormal and emergency procedures contained in the Quick Reference Handbook and Aircraft Operations Manuals (on Embraer aircraft) require multiplying a normal landing distance published in the manuals by a specific factor in order to account for the reduced ability of the aircraft to stop or a greater approach speed that the failure calls for.

For example, in case of a dual hydraulic failure, due to the fact that the airplane won't have spoilers and only emergency braking will be available, the actual distance in which the airplane will stop is 2.86 times that of the required if no abnormality is presented at the same weight. The QRH instruct us pilots to multiply the UNFACTORED landing distance (that is the REAL, the ACTUAL, the one which the manufactured DEMONSTRATED during certification) by 2.86, resulting in a FACTORED one that we will have to use.

In case of a multiple failure, each of which adds a certain factor to the landing performance, would it be necessary to add the factors, multiply one factor by the other or taking the most restrictive of all would be deemed reasonable?

Again an example. Failure A calls for a greater landing distance of 1.2 times the normal required landing distance. If presented alone, no problem, only a 20% additional runway is required based upon the actual distances published by the manufacturer. In the same way, failure B calls for a landing distance of 1.3 times the normal. if both independent failures are presented, should I multiply the normal distance by 2.5?

Information provided by Embraer is very scarce; here at Tech/Ops your inputs are always valuable.

Thanks for your opinions.

RM.


There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

Quoting fly727 (Thread starter):

In case of a multiple failure, each of which adds a certain factor to the landing performance, would it be necessary to add the factors, multiply one factor by the other or taking the most restrictive of all would be deemed reasonable?

I'm not sure of any scenario where two separate, independent faults that would adversely affect landing performance would not be in the QRH. Do you maybe have an example?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 1):
I'm not sure of any scenario where two separate, independent faults that would adversely affect landing performance would not be in the QRH. Do you maybe have an example?

Airplane simulators are very fun...

engine failure - land flaps 3, increase landing distance by 1.25

brake failure - increase landing distance by 1.6



we factored in one correction and then factored in the next correction

so 1000 unfactored normal

1250, factored for engine failure

2000, factored engine failure and brake failure



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3066 times:

The 170/190 QRH from the factory has a number of charts for non-normal situations in the performance section as you mentioned. I don't know which aircraft you are in, or what procedures you use (company, or Embraer SOPM) but here is what Embraer says in their factory QRH:

"In the event of multiple failues (excluding cascade failures) with different landing configurations and/or landing distance correction factors, the crew should use good judgement to determine the safest course of action."

You're right, not much guidance. I would strongly suggest you take this to your program manager/ chief pilot as well as discussing it with someone at Embraer.

Also remember, there is another great little tidbit in the QRH that I think many people forget. To paraphrase it says something to the effect of "This guide can not address every situation and does not take the place of experience and knowledge of the aircraft systems."



DMI
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

As noted in the "disclaimers" in the manuals mentioned here, published guidance does not cover every possible scenario. It is not required to cover any scenario considered extremely remote (less than one in 10.000.000 hours), and most independent dual failure scenarios are extremely remote. Any single failure with multiple effects (like hydraulics taking out half your brakes, some spoilers and a reverser) will be covered in the manual.

That said, you can apply some engineering knowledge to make your "good judgment" as good as it can be:

For conditions where the multiple factors are related to the same deceleration mechanism, you probably want to multiply the factors. Example: I have one pair of brakes failed and 2 of 8 spoilers inoperative. Lets say the factors are respectively 1.6 and 1.2 for those conditions. Since the spoilers are used to dump lift, the spoiler failure is making the remaining brakes less effective (i.e. the two failures interact). So in this you could use 1.6 * 1.2 = 1.92 as a factor (unless the manual contains other guidance for this condition).

Same would apply to brakes+contaminated runway, since both are related to your ability to decelerate via friction.

For conditions where the factors are unrelated, you can probably just add the factors (excluding the base landing distance - more on that in a minute). Example: I have one pair of brakes failed and the left thrust reverser failed (bear with me here, I know T/R generally does not go into performance, so you would not need a factor). Lets say for the purpose of this example you have factors of 1.6 and 1.1 respectively for these conditions. In this case you could use 1+(1.6-1)+(1.1-1) = 1.7, where the whole +1 -1 nonsense is to account for the fact that a factor of 1.6 is 60% additional runway, and a factor of 1.1 is 10% additional runway and we are trying to add the required additional runway length, since we don't expect the reverser failure and the brake failure to have any significant effect.

Next, anything affecting your energy state (say, increased approach speed because your flaps are stuck) should be handled multiplicatively (like the first example) with any other factor. The higher energy interacts with any and all of your deceleration features - so if any of those are failed the effects will be cumulative.

Last but not least, always keep in mind that energy has a quadratic relationship with speed (i.e. is proportional to the square of your speed), while most deceleration features (everything except aerodynamic drag) are linear in nature (i.e. they reduce your energy at a constant rate). So a 10% reduction in deceleration does NOT mean a 10% increase in landing distance. It is more. A 20% increase in approach speed does NOT mean a 20% increase in landing distance. It is more.

And finally, all of this is mostly moot. If you are dealing with multiple independent failures affecting your deceleration capability you should land at the longest available runway within reach regardless (unless that means a long diversion and you have reason to land ASAP, like a fire on board).

PS: This information is provided for educational purposes only. Don't sue me if you have an overrun!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Embraer, Landing Distance With Multiple Failures
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Embraer ERJ-145 With PTV posted Fri Dec 25 2009 14:03:44 by Qwame
Aircraft With Multiple Powerplant Choices posted Tue Jun 10 2008 21:34:41 by Rigo
Minimum A380 Landing Distance posted Fri Dec 7 2007 00:17:59 by ThreeFourThree
Help, FAA Landing F.L. & Real Landing Distance posted Tue Sep 26 2006 04:03:45 by AGANX
Autopilot Dealing With Engine Failures - Does It? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 14:45:59 by Julesmusician
Landing Distance And Autobrakes posted Wed Nov 23 2005 21:40:53 by Julesmusician
Takeoff Distance With Double-Displaced Thresholds posted Wed Oct 13 2004 20:31:32 by Msp12r
Etops For Airlines With Multiple Airplanes posted Sun Jul 11 2004 22:27:37 by San2snow
Landing A 747 With 1 Main Gear Failed? posted Thu Jun 5 2003 01:17:11 by Mr Spaceman
Crosswind Versus Landing Distance posted Thu Dec 12 2002 20:35:12 by A320-Addict

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format