FLIGHT

OPERATIONS
ENGINEERING

Performance on Slippery and

Contaminated Runways

PE-201
Operational Performance and
Technical Methods

July 2018

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 1
 British European Airways Flight 609 – Feb, 1958

“I glanced at the air speed indicator and saw it registered 105 knots and was flickering. When it reached 117 knots I called out
`V1‘ [Velocity One, the point on the runway after which it isn’t safe to abandon take-off]. Suddenly the needle dropped to
about 112 and then 105. Ken shouted, `Christ, we can‘t make it’ and I looked up from the instruments to see a lot of snow and a
house and a tree right in the path of the aircraft”.
Inside the passengers‘ compartment Bill Foulkes had sensed that something was wrong:
“There was a lot of slush flying past the windows and there was a terrible noise, like when a car leaves a smooth road and
starts to run over rough ground”.
The Elizabethan left the runway, went through a fence and crossed a road before the port wingstruck a house. The wing and
part of the tail were torn off and the house caught fire. The cockpit struck a tree and the starboard side of the fuselage hit a
wooden hut containing a truck loaded with fuel and tyres. This exploded.
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 2
 Air Florida Palm 90 – Jan, 1982
At 3:57 the crew set the airspeed bug settings to 138
knots for V1, 140 knots for VR and 144 knots for V2.
The FO asked the captain, “There’s slush on the
runway—do you want me to do anything special for
this or just go for it?”
The captain replied, “Unless you’ve got something
special you’d like to do.”
The FO then said, “Unless just take off the nosewheel
early like a soft-field takeoff or something. I’ll just
take the nosewheel off and then we’ll let it fly off.”
Air Florida, Palm 90 cockpit voice recorder, Jan. 13, 1982

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 3
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

• Takeoff
• Definitions and Regulations
• Wet Runway
• Contaminated Runway (Slush/Standing Water)
• Snow Accountability
• Slippery Runway
• V1MCG Considerations

• Landing on Slippery Runway

• Dispatch Field Length Required
• Time-of-Arrival Assessment (Enroute Evaluation)

• Practical Exercises and OPT Demo

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 4
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Definitions and Regulations

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 5
 Regulatory Requirements - Takeoff

• FAA Operators
– Historically (737-200/300/400/500, 747-400, 757-200, 767-200/300,
777-200/200ER/300)
• No definitive regulatory requirements for wet,
contaminated or slippery runway performance adjustments
in Part 25 or 121

– Current (737-600/700/800/900/MAX, 747-400ER/8, 757-300, 767-400,

747-400ER/8, 777-200LR/200F/300ER/X, 787)
• Wet runway is part of AFM certification basis (FAR25.109
as Amendment 25-92)
• No definitive regulatory requirements for contaminated or
slippery (non-wet) runway performance

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 6
 Regulatory Requirements - Takeoff

• FAA Guidelines:
– Current approved guidelines published in Advisory
Circular 91-6A, May 24, 1978
• Provides guidelines for operation with standing water,
slush, snow or ice on runway
• Does not provide for wet runways
– Proposed Advisory Circular 91-6B (draft)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 7
 Regulatory Requirements - Takeoff
Proposed Advisory Circular 91-6B

• Never approved but used in the ’80’s as

guidance for Boeing contaminated runway data
and methods basis for much of the operational
data
• Guidelines for takeoff and landing with water, slush,
snow or ice on runway
– Defines contaminated runway
– Defines braking coefficient used for accelerate-
stop distance calculation
– Includes wet runway
– Reverse thrust credit for accelerate-stop
• Did not specifically address, but were adopted
in the advisory data of the time
– 15-foot screen height for accelerate-go
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 8
 Regulatory Requirements - Takeoff

• EASA – New certifications

– Specific requirements covered in the AFM
– Includes takeoff performance based on various runway
conditions (wet, compact snow, wet ice, slush, dry
snow)
• EASA Air OPS
– Requires operational contaminated/slippery runway
data based on possibility of an engine failure during
the takeoff
– Stop accountability
• Performance software databases have been modified
based on these EASA requirements for EASA operators
– Boeing guidance and data generally follows EASA
methods where possible for FAA operators

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 9
 Regulatory Requirements - Takeoff
EASA Air OPS / CS-25AMC.1591

• Guidelines for takeoff and landing with water, slush,

snow or ice on runway
– Defines contaminated runway
– Defines braking coefficient and contaminant drag
to be used in calculations
– Includes wet runway
– 15-foot screen height for accelerate-go
– Reverse thrust credit for accelerate-stop

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 10
 Dry, Damp, and Wet Runways are
NOT Contaminated

• Dry: Neither wet nor contaminated (EASA Air OPS)

– FAA - No definitive definition
• Damp: Surface is not dry, but moisture on the
surface does not give a shiny appearance (EASA
Air OPS)
• Wet: FAA - neither dry nor contaminated
(AC25-13, Draft AC 91-6B)
– Shiny in appearance, depth < 3 mm of water
(EASA Air OPS)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 11
 Runways are Contaminated When*
*As defined by FAA Draft Advisory Circular 91-6B
and EASA Air OPS

• More than 25% of the surface to be used is covered by:

– Standing water or slush more than 1/8 inch
(3 mm) deep
OR
– Snow
OR
– Ice covered

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 12
 Additional considerations

• If the contaminants are lying on that portion of the

runway where the high speed part of the takeoff roll
will occur, it may be appropriate to consider the
runway contaminated. (Draft AC 91-6B)
• Do NOT takeoff when the depth of standing water or
slush is more than:
– 1/2 inch (13 mm) deep
• Some advisory material has 15 mm as threshold
• Boeing BTM modules limited to 12.7 mm (1/2”)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 13
 Boeing Contaminated Runway
Takeoff Performance

• Differentiated according to the physics:

– Slippery runway - Ice / compacted snow/ wet
• Reduced Deceleration

– Slush / Standing Water / Loose Snow

• Reduced Acceleration/deceleration

Note: for airplanes where wet runway takeoff performance is

not certified, wet is considered a subset of slippery.

Slippery can also be used (in addition to certified wet) if it is

desired to have additional wet runway conservatism
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 14
 Current Regulatory Guidelines for Takeoff

• Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA)

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
• Takeoff Assessment
– Part 25 rule defining data basis
» Similar to current EASA and historical Boeing
practices
– Part 121 rule requiring use of data

• FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25-31: Takeoff Performance

Data for Operations on Contaminated Runways,
released on 22 December 2015.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 15
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Wet Runway

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 16
 Fundamental - Wheel/Tire Braking

Dry
Wheel
braking
coefficient Wet

0 1.0
Free Rolling Slip ratio Locked Wheel

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 17
 Runway Friction and Runway Texture
How Slippery Is Wet?
Macrotexture, Microtexture
• Macrotexture refers to visible roughness of the pavement
surface as a whole
– Macrotexture affects tire contact with the surface.

“OPEN” “CLOSED”

• Microtexture refers to the fine scale roughness contributed

by small individual aggregate particles on pavement surfaces
which are not readily discernible to the eye but are apparent to
the touch, i.e., the feel of fine sandpaper
– Microtexture affects frictional properties
“SMOOTH”
“HARSH”

18

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details
Reference FAA AC 150 5320-12
Runway Macrotexture Effect on Wet Runway Friction

• Rough macrotexture will reduce surface water allowing better

contact between the tire and the ground.

Dry
Tire to
runway Wet rough
friction macrotexture

Wet smooth
macrotexture

Ground Speed - kts

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 19
Augmenting Macrostructure - Grooved Runway

Un-grooved runway with undesirable macrostructure

Runway after grooving – grooves run across runway

(perpendicular to length)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 20
 Effect of Wet Grooved Runway Surface on Airplane
Wheel Braking

Effective Friction as a function of Grooving

100
1.5” spaced groove - 727
90
1.5” spaced groove - 737 3” spaced groove - 727
80

70
% of dry 3” spaced groove - 737
60 No groove - 727
runway
50 No groove - 737
effective
40
friction
30

20 FAA Tech Center Asphalt

Overlay
10 Aggregate Size < 1”

0
20 40 60 80 100
Ground speed - knots Data based on NASA report TP2 917
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 21
 FAA Grooved Runway Specification

FAA AC 150/5320-12C, "Measurement, Construction,

and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement
Surfaces," specifies that the FAA standard groove
configuration is:
• 1/4 in (6 mm) in depth
• 1/4 in (6 mm) in width
• 1 1/2 in (38 mm) in spacing

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 22
Augmenting Macrostructure – Porous Friction Course

• Porous concrete surface drains water through

runway to substrate…

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 23
Effect of Wet PFC Runway Surface on Airplane Wheel
Braking

Airport comparison
BNAS/Portland Intl/Peace AFB
100

90

80
Peace AFB -
70 PFC 727

60 Portland Intl -
% of dry
11 year old PFC 727
runway 50
effective
friction 40

30

20

10

0
20 40 60 80 100
Ground speed - knots Data based on NASA report TP2 917
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 24
 Summary of TP 2917 Information
• Wet runway
– Smooth (lower) macrotexture surface creates less
friction than a rough surface
– Pavement material makes a significant difference in
the available friction on a wet surface
• Wet Grooved or PFC treatment of runways
– Improved the wet runway friction capability due to
improved drainage
– Not the same capability as a dry runway
– Improvement is dependent on runway material and
groove spacing
– Pavement material between grooves makes a
significant difference in the available friction on a wet
grooved surface

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 25
 Boeing Historical Wet Runway Testing
Primarily in support of UK CAA Certifications

Antiskid (μ) limited airplane braking

Airplane
coefficient, % (approximate)*
707-300C landing data 50
727-200 landing:
50
• Main and nose brakes
• Main brakes only 50
737-200 ADV
60
• Mark III A/S
• Goodyear A/S 45
747-100 55

*Dry runway compared with a wet, smooth runway. Based on flight tests for UK CAA.

• Later UK CAA certifications used ½ of the dry braking μB

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 26
 Traditional Performance Definitions for a
Wet Runway

Boeing QRH/FCOM
“The performance level used
to calculate the "good" data
is consistent with wet runway
testing done on early Boeing
jets.”

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 27
Airplanes without FAA Certified Wet Runway Takeoff
Accountability

•737-200/300/400/500 •767-200/300
•747-400 •777-200/200ER/300
•757-200

• Wet runway performance is in UK CAA and EASA

AFM’s as appropriate
• Operational (Advisory) data is provided in QRH and
FCOM (limit weight reductions and V1 adjustments)
and performance software
• EASA dispatch data is essentially the same as
advisory data

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 28
 Takeoff Performance Considerations & Criteria –
Airplanes without Certified FAA Wet
Performance assumptions are changed for wet runway takeoff calculations

• Reduced runway friction capability taken into account

• UK CAA certification
– Test data or ½ dry airplane antiskid (μ) limited airplane braking
coefficient
• QRH and FCOM data labeled reported braking action of “Good” is consistent
with historical wet runway testing discussed earlier
– Airplane braking coefficient (μB) = 0.20
• 15 foot screen height
• Engine inoperative accelerate-go calculation
• Results in V1 reduction when re-balancing

• Reverse thrust credit in accelerate-stop calculation

• Controllability and re-ingestion issues considered

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 29
Airplanes with Wet Runway Takeoff Performance In
the FAA and EASA AFM — Amendment 25-92

•737-600/700/800/900/MAX •777-200LR/200F/300ER/X
•757-300 •787
•767-400 •747-400ER/8

• Also added wet grooved / PFC (called skid-resistant

in Boeing AFM and SK-R in the FMC) performance,
provided the runway was constructed and is being
maintained to the requirements of AC 150/5320-12C.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 30
 Current Takeoff Certification Requirements
Amendment 25-92

• Amendment 25-92 of the FARs required inclusion of wet

runway takeoff performance in the AFM
• Provided a method to account for wet runway wheel braking
capability that was based on ESDU 71026
– Both smooth and skid-resistant surfaces are addressed
• Method documented in the FAR’s and AC 25-7
0.5
Individual airplane
0.4
may be higher or
lower based on
Airplane 0.3 the antiskid of
Braking that airplane.
0.2
coefficient
0.1
Wet runway
0 Wet skid-resistant
0 50 100 150 200 250
Ground speed
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 31
Special Wet Runway Performance Questions

• Is clearway allowed on a wet runway?

• Can a reverser be inoperative on a wet runway?
• Can an antiskid be inoperative on a wet runway?

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 32
 Clearway credit on Wet Runway?
Regulatory Accountability for Engine-out

35 ft Half credit for

Accelerate V1 dry bal
Dry runway AFM distance from
clearway credit available LO LO to 35 ft

Runway available

Clearway available

UK CAA wet runway and 15 ft Full credit for

Accelerate V1 wet
747-400 JAA AFM distance from
clearway credit available LO to 15 feet
LO

777-200 JAA wet Accelerate V1 wet 15 ft Half credit for

runway AFM clearway distance from
credit available LO LO to 15 feet

Current FAA(Amend. 15 ft
25-92) / EASA Wet Accelerate V1 wet No clearway
runway AFM clearway credit
LO allowed
credit available

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 33
 Clearway Credit on Wet Runway
Boeing Operational Software

• Performance software follows regulatory guidelines for certified

wet runway performance where they are addressed
• Performance databases for models without certified wet
runway performance has data for slippery runway:
• Clearway credit is not allowed
• Data based on the FCOM weight reductions and
V1 adjustments method
• Data created based on equal distance concept and
balanced field length considerations (re-balancing)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 34
Reverser Inoperative Dispatch on Wet Runway

• Regulatory inclusion of wet runway takeoff performance

prompted addition of a new proviso in the MMEL
– AFM performance includes reverse thrust credit for
wet runway accelerate-stop distance
– MMEL proviso applies only to models with certified
wet runway takeoff performance
• Most models without certified wet runway takeoff
performance have slippery runway performance
available in performance software and FCOM

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 35
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 36
Wet Runway and Antiskid Inoperative Dispatch

• Prior to current regulation, wet runway takeoff with

antiskid inoperative had not been addressed in the
FAA AFM or MMEL.
– The new certification standard raised the visibility
of the combination of wet runway and antiskid
inoperative
– Initial 737NG AFM was released with this dispatch
prohibited.
– In 2002, the FAA published Policy Letter (PL-113,
dated 20 December 2002) which specifically
addressed takeoffs on wet runways with antiskid
inoperative

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 37
PL-113, Wet Runway Takeoff With Antiskid
Inoperative

The Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB, which

controls the contents of the MMEL) may continue to
grant relief….
– The runway is grooved or has a PFC surface
– All reversers are operative
– Approved performance data is available
– Operator training programs include antiskid inoperative
braking procedures

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 38
 PL-113, Wet Runway Takeoff With Antiskid
Inoperative

• For 737NG, Boeing performed flight test on grooved runway

• AFM-DPI offers alternate performance (Appendix)
• Approval must be specifically stated in the AFM

• Models without certified wet runway data:

• Not addressed by FAA AFM or MMEL
• No performance data specifically supplied
• Recent studies indicate the use of the braking action “poor” data
would be conservative
– Apply limit weight and V1 adjustments for POOR braking
action to the dry runway antiskid operative field/obstacle
limited weight to obtain wet runway anti-skid inoperative
takeoff performance

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 39
Wet Runway Takeoff With Antiskid Inoperative
Flight Crew Issues

• Additional pilot education and training

– Stopping sequence change with antiskid inoperative
• With antiskid inoperative the last step in the RTO
procedure in brake application
– Light brake application through out the maneuver

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 40
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Contaminated Runway (Slush / Standing Water)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 41
 Dry Runway Acceleration

Friction Drag Thrust

g
a= [ Thrust - Drag – Friction ]
W

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 42
Acceleration with Slush/Standing Water

Friction Drag Thrust

Slush Drag
g
a= [ Thrust – Drag – Friction - Slush Drag ]
W

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 43
 CD Slush Accounts for Displacement
and Impingement
Displacement Drag

FWD

Impingement Drag

FWD

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 44
 Force Variation With Speed

All engine thrust

Airplane Engine out thrust

Acceleration
Forces

Slush Drag

Aero Drag
Friction

VHP VR VLOF
Ground Speed

Total Acceleration Force = Thrust - (Slush force + Aero drag + Friction)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details Takeoff Performance Field 7.45
 All Engine Acceleration Capability
130 Knots
6 mm of slush - 10-20 % reduction in all engine acceleration
13 mm of slush - 20-40 % reduction in all engine acceleration

Dry Dry Dry

4.0 Dry
6 mm 6 mm
6 mm 6 mm
3.0 13 mm 13 mm 13 mm
All engine 13 mm
acceleration 2.0
Kt/sec
1.0

0.0
747 767 757 737

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details Takeoff Performance Field 7.46
 Engine Out Acceleration Capability
130 Knots
6 mm of slush - 15-50 % reduction in engine out acceleration
13 mm of slush - 30-110 % reduction in engine out acceleration

Dry all
Dry all Dry all engine Dry all
4.0 engine engine engine

3.0 Engine out Engine out Engine out Engine out

Dry
Acceleration 6 mm
Kt/sec 2.0 13 mm Dry Dry
Dry
6 mm 6 mm
1.0 13 mm 6 mm
13 mm
13 mm
0.0
-0.5 747 767 757 737

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details Takeoff Performance Field 7.47
 Effect of Slush On Airplane Stopping

• Tire to ground friction reduced due to slush

• Retarding slush drag acts to slow the airplane

Dry runway
Average brake force

Retarding
Force
Total Slush stopping force =
Slush Drag + Wheel braking
Slush drag
Slush wheel baking
0.9Vhp Vhp
Ground Speed, Knots

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details Takeoff Performance Field 7.48
 One Engine Inoperative Deceleration
Capability
130 Knots

• Dry - AFM performance - includes maximum braking,

spoilers, idle thrust
• Slush - includes wheel braking, spoilers, reverse thrust,
and slush drag

Dry
Dry Dry Dry
8.0
6 mm 6 mm 6 mm 6 mm
6.0
Deceleration 13 mm 13 mm
4.0 13 mm 13 mm
Kt/sec
2.0
0.0
747 767 757 737

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details Takeoff Performance Field 7.49
 Boeing FCOM Slush/Standing Water
Takeoff Performance Data

• Boeing FCOM data for contaminated runways is based

on the concept of re-balancing field length
• Engine failure is considered
• Limit weight and V1 reductions
• Option for reverse thrust credit
• 15 foot screen height for engine-out takeoff

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 50
 FAR Dry Field Length
Typical Twin Engine Airplane

Weight
altitude
temperature
flap

Distance
Minimum runway required - FAR dry

1.15 All Eng Distance

V1
V1 balanced

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 51
 Engine Inoperative Slush Runway
Case
Engine Failure Considered Weight
altitude
Accelerate – Go
Temperature flap
with 15 foot screen
Distance height credit
Accelerate - Go (slush)
Accelerate – Stop
Slush runway required with reverse thrust credit
(slush)
1.15 all eng
Increment

distance (slush)
Distance

Accelerate - Stop

Minimum runway required - FAR dry

1.15 all eng distance

V V1 balanced
1
V1 adjustment
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 52
 Fixed Field Length Weight Reduction and
V1 Adjustment
Engine Failure Considered

Altitude
Field Slush Field Length temperature
length flap

Increment
Distance
FAR dry field
length

FAR V1
V1 V1 adjustment

Slush V1

Brake release gross weight

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 53
 Fixed Field Length Weight Reduction and
V1 Adjustment
Engine Failure Considered

Altitude
Field Slush Field Length temperature
length flap

Constant Field Length FAR dry field

length
Weight
Reduction

FAR V1
V1 V1 adjustment
Slush V1

Brake release gross weight

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 54
 Sample FCOM Slush/Standing
Water Data – 6mm slush
Engine Failure Considered - 737-500 / 20K Rating
Dry runway field length/obstacle limit weight = 62,000 kg, Sea level
Weight adjustment (1,000 kg) V1 adjustment (1,000 kg)

Field/obstacle 6 mm (0.25 inches) Weight 6 mm (0.25 inches)

limit weight (1000 kg)
(1,000 kg)
S.L. 4,000 ft 8,000 ft S.L. 4,000 ft 8,000 ft

68 -9.4 -10.1 -10.8 68 -3 -4 -4

64 -8.8 -9.6 -10.4 64 -5 -5 -4

60 -7.9 -8.8 -9.8 60 -7 -6 -5

56 -7.1 -8.0 -9.0 56 -10 -8 -6

52 -6.2 -7.0 -8.1 52 -13 -11 -7
Dry field/obs limit = 62,000 kg
48 -5.5 -6.1 -7.2 48 -16 -13 -8
Weight adjustment = - 8350 kg
44 -4.8 -5.3 -6.1 44 -18 -16 -11

40 -4.5 -4.9 -5.3 40 -19 -17 -13

6 mm slush field/obstacle 53,650 kg V1 Bal = 137
36
limit weight -4.3
53,650-4.6kg
= -4.8 36
V1 adjustment
-19 -18
= -12
-15

6 mm slush V1 = 125
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 55
The FCOM contaminated runway takeoff adjustment is
conservative for obstacle clearance limited cases …
Net path
Balanced field length for dry runway 35 feet
in obstacle limited case
Go
Net path
35 feet
Stop

Extra
capability
“Re-balanced” field length after applying FCOM
adjustments for contaminated runway
Go
15 feet
Stop Extra Runway Available

The FCOM method does not consider the increased climb

capability at the lighter weight. Therefore, the obstacle will be
cleared by more than the required margin.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 56
Boeing performance software (BPS, PET, and OPT)
clear obstacles based on regulatory requirements

Net path

True balanced field length and climb flight path for

contaminated runway in obstacle limited case 15 feet

Go
15 feet
Stop

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 57
Limitations and Restrictions for Using FCOM
Contaminated and Slippery Runway Data

• Not conservative for all conditions !

• Valid for Balanced V1 policy only. Should

not be used for Optimized (unbalanced) V1.

• Does not remove the clearway credit in the

dry runway data !

• Should not be used with Improved Climb

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 58
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Snow Accountability

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 59
 Acceleration with Loose Snow

Friction Drag Thrust

Snow Drag

On stop the tire-to-ground friction is reduced also.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 60
 Loose Snow Accountability

• JAR (not EASA) Certified Airplanes (AMJ25X1591)

• Advisory Data in AFM for loose snow
• Depth 1.27 mm to 101 mm
• Resistant force based on slush modeling, substituting
snow specific gravity of 0.2
• Brake force based on slush modeling
• Labeled as “Dry Snow” in performance software for
737NG, 747-400, 757-300, 767-400, and 777

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 61
 Loose Snow Accountability

• Current EASA Certified Airplanes (CS-25AMC25.1591)

• Data in AFM for 787 and 747-8
• Wet snow and Dry snow
• Wet snow - 5 mm to 30 mm depth
– Resistant force based on slush modeling, substituting snow
specific gravity of 0.5
– Brake force based on wheel braking coefficient of 0.17
(Airplane Braking Coefficient of 0.12 to 0.13)
– Labeled “Wet Snow” in PET
• Dry snow - 10 mm to 130 mm depth
– Updated calculation method from compared to original JAR
method, which better reflects the physics of snow
– Compression based model not displacement based model like
slush/standing water
– Brake force based on wheel braking coefficient of 0.17
(Airplane Braking Coefficient of 0.12 to 0.13)
– Labeled “Dry Snow” in PET

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 62
 Snow – Other information
As Taken From Draft AC 91-6B
4

not be attempted
Takeoff should
Snow
depth 2
(inches)

0
0 1/4 1/2
Standing water (inches)
Note: This is not an FAA or Boeing recommendation but it does reflect one
method for accounting for the effect of snow which has been used.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 63
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Slippery Runway

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 64
 Slippery Runway – Takeoff
(Not dry, no measurable depth of contamination)

• No effect on acceleration
• All engine - No effect on calculation of all engine
takeoff distance
• Accelerate - stop
– Reduced tire to ground friction
– Credit for reverse thrust
• Engine out accelerate - go
– Use 15-ft screen height to minimize penalty

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 65
 Ground Deceleration Capability

Thrust
Retarding Forward - spindown, idle
Force due to FSlope Drag Reverse - spinup, detent, max
wheel brakes

FB = µB * ( W – L )

µB - Airplane Braking Coefficient

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details TP AccelStop Page 6.66
 Airplane Braking Coefficient - µB
(not tire to ground friction)

• Typical dry values from Boeing certification testing

• µB = 0.35 to 0.41
• Maximum manual braking, anti-skid limited region

• Boeing slippery runway data (FCOM)

• µB = 0.20, 0.10, and 0.05

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 67
 Braking Action vs. µB

• Data based on Braking Action is supplied as advisory information in

FCOM/QRH and performance programs etc.

Braking
Good Medium Poor
Action
Assumed
Airplane
Braking
0.20 0.10 0.05
Coefficient

Braking Action is a term used to describe the airplane stopping

performance experienced by pilots (reported) and expected.
• Runway Description
• Pilot Report (PIREP)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 68
 Takeoff - Braking Action and
Airplane Braking Coefficient - µB

• Braking Actions:
– Good = 0.20 µB
• Approximately ½ the dry
• Consistent with historical Boeing wet runway testing
• Thin snow (less than 3 mm)
– Medium = 0.10 µB
• Snow
– Poor = 0.05 µB
• Wet Ice under the original JAR certification
(AMJ 25.1591)
• Ice under the current EASA certification
(CS 25.1591 and AMC 25.1591)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 69
 Boeing FCOM Slippery Runway Data
Engine Failure Considered
Weight altitude
Distance Temperature flap

Accelerate - Go
Slippery - 15 foot screen height Accelerate - Stop
(slippery)

Slippery runway
required
Increment
Distance

Accelerate - Stop
Minimum runway required - FAR Dry

1.15 All engine distance (no change)

V1 balanced
V1 adjustment

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 70
 Fixed Field Length Weight
Reduction and V1 Adj.
Engine Failure Considered

Altitude
Field temperature
Slippery Field Length
length flap

Constant Field Length

FAR dry field
Weight length
Reduction

FAR V1
V1 V1 adjustment
Slippery V1

Brake release gross weight

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 71
 Sample FCOM Slippery Runway Data
- Medium Reported Braking
Engine Failure Considered - 737-500 / 20K Rating
Dry runway field length/obstacle limit weight = 62,000 kg, Sea level
Weight adjustment (1,000 kg) V1 adjustment (1,000 kg)

Field/obstacle limit Medium Weight Medium

weight (1,000 kg)
(1,000 kg)
S.L. 4,000 ft 8,000 ft S.L. 4,000 ft 8,000 ft

68 -4.1 -4.1 -4.1 68 -10 -8 -6

64 -4.2 -4.2 -4.2 64 -13 -11 -9
60 -4.2 -4.2 -4.2 60 -15 -13 -11
56 -4.1 -4.1 -13
Dry field/obs limit -4.1 = 62,000 kg 56 -17 -15
52 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8 52 -19 -17 -15
Weight adjustment = - 4200 kg
48 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 48 -21 -19 -17
44 -3.6 -3.6 -3.6
57,800 kg V1 Bal-22 = 141-18
44 -20
Medium field/obstacle V1 adjustment -23 = -16-19
40
limit weight -3.7
57,800-3.7kg
= -3.7 40
Medium V1
-21
= 125-21
36 -4.1 -4.1 -4.1 36 -25 -23

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 72
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

V1MCG Consideration

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 73
 V1mcg Consideration
Altitude temperature flap
Accelerate - Go
Slippery - 15 foot screen height
Accelerate - Stop
Runway Required
V1mcg limited

Slippery Runway
Required Balanced
1.15 All Eng Distance

V1 balanced
V1 slippery V1mcg

V1 reductions associated with slippery and contaminated runways increases

the possibility of being limited by V1MCG considerations (V1 reductions can be
as high as 40 kts for data labeled as POOR)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 74
 Sample FCOM Slush/Standing Minimum
Field Length Check
737-500 / 20K Rating

V1 = V1mcg limit weight 1,000 kg

Available 6 mm (0.25 inches)
field
length Pressure altitude
ft S.L. 4,000 ft 8,000 ft

4,200
4,600 30.7
5,000 37.6 28.1
5,400 44.5 33.7 28.1
5,800 51.8 39.3 33.1
6,200 59.1 44.9 38.1
6,600 66.5 51.0 43.1
7,000 73.8 57.1 48.3
7,400 63.2 53.5

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 75
 V1MCG Limitation Based on Accelerate –
Stop Distance
• Distance Required to accelerate to a given velocity and stop is
shorter for deeper slush.
737-500/20k rating, V1mcg = 109 kias, GW = 52,000 kg

Slush Depth Distance to accelerate V1mcg and stop

3 mm 6,050 feet
6 mm 5,800 feet
13 mm 5,600 feet

This is because the slush drag penalty during acceleration is

less than the benefit that the slush drag provides on the stop.
Slush Depth V1mcg Weight @ 6200 feet field length
3 mm 56,300 kg
6 mm 59,100 kg
13 mm 61,700 kg
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 76
 Thrust Derate and V1MCG Speed

Thrust TO TO-1 TO-2

V1mcg 126 123 117

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 77
 V1MCG Speed and Derate

Given slush depth

TO-2 TO-1
TO
Field
length
required
Constant Field Length

Higher takeoff
weight with less
WTO-2
thrust!
WTO WTO-1
Brake release gross weight

The reduced acceleration is offset by lower V1mcg at derated thrust rating.

The lower V1 to accelerate to results in shorter accelerate-stop distance.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 78
V1MCG Limited Weight with increasing slush depth…
• Example of 777-200ER/-94B engine

V1mcg Weight @ 2400 m field length – kg

Slush TO TO-1 TO-2

Depth
3 mm 187,400 218,100 278,600
6 mm 201,600 232,500 293,400
13 mm 225,400 256,300 316,800

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 79
 Performance on Slippery and
Contaminated Runways

Landing on Slippery Runway

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 80
 Regulatory Requirements for Landing

• EASA Air OPS requires contaminated / slippery

runway landing distance calculation for dispatch
• Enroute landing performance check is also
specified by EASA Air OPS:
• Before commencing an approach to land, the
commander must satisfy himself/herself that,
according to the information available to
him/her, the weather at the aerodrome and
the condition of the runway intended to be
used should not prevent a safe approach,
landing or missed approach, having regard to
the performance information contained in the
operations manual.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 81
 Regulatory Requirements for Landing

• FAR 121.195
– FAR dispatch requirements for landing on a slippery runway
is the same FAR wet, which is 115% of the FAR dry runway
requirement.
• Enroute landing performance check is implied by 121.627
Continuing flight in unsafe conditions and/or 121.551
Restriction or suspension of operation
– When an “operator” knows of conditions, including airport and
runway conditions, that are a hazard to safe operations, it shall
restrict or suspend operations until those conditions are corrected.
• FAA Safe Alert for Operators (SAFO) 06012 specifically
advises an enroute check of landing distances.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 82
 SAFO 06012 Survey Findings

FAA learned that some airlines:

• have misused or misinterpreted the manufacturer supplied data
(note: Not all manufacturers provide data in the same way)
• did not train or provide guidance on how to use operational
landing distance information provided by manufacturer, nor
address safety margins.
• did not include manufacturer’s data in the operations procedures
(note: Not all manufacturers provided data in their operating documents)
• did not require landing distance assessment at the time of arrival
• had confusion on whether or not reverse thrust credit is included
in the calculated landing distance

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 83
 Example of Pilot Reported Braking Action:
(Condition is active snowfall)
Airplane
Elapsed
Friction Measured Braking
Time Event Reported Braking Action
(Min) during operations Coefficient
(µB)*

0 Runway cleaned

72 /59/68
2 Friction measured Not reported to crew =
Above reporting threshold

7 A320 landed/report Fair

10 737-700 landed Fair/poor at the end 0.12

16 737-700 landed 0.11

Good 1st and 2nd thirds,

18 737-700 landed 0.08
poor last third

20 737-700 landed 0.10

26 Citation landed Poor

28 Gulfstream landed Fair to poor

*Based on Boeing
30 737-700 landed 0.08 analysis of FDR.

37 Friction measured 41/40/38

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 84
This example shows the complexity of the issues
involved in reporting runway condition!
• Time – runway condition may be changing with time.
– Friction is taken at a specific time.
– Cannot be redone with out interrupting operations.
– In this example the friction deteriorated as snow fall continued.
• Effect of snow and slush on accuracy of friction measurement
– FAA and ICAO guidance warn against the use of friction measurements
when the runway is covered with snow or slush.
– Demonstrated by the second friction test.
– Braking action reports and the FDR data analysis do not agree with the friction
measured.
• Reported braking action
– Pilot braking action reports do support that the runway was becoming more
slippery.
– Pilot braking action reports aren’t always consistent.
• Equipment
• Flight crew experience
– Pilot braking reports aren’t always made or communicated in a timely manner.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 85
Example of Reported Braking Action (continued)
• Consider braking action report – “good 1st and 2nd
thirds, poor last third”
– Analysis of FDR data showed
• Flight crew used light braking during the first 2/3rds of the stop.
• In the last third the stop the flight crew used heavy braking.
• FDR data did not show an appreciable change in the capability of the wheel brakes to
stop the airplane during the stop.

– Conjecture…
• Since the flight crew used moderate braking during the first part of the stop and the
reversers were deployed, and aerodynamic drag was high,
– The deceleration rate was as expected for the amount of wheel braking
used by flight crew hence the report of good
• However later in the stop maximum wheel braking was applied but now the speed was
lower
– less drag, less reverse thrust (speed effect)
– The deceleration rate was less than expected for the amount of wheel
braking used by flight crew hence the report of poor
• The perception was the runway had gotten slipperier part way down the runway
– No evidence in FDR data that runway slipperiness changed.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 86
Friction Measurement on Contaminated Runways

• FAA AC 150.5200-30A addresses the conditions that the friction surveys

should be conducted.
– ”13b. Conditions Not Acceptable for Conduct of Friction Surveys
on Frozen Contaminated Surfaces. The data obtained from friction
surveys are not considered reliable if conducted under the following
conditions:
• (1) when there is more than .04 inch (1 mm) of water on the surface, or
• (2) when the depths of dry snow and/or wet snow/slush exceed the limits
…..
– depth of dry snow does not exceed 1 inch (2.5 cm
– depth of wet snow/slush does not exceed 1/8 inch (3 mm).”
• ” … A decelerometer should not be used in loose snow or slush, as it can
give misleading friction values. Other friction measuring devices can also
give misleading friction values under certain combinations of contaminants
and air/pavement temperature.” (ICAO Annex 14, Att. A-6, 6.8)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 87
 SAFO 06012 Survey Findings (continued)

SAFO states:
• Pilots should use the most adverse reliable braking action report or
the most adverse expected conditions for the runway
• 1000 feet air distance is not consistently achievable
• Recommendation for operator to use air distance which reflect the
operator’s specific operations, practices, procedures, training and
experiences!

• “All flight crewmembers must have hands-on training and validate

proficiency in these procedures …..”. This is referring to how to use
the airline’s slippery runway data to evaluate landing performance.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 88
 SAFO 06012 Recommendations

• Recommendations to operators:
• Check landing performance using the conditions
expected at the time of arrival
• A 15% safety margin be applied to the calculated
landing distance
• Voluntary compliance
» “Operators engaged in air transportation have a
statutory obligation to operate with the highest
possible degree of safety in the public interest.”

• Prelude to rulemaking

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 89
 Landing on Slippery Runway

Dispatch Field Length Required

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 90
 Landing Performance Data

Boeing provides two distinct and different sets of data

Certified Data Advisory Data

• Purpose • Purpose
– Provide landing distance as – Provide landing distance
required by regulations capability for different
runway conditions and
• Requirements braking configurations
– FAR Parts 25 and 121 • Requirements
– EASA Air OPS – FAR 121 & EASA Air OPS
• Use – SAFO 06012
– Determine landing distance • Use:
requirements for dispatch – Determine landing distance
for making operational
decisions for time of arrival

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 91
 Dispatch Landing Field Length
Required (certified data)

Reference
• Dry runway Runway
• Max manual braking
50 ft — x • No reverse thrust Stop
DEMONSTRATED
dFlare dTrans dStop CAPABILITY
dDEMO

Stop
CERTIFIED
dDEMO FAR Dry
dDEMO x 1.67

Stop
CERTIFIED*
dDEMO FAR
dDEMO x 1.67 Wet/slippery
dDEMO x 1.67 x 1.15

* No actual wheel braking on a wet/slippery runway is considered in the actual calculation of the certified landing distance
per FAR 121.195 for a wet/slippery runway. However, the actual stopping performance capability of an airplane on a
wet/slippery runway will reflect the reduced wheel braking as a result of lower tire to ground friction and typically
operational data is supplied based on the reduced wheel braking on a wet/slippery runway which does consider the effect of
reverse thrust. For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 92
 Maximum Allowable Landing Weight
for Dispatch

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 93
 Landing on Slippery Runway

Time-of-Arrival Assessment
(Enroute Evaluation)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 94
Variability in Airplane Height at Threshold
• Approach type / guidance / location affects the height
of the airplane at the threshold.
• Visual – pilot eye height to bottom of main gear is
important
• Airplane size affects airplane height at threshold

}
ICAO recommended aiming point start
Runway < 2400 m – 300 m (984’)
Runway > 2400 m – 400 m (1312’)

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 95
Variability in Airplane Height at Threshold

• ILS to ILS receiver, typically radome small aircraft and

nose gear door large aircraft, also has an effect.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 96
Performance Allowance for Air Distance

• FCOM / QRH data used to be based on 1000 feet

• FCTM indicates that touchdown should be expected at
from 1000 to 2000 feet from the threshold
• EASA AFM data based on 7 seconds from threshold to
touchdown, resulting in approximately 1500 to 2000 feet
depending on approach speed.

1000 - 2000 ft.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 97
 Autoland Touchdown Data

• Autoland air distance from threshold to touchdown is less

than 2500 feet
• Based on flight test
• Assuming 3o glideslope

1000 ft.

1000 + X

1000 + X + 3 σ < 2500 feet

X – average touchdown point from autoland testing.

3σ – 99.7% probability of touchdown prior to this distance

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 98
Predicted (“Actual”) Landing
Distance (Advisory Data)

Reference
• Dry runway Runway – FAR wet/slippery
• Max manual braking
• With reverse thrust Stop
ADVISORY
Dry runway
1000’ Reverse
dDEMO

Good braking
*20-40% margin

Medium braking
*5% margin to 20%
exceedance

Poor braking
*20-40% exceedance
•Distances dependent on airplane model, approach speed, slope etc. There are combinations of tailwind, downhill slope and
approach speeds where the margin/exceedance shown less/more as appropriate.
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 99
 Transition and Reverser Application

As assumed in Advisory Data

Interlock
Select cleared Reverser
Main Gear reverse to reverser spinup to At 60 knots decrease
Touchdown interlock deployed selected level to reverse idle

1 sec. 1 sec. 1 – 3 sec.* 2 – 4 seconds*

Transition
Selected reverse thrust
Brake level – max or detent
Application depending on model

* Actual time dependent on engine/airframe

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 100
 Landing with Autobrakes Selected

• Autobrake system
• Targets a deceleration level
• Brakes applied as required to reach target
deceleration level

• Deceleration is affected by three factors:

• Aerodynamic drag
• Wheel brakes – dependent on runway
friction available
• Reverse thrust

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 101
Maximum Deceleration Rates
Good Reported Braking Action

Max Braking Available

Dry
Good
Med
Braking Poor
Applied
Drag Brakes
Max Manual
Drag Brakes Reverse Thrust

Deceleration level
Drag Brakes NOT achieved
Autobrake Max
Distance based on
Drag Brakes Reverse Thrust
runway friction
A/B
A/B Decel Deceleration level
Drag Brakes Target achieved
Autobrake 2 Decel
Drag Reverse Thrust
Brakes Target Max Distance based on
Medium autobrake decel rate

Less More
Deceleration

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 102
 Manual versus Automatic Braking

• Manual Braking
– Dry runway: Reverse thrust does increase deceleration and,
therefore, shorten stopping distance.
– Slippery runway: Reverse thrust does increase deceleration

• Automatic Braking (fixed target rate of deceleration)

– Dry runway: Reverse thrust typically does not increase
deceleration and, therefore, has no effect on stopping
distance.
– Slippery runway: Reverse thrust may (and likely does)
increase deceleration, depending on slipperiness.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 103
 Variability In Wet Runway Wheel Braking

All factors including texture (micro and macro), tire tread, saturation … etc.

Dry

Tire to
Braking
runway
Action
Wet rough
macro texture
friction Good

Medium
Wet smooth*
Poor macro texture

Ground Speed - kts

* Note: reduced wet runway capability can also occur due to low microtexture on runways with decent
macrotexture. This can be due to rubber or polishing.

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 104
 Description and Airplane Performance

Runway Surface
Description Braking Action

Dry Dry 0.4

Wet grooved Airplane

0.3 Braking
Coefficient
Wet ungrooved Good used in
0.2 calculation
Compact Snow T<-15C
of advisory
Wet/DrySnow
Compact Snow T>-15C Medium(Fair) data
0.1
Slush
Ice Poor
Melting Ice 0.05
Nil

Airplane Braking Coefficient - ratio of stopping force due to the wheel brakes
to the weight on the wheels (W – L)
**µB listed for Braking Action is the traditional values used by Boeing, TALPA ARC values vary slightly
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 105
Best Estimate of Airplane Capability on a Wet Runway
versus Variability in Speed and Ambient Conditions …
• Wet runway performance based on FAA definition used for smooth (non-grooved)
wet runway
• 737-700 • Approximately the same as BA – Good, which Boeing recommends for wet
• Sea level • Red reference line is the Dispatch Wet Runway requirement
• Flaps 40 • 1.15*(1.67)*AFM Dry runway landing distance
• Bars are best prediction of airplane capability for the runway condition and
8000 braking method
• Based on touchdown 1000 feet from the threshold
7000 • Recommended all engine reverse thrust
-12 %
-10 %
6000 0% 1% 1%
-4 %
Ref. runway FAR Wet/Slip 6% 5%
10 %
5000 30 %
18 % 16 %
36 %
50 % 42 %
4000
Wet, max man, VREF+20, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF+10, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF+5, 15C

Wet, max man, VREF+5, 30C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+20, 30C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+10, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF, 15C

Med, AB 3, VREF+20, 0C
Med, AB 3, VREF+10, 0C
Wet, AB 3, VREF+5, 15C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+5, 30C

Med, AB 3, VREF+5, 0C
3000

Med, AB 3, VREF, 15C

Wet, AB 3, VREF, 15C

Med, AB 3, VREF, 0 C
2000

1000

Max Manual Braking Autobrake 3 Autobrake 3,

with 2 eng. detent reverse with 2 eng. detent Medium Reported Braking Action
reverse thrust with 2 eng. detent reverse
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 106
 … and Variability in Flare Distance
• Wet runway performance based on FAA definition used for smooth (non-grooved)
wet runway
• 737-700 • Approximately the same as BA – Good, which Boeing recommends for wet
• Sea level • Red reference line is the Dispatch Wet Runway requirement
• Flaps 40 • 1.15*(1.67)*AFM Dry runway landing distance
• Bars are best prediction of airplane capability for the runway condition and
8000 braking method
• Based on touchdown 1000 feet from the threshold
7000 • Recommended all engine reverse thrust
Additional 500 ft. air distance
6000
Ref. runway FAR Wet/Slip
5000

4000
Wet, max man, VREF+20, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF+10, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF+5, 15C

Wet, max man, VREF+5, 30C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+20, 30C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+10, 30C
Wet, max man, VREF, 15C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+5, 15C

Wet, AB 3, VREF+5, 30C

Med, AB 3, VREF+20, 0C
Med, AB 3, VREF+10, 0C
Med, AB 3, VREF+5, 0C
3000
Wet, AB 3, VREF, 15C

Med, AB 3, VREF, 15C

Med, AB 3, VREF, 0 C
2000

1000

Max Manual Braking Autobrake 3 Autobrake 3,

with 2 eng. detent reverse with 2 eng. detent Medium Reported Braking Action
reverse thrust with 2 eng. detent reverse
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 107
 TALPA ARC and AC 25-32

• FAA Rulemaking Activity

– Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA)
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
• Recommends runway condition reporting method used by
airports (Part 139)
• Enroute (time of arrival) landing performance assessment
 Part 25 rule defining data basis, which is similar to EASA
 Part 121 rule defining safety margin, 1.15 distance factor

• FAA Advisory Circular AC 25-32, Landing Performance

Data for Time-of-Arrival Performance Assessments,
released on 22 December 2015
– It is now a regulatory requirement to calculate landing
distance, prior to landing, based on actual conditions !

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 108
Airport Runway Condition Assessment Matrix

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 109
 Predicted Landing Distance for
Time-of-Arrival Assessment

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 110
 787 and 747-8
• Based on TALPA ARC
Concept / Method:
– Braking action / runway
description mapping
– Five (5) braking actions
(also consistent with
ICAO SNOWTAM
recommendations)
• Good
• Good-Medium
• Medium
• Medium to Poor
• Poor
× Landing not recommended when braking
action is Nil !

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 111
 787 and 747-8

All reference distances and adjustments are increased by 15%.

Includes an air distance from threshold to touchdown associated with a

flare time of 7 seconds.

Based on
these notes

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 112
TALPA ARC (AC 25-32) Compliant Data for
737, 747-400, 757, 767, and 777

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 113
Unfactored data
(optional)

Reference distance is for sea level, standard day, VREF 30 approach speed and 2 engine
reverse thrust
Actual (unfactored) distances are shown
Includes distance from 50 ft. above the threshold (1000 ft of air distance)

EASA advisory data still includes

1.15 factor for non-dry conditions

Based on
these notes
For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 114
 Example Operational Data

Practical Exercises #4 – #7
and
OPT Demonstration

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 115
 FLIGHT
OPERATIONS
ENGINEERING

Performance on Slippery and

Contaminated Runways

End of Presentation

PE-201
Operational Performance and
Technical Methods

For training purposes only. Copyright © 2018 Boeing. May be subject to export restrictions under EAR. See title page for details 116