CAT.POL.A.100 Performance classes

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The aeroplane shall be operated in accordance with the applicable performance class requirements.

(b) Where full compliance with the applicable requirements of this Section cannot be shown due to specific design characteristics, the operator shall apply approved performance standards that ensure a level of safety equivalent to that of the appropriate chapter.

CAT.POL.A.105 General

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) The mass of the aeroplane:

(1) at the start of the take-off; or

(2) in the event of in-flight replanning, at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies,

shall not be greater than the mass at which the requirements of the appropriate chapter can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken. Allowance may be made for expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds and for fuel jettisoning.

(b) The approved performance data contained in the AFM shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements of the appropriate chapter, supplemented as necessary with other data as prescribed in the relevant chapter. The operator shall specify other data in the operations manual. When applying the factors prescribed in the appropriate chapter, account may be taken of any operational factors already incorporated in the AFM performance data to avoid double application of factors.

(c) Due account shall be taken of aeroplane configuration, environmental conditions and the operation of systems that have an adverse effect on performance.

(d) The operator shall take account of charting accuracy when assessing the take-off requirements of the applicable chapters.

CHAPTER 2 – Performance class A

CAT.POL.A.200 General

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The approved performance data in the AFM shall be supplemented as necessary with other data if the approved performance data in the AFM is insufficient in respect of items such as:

(1) accounting for reasonably expected adverse operating conditions such as take-off and landing on contaminated runways; and

(2) consideration of engine failure in all flight phases.

(b) For wet and contaminated runways, performance data determined in accordance with applicable standards on certification of large aeroplanes or equivalent shall be used.

(c) The use of other data referred to in (a) and equivalent requirements referred to in (b) shall be specified in the operations manual.

WET AND CONTAMINATED RUNWAY DATA

The determination of take-off performance data for wet and contaminated runways should be based on the reported runway surface condition in terms of contaminant and depth. The determination of landing performance data should be based on information provided in the OM on the reported RWYCC. The RWYCC is determined by the aerodrome operator using the RCAM and associated procedures defined in Annex V (Part-ADR.OPS) to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014. The RWYCC is reported through an RCR in the SNOWTAM format in accordance with ICAO Annex 15.

CAT.POL.A.205 Take-off

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The take-off mass shall not exceed the maximum take-off mass specified in the AFM for the pressure altitude and the ambient temperature at the aerodrome of departure.

(b) The following requirements shall be met when determining the maximum permitted take-off mass:

(1) the accelerate-stop distance shall not exceed the accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA);

(2) the take-off distance shall not exceed the take-off distance available, with a clearway distance not exceeding half of the take-off run available (TORA);

(3) the take-off run shall not exceed the TORA;

(4) a single value of V1 shall be used for the rejected and continued take-off; and

(5) on a wet or contaminated runway, the take-off mass shall not exceed that permitted for a take-off on a dry runway under the same conditions.

(c) When showing compliance with (b), the following shall be taken into account:

(1) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(2) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome;

(3) the runway surface condition and the type of runway surface;

(4) the runway slope in the direction of take-off;

(5) not more than 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component; and

(6) the loss, if any, of runway length due to alignment of the aeroplane prior to take-off.

LOSS OF RUNWAY LENGTH DUE TO ALIGNMENT

(a) The length of the runway that is declared for the calculation of take-off distance available (TODA), accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) and take-off run available (TORA) does not account for line-up of the aeroplane in the direction of take-off on the runway in use. This alignment distance depends on the aeroplane geometry and access possibility to the runway in use. Accountability is usually required for a 90°-taxiway entry to the runway and 180°-turnaround on the runway. There are two distances to be considered:

(1) the minimum distance of the main wheels from the start of the runway for determining TODA and TORA,’L’; and

(2) the minimum distance of the most forward wheel(s) from the start of the runway for determining ASDA,’N’.

Figure 1

Line-up of the aeroplane in the direction of take-off — L and N

Where the aeroplane manufacturer does not provide the appropriate data, the calculation method given in (b) should be used to determine the alignment distance.

(b) Alignment distance calculation

The distances mentioned in (a)(1) and (a)(2) are: 

 

90° entry

180° turnaround

L=

RM + X

RN + Y

N=

RM + X + WB

RN + Y + WB

where:

RN = A + WN = WB/cos(90°-α) + WN

RM = B + WM = WB tan(90°-α) + WM

X = safety distance of outer main wheel during turn to the edge of the runway

Y = safety distance of outer nose wheel during turn to the edge of the runway

Note:  Minimum edge safety distances for X and Y are specified in FAA AC 150/5300-13 and ICAO Annex 14, 3.8.3

RN = radius of turn of outer nose wheel

RM = radius of turn of outer main wheel

WN = distance from aeroplane centre-line to outer nose wheel

WM = distance from aeroplane centre-line to outer main wheel

WB = wheel base

α = steering angle.

RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION

(a) Operation on runways contaminated with water, slush, snow or ice implies uncertainties with regard to runway friction and contaminant drag and, therefore, to the achievable performance and control of the aeroplane during take-off, since the actual conditions may not completely match the assumptions on which the performance information is based. In the case of a contaminated runway, the first option for the commander is to wait until the runway is cleared. If this is impracticable, he/she may consider a take-off, provided that he/she has applied the applicable performance adjustments, and any further safety measures he/she considers justified under the prevailing conditions.

(b) An adequate overall level of safety will only be maintained if operations in accordance with AMC 25.1591 or equivalent are limited to rare occasions. Where the frequency of such operations on contaminated runways is not limited to rare occasions, the operator should provide additional measures ensuring an equivalent level of safety. Such measures could include special crew training, additional distance factoring and more restrictive wind limitations.

CAT.POL.A.210 Take-off obstacle clearance

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The net take-off flight path shall be determined in such a way that the aeroplane clears all obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 35 ft or by a horizontal distance of at least 90 m plus 0,125 × D, where D is the horizontal distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of the take-off distance available (TODA) or the end of the take-off distance if a turn is scheduled before the end of the TODA. For aeroplanes with a wingspan of less than 60 m, a horizontal obstacle clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m, plus 0,125 × D may be used.

(b) When showing compliance with (a):

(1) The following items shall be taken into account:

(i) the mass of the aeroplane at the commencement of the take-off run;

(ii) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(iii) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome; and

(iv) not more than 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component.

(2) Track changes shall not be allowed up to the point at which the net take-off flight path has achieved a height equal to one half the wingspan but not less than 50 ft above the elevation of the end of the TORA. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater than 15°, but not more than 25° may be scheduled.

(3) Any part of the net take-off flight path in which the aeroplane is banked by more than 15° shall clear all obstacles within the horizontal distances specified in (a), (b)(6) and (b)(7) by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft.

(4) Operations that apply increased bank angles of not more than 20° between 200 ft and 400 ft, or not more than 30° above 400 ft, shall be carried out in accordance with CAT.POL.A.240.

(5) Adequate allowance shall be made for the effect of bank angle on operating speeds and flight path including the distance increments resulting from increased operating speeds.

(6) For cases where the intended flight path does not require track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(i) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain the required navigational accuracy through the obstacle accountability area; or

(ii) 600 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(7) For cases where the intended flight path requires track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(i) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain the required navigational accuracy through the obstacle accountability area; or

(ii) 900 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(c) The operator shall establish contingency procedures to satisfy the requirements in (a) and (b) and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles, to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the en-route requirements of CAT.POL.A.215, or land at either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off alternate aerodrome.

TAKE-OFF OBSTACLE CLEARANCE

(a) In accordance with the definitions used in preparing the take-off distance and take-off flight path data provided in the AFM:

(1) The net take-off flight path is considered to begin at a height of 35 ft above the runway or clearway at the end of the take-off distance determined for the aeroplane in accordance with (b) below.

(2) The take-off distance is the longest of the following distances:

(i) 115 % of the distance with all engines operating from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 35 ft above the runway or clearway;

(ii) the distance from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 35 ft above the runway or clearway assuming failure of the critical engine occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a dry runway; or

(iii) if the runway is wet or contaminated, the distance from the start of the take-off to the point at which the aeroplane is 15 ft above the runway or clearway assuming failure of the critical engine occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a wet or contaminated runway.

(b) The net take-off flight path, determined from the data provided in the AFM in accordance with (a)(1) and (a)(2), should clear all relevant obstacles by a vertical distance of 35 ft. When taking off on a wet or contaminated runway and an engine failure occurs at the point corresponding to the decision speed (V1) for a wet or contaminated runway, this implies that the aeroplane can initially be as much as 20 ft below the net take-off flight path in accordance with (a) and, therefore, may clear close-in obstacles by only 15 ft. When taking off on wet or contaminated runways, the operator should exercise special care with respect to obstacle assessment, especially if a take-off is obstacle-limited and the obstacle density is high.

EFFECT OF BANK ANGLES

(a) The AFM generally provides a climb gradient decrement for a 15° bank turn. For bank angles of less than 15°, a proportionate amount should be applied unless the manufacturer or AFM has provided other data.

(b) Unless otherwise specified in the AFM or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, acceptable adjustments to assure adequate stall margins and gradient corrections are provided by the following table:

Table 1

Effect of bank angles

Bank

Speed

Gradient correction

15°

V2

1 x AFM 15° gradient loss

20°

V2 + 5 kt

2 x AFM 15° gradient loss

25°

V2 + 10 kt

3 x AFM 15° gradient loss

REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL ACCURACY

(a) Navigation systems

The obstacle accountability semi-widths of 300 m and 600 m may be used if the navigation system under OEI conditions provides a two standard deviation accuracy of 150 m and 300 m respectively.

(b) Visual course guidance

(1) The obstacle accountability semi-widths of 300 m and 600 m may be used where navigational accuracy is ensured at all relevant points on the flight path by use of external references. These references may be considered visible from the flight crew compartment if they are situated more than 45° either side of the intended track and with a depression of not greater than 20° from the horizontal.

(2) For visual course guidance navigation, the operator should ensure that the weather conditions prevailing at the time of operation, including ceiling and visibility, are such that the obstacle and/or ground reference points can be seen and identified. The operations manual should specify, for the aerodrome(s) concerned, the minimum weather conditions which enable the flight crew to continuously determine and maintain the correct flight path with respect to ground reference points, so as to provide a safe clearance with respect to obstructions and terrain as follows:

(i) the procedure should be well-defined with respect to ground reference points so that the track to be flown can be analysed for obstacle clearance requirements;

(ii) the procedure should be within the capabilities of the aeroplane with respect to forward speed, bank angle and wind effects;

(iii) a written and/or pictorial description of the procedure should be provided for crew use; and

(iv) the limiting environmental conditions (such as wind, the lowest cloud base, ceiling, visibility, day/night, ambient lighting, obstruction lighting) should be specified.

CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES FOR OBSTACLES CLEARANCES

If compliance with CAT.POL.A.210 is based on an engine failure route that differs from the all engine departure route or SID normal departure, a ‘deviation point’ can be identified where the engine failure route deviates from the normal departure route. Adequate obstacle clearance along the normal departure route with failure of the critical engine at the deviation point will normally be available. However, in certain situations the obstacle clearance along the normal departure route may be marginal and should be checked to ensure that, in case of an engine failure after the deviation point, a flight can safely proceed along the normal departure route.

CAT.POL.A.215 En-route – one-engine-inoperative (OEI)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) The OEI en-route net flight path data shown in the AFM, appropriate to the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, shall allow demonstration of compliance with (b) or (c) at all points along the route. The net flight path shall have a positive gradient at 1 500 ft above the aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made after engine failure. In meteorological conditions requiring the operation of ice protection systems, the effect of their use on the net flight path shall be taken into account.

(b) The gradient of the en-route net flight path shall be positive at least 1 000 ft above all terrain and obstructions along the route within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track.

(c) The en-route net flight path shall permit the aeroplane to continue flight from the cruising altitude to an aerodrome where a landing can be made in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.230 or CAT.POL.A.235, as appropriate. The en-route net flight path shall clear vertically, by at least 2 000 ft, all terrain and obstructions along the route within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track, taking into account the following elements:

(1) the engine is assumed to fail at the most critical point along the route;

(2) account is taken of the effects of winds on the flight path;

(3) fuel jettisoning is permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome where the aeroplane is assumed to land after engine failure with the required fuel reserves in accordance with point CAT.OP.MPA.150, appropriate for an alternate aerodrome, if a safe procedure is used;

(4) the aerodrome, where the aeroplane is assumed to land after engine failure, shall meet the following criteria:

(i) the performance requirements for the expected landing mass are met;

(ii) weather reports or forecasts and runway condition reports indicate that a safe landing can be accomplished at the estimated time of landing;

(5) if the AFM does not contain en-route net flight path data, the gross OEI en-route flight path shall be reduced by a climb gradient of 1,1 % for two-engined aeroplanes, 1,4 % for three-engined aeroplanes, and 1,6 % for four-engined aeroplanes.

(d) The operator shall increase the width margins provided for in points (b) and (c) to 18,5 km (10 NM) if the navigational accuracy does not meet at least navigation specification RNAV 5.

ROUTE ANALYSIS

(a) The high terrain or obstacle analysis required should be carried out by a detailed analysis of the route.

(b) A detailed analysis of the route should be made using contour maps of the high terrain and plotting the highest points within the prescribed corridor’s width along the route. The next step is to determine whether it is possible to maintain level flight with OEI 1 000 ft above the highest point of the crossing. If this is not possible, or if the associated weight penalties are unacceptable, a drift down procedure should be worked out, based on engine failure at the most critical point and clearing critical obstacles during the drift down by at least 2 000 ft. The minimum cruise altitude is determined by the intersection of the two drift down paths, taking into account allowances for decision making (see Figure 1). This method is time-consuming and requires the availability of detailed terrain maps.

(c) Alternatively, the published minimum flight altitudes (MEA or minimum off-route altitude (MORA)) should be used for determining whether OEI level flight is feasible at the minimum flight altitude, or if it is necessary to use the published minimum flight altitudes as the basis for the drift down construction (see Figure 1). This procedure avoids a detailed high terrain contour analysis, but could be more penalising than taking the actual terrain profile into account as in (b).

(d) In order to comply with CAT.POL.A.215 (c), one means of compliance is the use of MORA and, with CAT.POL.A.215 (d), MEA provided that the aeroplane meets the navigational equipment standard assumed in the definition of MEA.

Figure 1

Intersection of the two drift down paths

Note: MEA or MORA normally provide the required 2 000 ft obstacle clearance for drift down. However, at and below 6 000 ft altitude, MEA and MORA cannot be used directly as only 1 000 ft clearance is ensured.

CAT.POL.A.220 En-route – aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) An aeroplane that has three or more engines shall not be away from an aerodrome at which the requirements of points CAT.POL.A.230 or CAT.POL.A.235(a) for the expected landing mass are met accordingly, at any point along the intended track for more than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate, at standard temperature in still air, unless points (b) to (f) of this point are complied with.

(b) The two-engines-inoperative en-route net flight path data shall allow the aeroplane to continue the flight, in the expected meteorological conditions, from the point where two engines are assumed to fail simultaneously to an aerodrome at which it is possible to land and come to a complete stop when using the prescribed procedure for a landing with two engines inoperative. The en-route net flight path shall clear vertically, by at least 2 000 ft, all terrain and obstructions along the route within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track. At altitudes and in meteorological conditions that require ice protection systems to be operable, the effect of their use on the en-route net flight path data shall be taken into account. If the navigational accuracy does not meet at least navigation specification RNAV 5, the operator shall increase the prescribed width margin provided for in the second sentence to 18,5 km (10 NM).

(c) The two engines shall be assumed to fail at the most critical point of that portion of the route where the aeroplane is operated for more than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate, at standard temperature in still air, away from the aerodrome referred to in point (a).

(d) The net flight path shall have a positive gradient at 1 500 ft above the aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made after the failure of two engines.

(e) Fuel jettisoning shall be permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome with the required fuel reserves referred to in point (f), if a safe procedure is used.

(f) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel to proceed to an aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made, and to arrive there at an altitude of at least 450 m (1 500 ft) directly over the landing area and thereafter to fly for 15 minutes at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate.

[applicable until 29 October 2022]

(f) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel/energy to proceed to an aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made, and to arrive there at an altitude of at least 1 500 ft (450 m) directly over the landing area, and thereafter, to fly for 15 minutes at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate.

[applicable from 30 October 2022 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1296]

CAT.POL.A.225 Landing – destination and alternate aerodromes

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.105(a) shall not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and alternate aerodrome.

ALTITUDE MEASURING

The operator should use either pressure altitude or geometric altitude for its operation and this should be reflected in the operations manual.

MISSED APPROACH

(a) For instrument approaches with a missed approach climb gradient greater than 2.5 %, the operator should verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows for a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the OEI missed approach configuration and at the associated speed.

(b) For instrument approaches with DH below 200 ft, the operator should verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for a missed approach of at least 2.5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is greater.

MISSED APPROACH GRADIENT

(a) Where an aeroplane cannot achieve the missed approach gradient specified in AMC2 CAT.POL.A.225, when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions, the operator has the opportunity to propose an alternative means of compliance to the competent authority demonstrating that a missed approach can be executed safely taking into account appropriate mitigating measures.

(b) The proposal for an alternative means of compliance may involve the following:

(1) considerations to mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach;

(2) a proposal to increase the DA/H or MDA/H; and

(3) a contingency procedure ensuring a safe route and avoiding obstacles.

CAT.POL.A.230 Landing – dry runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.105(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and at any alternate aerodrome shall allow a full-stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold:

(1) for turbojet-powered aeroplanes, within 60 % of the landing distance available (LDA);

(2) for turbopropeller-powered aeroplanes, within 70 % of the LDA;

(3) by way of derogation from points (a)(1) and (a)(2), for aeroplanes that are approved for reduced landing distance operations under point CAT.POL.A.255, within 80 % of the LDA.

(b) For steep approach operations, the operator shall use the landing distance data factored in accordance with point (a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, based on a screen height of less than 60 ft, but not less than 35 ft, and shall comply with point CAT.POL.A.245.

(c) For short landing operations, the operator shall use the landing distance data factored in accordance with point (a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, and shall comply with point CAT.POL.A.250.

(d) When determining the landing mass, the operator shall take into account the following:

(1) not more than 50 % of the headwind component or not less than 150 % of the tailwind component;

(2) corrections as provided in the AFM.

(e) For dispatching the aeroplane, the aeroplane shall either:

(1) land on the most favourable runway, in still air;

(2) land on the runway most likely to be assigned, considering the probable wind speed and direction, the ground-handling characteristics of the aeroplane and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.

(f) If the operator is unable to comply with point (e)(2) for the destination aerodrome, the aeroplane shall only be dispatched if an alternate aerodrome is designated that allows full compliance with one of the following:

(1) points (a) to (d), if the runway at the estimated time of arrival is dry;

(2) points CAT.POL.A.235(a) to (d), if the runway at the estimated time of arrival is wet or contaminated.

FACTORING OF AUTOMATIC LANDING DISTANCE PERFORMANCE DATA

In those cases where the landing requires the use of an automatic landing system, and the distance published in the AFM includes safety margins equivalent to those contained in CAT.POL.A.230 (a)(1), CAT.POL.A.230(a)(2) and CAT.POL.A.235, the landing mass of the aeroplane should be the lesser of:

(a) the landing mass determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230 (a)(1), CAT.POL.A.230(a)(2) or CAT.POL.A.235, as appropriate; or

(b) the landing mass determined for the automatic landing distance for the appropriate surface condition, as given in the AFM or equivalent document. Increments due to system features such as beam location or elevations, or procedures such as use of overspeed, should also be included.

LANDING MASS

CAT.POL.A.230 establishes two considerations in determining the maximum permissible landing mass at the destination and alternate aerodromes:

(a) Firstly, the aeroplane mass will be such that on arrival the aeroplane can be landed within 60 %, 70 %, or 80 % (as applicable) of the landing distance available (LDA) on the most favourable (normally the longest) runway in still air. Regardless of the wind conditions, the maximum landing mass for an aerodrome/aeroplane configuration at a particular aerodrome cannot be exceeded.

(b) Secondly, consideration should be given to anticipated conditions and circumstances. The expected wind, or ATC and noise abatement procedures, may indicate the use of a different runway. These factors may result in a lower landing mass than that permitted under (a), in which case dispatch should be based on this lesser mass.

(c) The expected wind referred to in (b) is the wind expected to exist at the time of arrival.

WORKFLOW OF THE LANDING DISTANCE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF DISPATCH — RUNWAY SUITABILITY CHECK

WORKFLOW OF THE LANDING DISTANCE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF DISPATCH — DRY RUNWAYS

WORKFLOW OF THE LANDING DISTANCE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF DISPATCH — WET RUNWAYS

WORKFLOW OF THE LANDING DISTANCE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF DISPATCH — CONTAMINATED RUNWAYS

LANDING DISTANCES AND CORRECTIVE FACTORS

The AFM provides performance data for landing distance under conditions defined in the applicable certification standards. This distance, commonly referred to as the actual landing distance (ALD), is the distance from the position on the runway of the screen height to the point where the aeroplane comes to a full stop on a dry runway.

The determination of the ALD is based on the assumption that the landing is performed in accordance with the conditions and the procedures set out in the AFM on the basis of the applicable certification standards.

As a matter of fact, any particular landing may be different from the landing technique that is assumed in the AFM for certification purposes. The aircraft may approach the runway faster and/or higher than assumed; the aircraft may touch down further along the runway than the optimum point; the actual winds and other weather factors may be different from those assumed in the calculation of the ALD; and maximum braking may not be always achievable. For this reason, the LDA is required by CAT.POL.A.230 and CAT.POL.A.235 to be longer than the ALD.

The margins by which the LDA shall exceed the ALD on dry runways, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230, are shown in the following Table 1.

Table 1: Corrective factors for dry runways

Aeroplane category

Required margin (dry runway)

Resulting factor (dry runway)

Turbojet-powered aeroplanes

ALD < 60 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.67 x ALD

Turbopropeller-powered aeroplanes

ALD < 70 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.43 x ALD

Aeroplanes approved under CAT.POL.A.255

ALD < 80 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.25 x ALD

If the runway is wet and the AFM does not provide specific performance data for dispatch on wet runways, a further increase of 15 % of the landing distance on dry runways has to be applied, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.235, as shown in the following Table 2.

Table 2: Corrective factors for wet runways

Aeroplane category

Resulting factor (dry runway)

Turbojet-powered aeroplanes

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.67 x ALD = 1.92 x ALD

Turbopropeller-powered aeroplanes

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.43 x ALD = 1.64 x ALD

Aeroplanes approved under CAT.POL.A.255

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.25 X ALD = 1.44 x ALD

However, for aeroplanes that are approved under CAT.POL.A.255, when landing on wet runways, CAT.POL.A.255 further requires the flight crew to apply the longer of the landing distance resulting from the above table and the landing distance resulting from the application of CAT.OP.MPA.303(a) or (b) as applicable. If performance information for the assessment of LDTA is not available as per CAT.OP.MPA.303(b)(2), the required landing distance on wet runways should be at least: 1.15 x 1.67 x ALD for turbojet-powered aircraft and 1.15 x 1.43 x ALD for turbopropeller-powered aircraft.

ALTERNATE AERODROMES

The alternate aerodromes for which the landing mass is required to be determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230 are:

(a) destination alternate aerodromes;

(b) fuel ERA aerodromes; and

(c) re-dispatch or re-clearance aerodromes.

AFM LANDING PERFORMANCE CORRECTIONS

Landing performance data is provided in the AFM at least for the certified range of pressure altitudes. AFM data may include other influence parameters such as, but not limited to, runway slope and temperature. The effect of speed increments over threshold should also be accounted for when these increments are required by the applicable AFM procedures, such as autoland or steep approach.

CAT.POL.A.235 Landing – wet and contaminated runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) When the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or both, indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be wet, the LDA shall be one of the following distances:

(1) a landing distance provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, but not less than that required by point CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable;

(2) if a landing distance is not provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, at least 115 % of the required landing distance, determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable;

(3) a landing distance shorter than that required by point (a)(2), but not less than that required by point CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, if the runway has specific friction-improving characteristics and the AFM includes specific additional information for landing distance on that runway type;

(4) by way of derogation from points (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), for aeroplanes that are approved for reduced landing distance operations under point CAT.POL.A.255, the landing distance determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.255(b)(2)(v)(B).

(b) When the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be contaminated, the LDA shall be one of the following distances:

(1) at least the landing distance determined in accordance with point (a), or at least 115 % of the landing distance determined in accordance with approved contaminated landing distance data or equivalent, whichever is greater;

(2) on specially prepared winter runways, a landing distance shorter than that required by point (b)(1), but not less than that required by point (a), may be used if the AFM includes specific additional information about landing distances on contaminated runways. Such landing distance shall be at least 115 % of the landing distance contained in the AFM.

(c) By way of derogation from point (b), the increment of 15 % needs not to be applied if it is already included in the approved landing distance data or equivalent.

(d) For points (a) and (b), the criteria of points CAT.POL.A.230(b), (c) and (d) shall apply accordingly.

(e) For dispatching the aeroplane, the aeroplane shall either:

(1) land on the most favourable runway, in still air;

(2) land on the runway most likely to be assigned, considering the probable wind speed and direction, the ground-handling characteristics of the aeroplane and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.

(f) If the operator is unable to comply with point (e)(1) for a destination aerodrome where the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be contaminated and where a landing depends upon a specific wind component, the aeroplane shall only be dispatched if two alternate aerodromes are designated.

(g) If the operator is unable to comply with point (e)(2) for the destination aerodrome where the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be wet or contaminated, the aeroplane shall only be dispatched if an alternate aerodrome is designated.

(h) For points (f) and (g), the designated alternate aerodrome or aerodromes shall allow compliance with one of the following:

(1) points CAT.POL.A.230(a) to (d), if the runway at the estimated time of arrival is dry;

(2) points CAT.POL.A.235(a) to (d), if the runway at the estimated time of arrival is wet or contaminated.

DISPATCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARGINAL CASES

The LDTA required by CAT.OP.MPA.303 may, in some cases, and in particular on wet or contaminated runways, exceed the landing distance considered at the time of dispatch. The requirements for dispatch remain unchanged, however, when the conditions at the time of arrival are expected to be marginal, it is a good practice to carry out at the time of dispatch a preliminary calculation of the LDTA.

AFM LANDING DISTANCES FOR WET RUNWAYS

Specific landing distances provided in the AFM for dispatch on wet runways, unless otherwise indicated, include a safety factor, which renders not necessary the application of the 15 % safety factor used in CAT.POL.A.235(a)(2). This implies that the AFM distance may be presented as factored distance. When the AFM distance is not factored, a safety factor of 15 % should be applied. These distances may be longer or shorter than those resulting from CAT.POL.A.235(a)(2), but when provided, they are intended as a replacement of CAT.POL.A.235(a)(2) and mandatory for use at the time of dispatch.

RUNWAYS WITH FRICTION IMPROVING CHARACTERISTICS

Materials or construction techniques meant to improve the friction characteristics of a runway may be grooved runways, runways treated with porous friction course (PFC) or other materials or techniques for which the AFM provides specific performance data.

Before taking the AFM performance credit for such runways, the operator should verify that the runways intended to be operated on are maintained to the extent necessary to ensure the expected improved friction characteristics.

CAT.POL.A.240 Approval of operations with increased bank angles

Regulation (EU) No 379/2014

(a) Operations with increased bank angles require prior approval by the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval, the operator shall provide evidence that the following conditions are met:

(1) the AFM contains approved data for the required increase of operating speed and data to allow the construction of the flight path considering the increased bank angles and speeds;

(2) visual guidance is available for navigation accuracy;

(3) weather minima and wind limitations are specified for each runway; and

(4) the flight crew has obtained adequate knowledge of the route to be flown and of the procedures to be used in accordance with Subpart FC of Part-ORO.

CAT.POL.A.245 Approval of steep approach operations

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) Steep approach operations using glideslope angles of 4,5° or more and with screen heights of less than 60 ft, but not less than 35 ft, require prior approval by the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval, the operator shall provide evidence that the following conditions are met:

(1) the AFM states the maximum approved glideslope angle, any other limitations, normal, abnormal or emergency procedures for the steep approach as well as amendments to the field length data when using steep approach criteria;

(2) for each aerodrome at which steep approach operations are to be conducted:

(i) a suitable glide path reference system comprising at least a visual glide path indicating system shall be available;

(ii) weather minima shall be specified; and

(iii) the following items shall be taken into consideration:

(A) the obstacle situation;

(B) the type of glide path reference and runway guidance;

(C) the minimum visual reference to be required at decision height (DH) and MDA;

(D) available airborne equipment;

(E) pilot qualification and special aerodrome familiarisation;

(F) AFM limitations and procedures; and

(G) missed approach criteria.

SCREEN HEIGHT

For the purpose of steep approach operations, the screen height is the reference height above the runway surface, typically above the runway threshold, from which the landing distance is measured. The screen height is set at 50 ft for normal operations and at another value between 60 ft and 35 ft for steep approach operations.

CAT.POL.A.250 Approval of short landing operations

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) Short landing operations require prior approval by the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval, the operator shall provide evidence that the following conditions are met:

(1) the distance used for the calculation of the permitted landing mass may consist of the usable length of the declared safe area plus the declared LDA;

(2) the State of the aerodrome has determined a public interest and operational necessity for the operation, either due to the remoteness of the aerodrome or to physical limitations relating to extending the runway;

(3) the vertical distance between the path of the pilot’s eye and the path of the lowest part of the wheels, with the aeroplane established on the normal glide path, does not exceed 3 m;

(4) RVR/VIS minimum shall not be less than 1 500 m and wind limitations are specified in the operations manual;

(5) minimum pilot experience, training and special aerodrome familiarisation requirements are specified and met;

(6) the crossing height over the beginning of the usable length of the declared safe area is 50 ft;

(7) the use of the declared safe area is approved by the State of the aerodrome;

(8) the usable length of the declared safe area does not exceed 90 m;

(9) the width of the declared safe area is not less than twice the runway width or twice the wing span, whichever is greater, centred on the extended runway centre line;

(10) the declared safe area is clear of obstructions or depressions that would endanger an aeroplane undershooting the runway and no mobile object is permitted on the declared safe area while the runway is being used for short landing operations;

(11) the slope of the declared safe area does not exceed 5 % upward nor 2 % downward in the direction of landing;

(11a) reduced required landing distance operations in accordance with CAT.POL.A.255 are prohibited; and

(12) additional conditions, if specified by the competent authority, taking into account aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the approach area, available approach aids and missed approach/balked landing considerations.

CAT.POL.A.255 Approval of reduced required landing distance operations

Regulation (EU) 2020/1176

(a) An aeroplane operator may conduct landing operations within 80 % of the landing distance available (LDA) if it complies with the following conditions:

(1) the airplane has an MOPSC of 19 or less;

(2) the airplane has an eligibility statement for reduced required landing distance in the AFM;

(3) the airplane is used in non-scheduled on-demand commercial air transport (CAT) operations;

(4) the landing mass of the aeroplane allows a full-stop landing within that reduced landing distance;

(5) the operator has obtained a prior approval of the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval referred to in point (a)(5), the operator shall provide evidence of either of the following circumstances:

(1) that a risk assessment has been conducted to demonstrate that a level of safety equivalent to that intended by point CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (2), as applicable, is achieved;

(2) that the following conditions are met:

(i) special-approach procedures, such as steep approaches, planned screen heights higher than 60 ft or lower than 35 ft, low-visibility operations, approaches outside stabilised approach criteria approved under point CAT.OP.MPA.115(a), are prohibited;

(ii) short landing operations in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.250 are prohibited;

(iii) landing on contaminated runways is prohibited;

(iv) an adequate training, checking and monitoring process for the flight crew is established;

(v) an aerodrome landing analysis programme (ALAP) is established by the operator to ensure that the following conditions are met:

(A) no tailwind is forecast at the expected time of arrival;

(B) if the runway is forecast to be wet at the expected time of arrival, the landing distance at dispatch shall either be determined in accordance with point CAT.OP.MPA.303(a) or (b) as applicable, or shall be 115 % of the landing distance determined for dry runways, whichever is longer;

(C) no forecast contaminated runway conditions exist at the expected time of arrival;

(D) no forecast adverse weather conditions exist at the expected time of arrival;

(vi) all the equipment that affects landing performance is operative before commencing the flight;

(vii) the flight crew is composed of at least two qualified and trained pilots that have recency in reduced required landing distance operations;

(viii) based on the prevailing conditions for the intended flight, the commander shall make the final decision to conduct reduced required landing distance operations and may decide not to do so when he or she considers that to be in the interest of safety;

(ix) additional aerodrome conditions, if specified by the competent authority that has certified the aerodrome, taking into account orographic characteristics of the approach area, available approach aids, missed-approach and balked-landing considerations.

AEROPLANE ELIGIBILITY

The factors required by CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, provide an operational safety margin to take into account landing distance operational variability in normal operations compared to the conditions and procedures set out to determine the actual landing distances during the certification of the aeroplane. The reduction of this margin, allowed when operating with reduced required landing distance, is based on a set of mitigating conditions required by CAT.POL.A.255.

However, if the factors required by CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, have been used during the certification of the aeroplane to demonstrate compliance with certification standards such as, but not limited to, CS 25.1309 or equivalent, the aeroplane is not eligible for a reduction of the margin provided by those factors.

Furthermore, certification methods offer different options for the determination of the air distance portion of the landing distance in terms of assumption that can be made for parameters such as, but not limited to, glide path angle and sink rate at touchdown. The assumptions made during the certification of the aeroplane may increase the landing distance operational variability in normal operations. The effect of parameters such as temperature or runway slope, when these were not considered during certification, may as well increase the landing distances achievable in normal operations. Overall, the set of assumptions made during the certification of the aeroplane may not be always compatible with the operational safety margin reduction allowed in reduced required landing distance operations under CAT.POL.A.255.

Whether the factors required by CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or (a)(2), as applicable, have been used to demonstrate compliance with certification standards, or the set of assumptions made to determine actual landing distances during the certification of the aeroplane are compatible with reduced landing distance operations, may be only declared by the aeroplane manufacturer or by the TC/STC holder.

NON-SCHEDULED ON-DEMAND COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT (CAT) OPERATIONS

For the purpose of reduced required landing distance operations, non-scheduled on-demand CAT operations are those CAT operations conducted upon request of the customer.

Non-scheduled on-demand CAT operations eligible for reduced required landing distance operations do not include holiday charters, i.e. charter flights that are part of a holiday travel package.

EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

A level of safety equivalent to that intended by CAT.POL.A.230(a)(1) or CAT.POL.A.230(a)(2), as applicable, may be achieved when conducting reduced required landing distance operations if mitigating measures are established and implemented. Such measures should address flight crew, aircraft characteristics and performance, aerodromes and operations. It is, however, essential that all conditions established are adhered to as it is the combination of said conditions that achieves the intended level of safety. The operator should in fact also consider the interrelation of the various mitigating measures.

The mitigating measures may be determined by the operator by using a risk assessment or by fulfilling all the conditions established under CAT.POL.A.255(b)(2). An operator willing to establish a set of conditions different from those under CAT.POL.A.255(b)(2) needs to demonstrate to the competent authority the equivalent level of safety through a risk assessment.

The risk assessment required by CAT.POL.A.255(b)(1) should include at least the following elements:

(a) flight crew qualification in terms of training, checking and recency;

(b) flight crew composition;

(c) runway surface conditions;

(d) dispatch criteria;

(e) weather conditions and limitations, including crosswind;

(f) aerodrome characteristics, including available approach guidance;

(g) aeroplane characteristics and limitations;

(h) aeroplane equipment and systems affecting landing performance;

(i) aeroplane performance data;

(j) operating procedures and operating minima; and

(k) analysis of operators’s performance and occurrence reports related to unstable approaches and long landings.

The competent authority may require other mitigating measures in addition to those proposed by the operator.

GENERAL

(a) The operator should ensure that flight crew training programmes for reduced required landing distance operations include ground training, flight simulation training device (FSTD), and/or flight training.

(b) Flight crew with no reduced required landing distance operations experience should have completed the full training programme of (a) above.

(c) Flight crew with previous reduced required landing distance operations experience of a similar type of operation with another EU operator, may undertake the following:

(1) an abbreviated ground training course if operating an aircraft of a type or class different from that of the aircraft on which the previous reduced required landing distance operations experience was gained;

(2) an abbreviated ground, FSTD and/or flight training course if operating the same type or class and variant of the same aircraft type or class on which the previous reduced required landing distance operations experience was gained; this course should include at least the provisions of the conversion training contained in this AMC; the operator may reduce the number of approaches/landings required by the conversion training if the type/class or the variant of the aircraft type or class has the same or similar operating procedures, handling characteristics and performance characteristics as the previously operated aircraft type or class.

(d) Flight crew with reduced required landing distance operations experience with the operator may undertake an abbreviated ground, FSTD and/or flight training course according to the following conditions:

(1) when changing aircraft type or class, the abbreviated course should include at least the content of the conversion training;

(2) when changing to a different variant of aircraft within the same type or class rating that has the same or similar operating procedures, handling characteristics and performance characteristics, as the previously operated aircraft type or class, a difference course or familiarisation appropriate to the change of variant should fulfil the abbreviated course’s purposes; and

(3) when changing to a different variant of aircraft within the same type or class rating that has significantly different operating procedures, handling characteristics and performance characteristics, the abbreviated course should include the content of the conversion training.

GROUND TRAINING

(a) The initial ground training course for reduced required landing distance operations should include at least the following:

(1) operational procedures and limitations, including flight preparation and planning;

(2) characteristics of the runway visual aids and runway markings;

(3) aircraft performance related to reduced required landing distance operations, including:

(i) aircraft-specific decelerating devices and equipment;

(ii) items that increase the aircraft landing distance, e.g. excess speed at touchdown, threshold crossing height, delayed brake application, delayed spoiler/speed brake or thrust reverser application; and

(iii) runway surface conditions;

(4) in-flight assessment of landing performance, including maximum landing masses and runway conditions;

(5) stabilised approach criteria;

(6) correct vertical flight path after the DA/MDA;

(7) correct flare, touchdown and braking techniques;

(8) touchdown within the appropriate touchdown zone;

(9) recognition of failure of aircraft equipment affecting aircraft performance, and action to be taken in that event;

(10) flight crew task allocation and pilot monitoring duties, including monitoring of the activation of deceleration devices;

(11) go-around/balked-landing criteria and decision-making;

(12) selection of precision approaches versus non-precision approaches if both are available; and

(13) qualification requirements for pilots to obtain and retain reduced required landing distance operations, including aerodrome landing analysis programme (ALAP) procedures.

FSTD TRAINING AND/OR FLIGHT TRAINING

(a) FSTD and/or flight training should be undertaken by all flight crew on flight duty at the controls during landing when performing reduced required landing distance operations.

(b) FSTD and/or flight training for reduced required landing distance operations should include checks of equipment functionality, both on the ground and in flight.

(c) Initial reduced required landing distance operations training should consist of a minimum of two approaches and landings to include at least the following exercises which may be combined:

(1) an approach and landing at the maximum landing mass;

(2) an approach and landing without the use of visual approach;

(3) a landing on a wet runway;

(4) a landing with crosswind;

(5) a malfunction of a stopping device on landing; and

(6) a go-around/balked landing.

(d) Special emphasis should be given to the following items:

(1) in-flight assessment of landing performance;

(2) stabilised approach, recognition of an unstable approach and, consequentially, a go-around;

(3) flight crew task allocation and pilot monitoring duties, including monitoring of the activation of deceleration devices;

(4) timely and correct activation of deceleration devices;

(5) correct flare technique; and

(6) landing within the appropriate touchdown zone.

CONVERSION TRAINING

Flight crew members should complete the following reduced required landing distance operations training if converting to a new type or class or variant of aircraft in which reduced required landing distance operations will be conducted.

(a) Ground training, taking into account the flight crew member’s reduced required landing distance operations experience.

(b) FSTD training and/or flight training.

RECURRENT TRAINING AND CHECKING

(a) The operator should ensure that in conjunction with the normal recurrent training and operator’s proficiency checks, the pilot’s knowledge and ability to perform the tasks associated with reduced required landing distance operations are adequate.

(b) The items of the ground training should cover a 3-year period.

(c) An annual reduced required landing distance operations training should consist of a minimum of two approaches and landings so that it includes at least the following exercises which may be combined:

(1) an approach and landing at the maximum landing mass;

(2) an approach and landing without the use of visual approach;

(3) a landing on a wet runway;

(4) a malfunction of a stopping device on landing; and

(5) a go-around/balked landing.

(6) Operations in crosswind conditions

FLIGHT CREW QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE

(a) Flight crew qualification and experience are specific to the operator and type of aircraft operated.

(b) The operator should ensure that each flight crew member successfully completes the specified FSTD and/or flight training before conducting reduced required landing distance operations.

(c) The operator should ensure that no inexperienced flight crew members, as defined in AMC1.ORO.FC.200(a), perform an approach and landing with reduced required landing distance operations.

MONITORING

(a) Reduced required landing distance operations should be continuously monitored by the operator to detect any undesirable trends before they become hazardous.

(b) A flight data monitoring (FDM) programme, as required by ORO.AOC.130, is an acceptable method to monitor operational risks related to reduced required landing distance operations.

(c) When an FDM programme is in use, it should include FDM events or FDM measurements relevant for monitoring the risk of runway excursions at landing.

(d) When FDM is neither required by ORO.AOC.130, nor implemented on a voluntary basis, flight crew reports should be used. Specific guidance for reporting events and exceedances during reduced required landing distance operations should be provided to the flight crew.

GENERAL

Flight crew training should be conducted preferably at aerodromes representative of the intended operations. An FSTD generic aerodrome with the same characteristics of an aerodrome requiring the reduced required landing distance is also acceptable for the initial and recurrent training.

MONITORING

(a) Although ORO.AOC.130 requires an FDM programme only for aeroplanes with a maximum certified take-off mass (MCTOM) of more than 27 000 kg, FDM may be used voluntarily on aeroplanes having a lower MCTOM. It is recommended for all operators conducting reduced required landing distance operations.

(b) Guidance on the definition of FDM events and FDM measurements relevant for monitoring the risk of runway excursion at landing may be found in the publications of the European Operators Flight Data Monitoring (EOFDM) forum.

AERODROME LANDING ANALYSIS PROGRAMME (ALAP)

The intent of an ALAP is to ensure that the aerodrome critical data related to landing performance in reduced required landing distance operations is known and taken into account in order to avoid any further increase of the landing distance. Two important aerodrome-related variables largely contribute to increasing the landing distance: landing (ground) speed and deceleration capability. Related factors to consider should include at least the following elements:

(a) Topography

Terrain around the aerodrome should be considered. High, fast-rising terrain may require special approach or decision points, missed approach or balked landing procedures and may affect landing performance. Aerodromes located on top of hilly terrain or downwind of mountainous terrain may occasionally experience conditions of wind shear and gusts. Such conditions are particularly relevant during the landing manoeuvre, particularly during the flare, and may increase landing distance.

(b) Runway conditions

Runway characteristics, such as unknown slope and surface composition, can cause the actual landing distance to be longer than the calculated landing distance. The braking action always impacts the landing distance required as it deteriorates. To this regard, consideration should be given to, and information obtained on, the maintenance status of the runway, as a wet runway surface may be significantly degraded due to poor aerodrome maintenance.

(c) Aerodrome or area weather

Some aerodromes may not have current weather reports and forecast available for flight planning. Others may have automated observations for operational use. Others may depend on the weather forecast of a nearby aerodrome. Area forecasts are also valuable in evaluating weather conditions for a particular operation. Comparing forecasted conditions to current conditions provides insight on upcoming changes as weather systems move and forecasts are updated. Longer flight segments may lean more heavily on the forecast for the estimated time of arrival (ETA), as current conditions may change significantly as weather systems move. The most important factors that should be considered are contained in AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.300(a), AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.311, GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.311, GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 and GM2 CAT.OP.MPA.303.

(d) Adverse weather

Adverse weather conditions include, but are not restricted to, thunderstorms, showers, downbursts, squall lines, tornadoes, moderate or severe turbulence on approach, heavy precipitation, wind shear and icing conditions. In general, all weather phenomena having the potential to increase the landing distance should be carefully assessed. Among these, tailwind is particularly relevant.

Wind variations should be carefully monitored as they may lead to variations in the reported and/or actual wind at the touchdown zone. Due consideration should be given also to the crosswind perpendicular to the landing runway as a slight variation in the direction of the crosswind may result in a considerable tailwind component.

(e) Runway safety margins

Displaced thresholds, aerodrome construction, and temporary obstacles (such as cranes and drawbridges) may impact the runway length available for landing. Notices to airmen (NOTAMs) must be consulted during the flight preparation. Another safety margin is the size and adequacy of the runway strip and the runway end safety area (RESA). A well-designed and well-maintained runway strip and RESA decrease the risk of damaging the aircraft in case of a runway excursion. ICAO Annex 14 provides the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to this regard.

AERODROME LANDING ANALYSIS PROGRAMME (ALAP) — AERODROME FACILITIES

The ALAP may also consider the services that are available at the aerodrome. Services such as communications, maintenance, and fuelling, availability of adequate rescue and firefighting services (RFFS) and medical services may have an impact on operations to and from that aerodrome, though not directly related to the landing distance. It is also worth considering whether the aerodrome is only meeting ICAO and national standards or also ICAO recommendations, as well as when the aerodrome bearing ratios are below the design and maintenance criteria indicated in ICAO Doc 9157 ‘Aerodrome Design Manual’.

EQUIPMENT AFFECTING LANDING PERFORMANCE

Equipment affecting landing performance typically includes flaps, slats, spoilers, brakes, anti-skid, autobrakes, reversers, etc. The operator should establish procedures to identify, based on the aircraft characteristics, those systems and the equipment that are performance relevant, and to ensure that they are verified to be operative before commencing the flight. Appropriate entries should be included in the minimum equipment list (MEL) to prohibit dispatch with such equipment inoperative when conducting reduced required landing distance operations.

EQUIPMENT AFFECTING LANDING PERFORMANCE

Should any item of equipment affecting landing performance become inoperative during flight, the failure will be dealt with in accordance with the abnormal/emergency procedures established in the OM and, based on the prevailing conditions for the remainder of the flight, the commander will decide upon the discontinuation of the planned operation of reduced required landing distance.

RECENCY

Flight crew conducting reduced landing distance operations should perform at least two landings with reduced landing distance, either in actual operations or in an FSTD, performed within the validity period of the operator proficiency check (OPC).

ADDITIONAL AERODROME CONDITIONS

(a) Operators should establish procedures to ensure that:

(1) the aerodrome information is obtained from an authoritative source, or when this is not available, from a source that has been verified by the operator to meet quality standards that are adequate for the intended use;

(2) any change reducing landing distances that has been declared by the aerodrome operator has been taken into account; and

(3) no steep approaches, screen heights lower than 35 ft or higher than 60 ft, operations outside the stabilised approach criteria, or low-visibility operations are required at the aerodrome when reduced required landing distance operations are conducted.

(b) Additional aerodrome conditions related to aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the approach area, available approach aids and missed approach/balked landing considerations, as well as operating limitations, should also be taken into account.

(c) When assessing the aerodrome characteristics and the level of risk of the aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway, the operator should consider the nature and location of any hazard beyond the runway end, including the topography and obstruction environment beyond the runway strip, the length of the RESA and the effectiveness of any other mitigation measures that may be in place to reduce the likelihood and the consequences of a runway overrun.

CHAPTER 3 – Performance class B

CAT.POL.A.300 General

Regulation (EU) 2017/363

(a) Unless approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA), Subpart L — SINGLE- ENGINED TURBINE AEROPLANE OPERATIONS AT NIGHT OR IN IMC (SET-IMC), the operator shall not operate a single-engined aeroplane:

(1) at night; or

(2) in IMC, except under special VFR.

(b) The operator shall treat two-engined aeroplanes that do not meet the climb requirements of CAT.POL.A.340 as single-engined aeroplanes.

CAT.POL.A.305 Take-off

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The take-off mass shall not exceed the maximum take-off mass specified in the AFM for the pressure altitude and the ambient temperature at the aerodrome of departure.

(b) The unfactored take-off distance, specified in the AFM, shall not exceed:

(1) when multiplied by a factor of 1,25, the take-off run available (TORA); or

(2) when stop way and/or clearway is available, the following:

(i) the TORA;

(ii) when multiplied by a factor of 1,15, the take-off distance available (TODA); or

(iii) when multiplied by a factor of 1,3, the ASDA.

(c) When showing compliance with (b), the following shall be taken into account:

(1) the mass of the aeroplane at the commencement of the take-off run;

(2) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(3) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome;

(4) the runway surface condition and the type of runway surface;

(5) the runway slope in the direction of take-off; and

(6) not more than 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component.

RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the AFM or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the variables affecting the take-off performance and the associated factors that should be applied to the AFM data are shown in Table 1 below. They should be applied in addition to the operational factors as prescribed in CAT.POL.A.305.

Table 1

Runway surface condition — Variables

Surface type

Condition

Factor

Grass (on firm soil) up to 20 cm long

Dry

1.2

up to 20 cm long

Wet

1.3

Paved

Wet

1.0

(b) The soil should be considered firm when there are wheel impressions but no rutting.

(c) When taking off on grass with a single-engined aeroplane, care should be taken to assess the rate of acceleration and consequent distance increase.

(d) When making a rejected take-off on very short grass that is wet and with a firm subsoil, the surface may be slippery, in which case the distances may increase significantly.

(e) The determination of take-off performance data for wet and contaminated runways, when such data is available, should be based on the reported runway surface condition in terms of contaminant and depth.

RUNWAY SLOPE

Unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the take-off distance should be increased by 5 % for each 1 % of upslope except that correction factors for runways with slopes in excess of 2 % should only be applied when the operator has demonstrated to the competent authority that the necessary data in the AFM or the operations manual contain the appropriated procedures and the crew is trained to take-off in runway with slopes in excess of 2 %.

RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION

(a) Due to the inherent risks, operations from contaminated runways are inadvisable, and should be avoided whenever possible. Therefore, it is advisable to delay the take-off until the runway is cleared.

(b) Where this is impracticable, the commander should also consider the excess runway length available including the criticality of the overrun area.

CAT.POL.A.310 Take-off obstacle clearance – multi-engined aeroplanes

Regulation (EU) No 379/2014

(a) The take-off flight path of aeroplanes with two or more engines shall be determined in such a way that the aeroplane clears all obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft, or by a horizontal distance of at least 90 m plus 0,125 × D, where D is the horizontal distance travelled by the aeroplane from the end of the TODA or the end of the take-off distance if a turn is scheduled before the end of the TODA, except as provided in (b) and (c). For aeroplanes with a wingspan of less than 60 m, a horizontal obstacle clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m plus 0,125 × D may be used. It shall be assumed that:

(1) the take-off flight path begins at a height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the take-off distance required by CAT.POL.A.305(b) and ends at a height of 1 500 ft above the surface;

(2) the aeroplane is not banked before the aeroplane has reached a height of 50 ft above the surface, and thereafter the angle of bank does not exceed 15°;

(3) failure of the critical engine occurs at the point on the all engine take-off flight path where visual reference for the purpose of avoiding obstacles is expected to be lost;

(4) the gradient of the take-off flight path from 50 ft to the assumed engine failure height is equal to the average all-engines gradient during climb and transition to the en-route configuration, multiplied by a factor of 0,77; and

(5) the gradient of the take-off flight path from the height reached in accordance with (a)(4) to the end of the take-off flight path is equal to the OEI en-route climb gradient shown in the AFM.

(b) For cases where the intended flight path does not require track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(1) 300 m, if the flight is conducted under conditions allowing visual course guidance navigation, or if navigational aids are available enabling the pilot to maintain the intended flight path with the same accuracy; or

(2) 600 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(c) For cases where the intended flight path requires track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(1) 600 m, for flights under conditions allowing visual course guidance navigation; or

(2) 900 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(d) When showing compliance with (a) to (c), the following shall be taken into account:

(1) the mass of the aeroplane at the commencement of the take-off run;

(2) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(3) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome; and

(4) not more than 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component.

(e) The requirements in (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(2) and (c)(2) shall not be applicable to VFR operations by day.

TAKE-OFF FLIGHT PATH — VISUAL COURSE GUIDANCE NAVIGATION

(a) In order to allow visual course guidance navigation, the weather conditions prevailing at the time of operation, including ceiling and visibility, should be such that the obstacle and/or ground reference points can be seen and identified. For VFR operations by night, the visual course guidance should be considered available when the flight visibility is 1 500 m or more.

(b) The operations manual should specify, for the aerodrome(s) concerned, the minimum weather conditions that enable the flight crew to continuously determine and maintain the correct flight path with respect to ground reference points so as to provide a safe clearance with respect to obstructions and terrain as follows:

(1) the procedure should be well defined with respect to ground reference points so that the track to be flown can be analysed for obstacle clearance requirements;

(2) the procedure should be within the capabilities of the aeroplane with respect to forward speed, bank angle and wind effects;

(3) a written and/or pictorial description of the procedure should be provided for crew use; and

(4) the limiting environmental conditions should be specified (e.g. wind, cloud, visibility, day/night, ambient lighting, obstruction lighting).

TAKE-OFF FLIGHT PATH CONSTRUCTION

(a) For demonstrating that the aeroplane clears all obstacles vertically, a flight path should be constructed consisting of an all-engines segment to the assumed engine failure height, followed by an engine-out segment. Where the AFM does not contain the appropriate data, the approximation given in (b) may be used for the all-engines segment for an assumed engine failure height of 200 ft, 300 ft, or higher.

(b) Flight path construction

(1) All-engines segment (50 ft to 300 ft)

The average all-engines gradient for the all-engines flight path segment starting at an altitude of 50 ft at the end of the take-off distance ending at or passing through the 300 ft point is given by the following formula:

The factor of 0.77 as required by CAT.POL.A.310 is already included where:

Y300 = average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 300 ft;

YERC = scheduled all engines en-route gross climb gradient;

VERC = en-route climb speed, all engines knots true airspeed (TAS);

V2 = take-off speed at 50 ft, knots TAS;

(2) All-engines segment (50 ft to 200 ft)

This may be used as an alternative to (b)(1) where weather minima permit. The average all-engines gradient for the all-engines flight path segment starting at an altitude of 50 ft at the end of the take-off distance ending at or passing through the 200 ft point is given by the following formula:

The factor of 0.77 as required by CAT.POL.A.310 is already included where:

Y200 = average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 200 ft;

YERC = scheduled all engines en-route gross climb gradient;

VERC = en-route climb speed, all engines, knots TAS;

V2 = take-off speed at 50 ft, knots TAS.

(3) All-engines segment (above 300 ft)

The all-engines flight path segment continuing from an altitude of 300 ft is given by the AFM en-route gross climb gradient, multiplied by a factor of 0.77.

(4) The OEI flight path

The OEI flight path is given by the OEI gradient chart contained in the AFM.

OBSTACLE CLEARANCE IN LIMITED VISIBILITY

(a) Unlike the Certification Specifications applicable for performance class A aeroplanes, those for performance class B aeroplanes do not necessarily provide for engine failure in all phases of flight. It is accepted that performance accountability for engine failure need not be considered until a height of 300 ft is reached.

(b) The weather minima given up to and including 300 ft imply that if a take-off is undertaken with minima below 300 ft, an OEI flight path should be plotted starting on the all-engines take-off flight path at the assumed engine failure height. This path should meet the vertical and lateral obstacle clearance specified in CAT.POL.A.310. Should engine failure occur below this height, the associated visibility is taken as being the minimum that would enable the pilot to make, if necessary, a forced landing broadly in the direction of the take-off. At or below 300 ft, a circle and land procedure is extremely inadvisable. The weather minima provisions specify that, if the assumed engine failure height is more than 300 ft, the visibility should be at least 1 500 m and, to allow for manoeuvring, the same minimum visibility should apply whenever the obstacle clearance criteria for a continued take-off cannot be met.

TAKE-OFF FLIGHT PATH CONSTRUCTION

(a) This GM provides examples to illustrate the method of take-off flight path construction given in AMC2 CAT.POL.A.310. The examples are based on an aeroplane for which the AFM shows, at a given mass, altitude, temperature and wind component the following performance data:

             factored take-off distance – 1 000 m;

             take-off speed, V2 – 90 kt;

             en-route climb speed, VERC – 120 kt;

             en-route all-engines climb gradient, YERC – 0.2;

             en-route OEI climb gradient, YERC-1 – 0.032.

(1) Assumed engine failure height 300 ft

The average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 300 ft may be read from Figure 1 or calculated with the following formula:

The factor of 0.77 as required by CAT.POL.A.310 is already included where:

             Y300 = average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 300 ft;

             YERC = scheduled all engines en-route gross climb gradient;

             VERC = en-route climb speed, all engines knots TAS; and

             V2 = take-off speed at 50 ft, knots TAS.

Figure 1

Assumed engine failure height 300 ft

(2) Assumed engine failure height 200 ft

The average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 200 ft may be read from Figure 2 or calculated with the following formula:

The factor of 0.77 as required by CAT.POL.A.310 is already included where:

             Y200 = average all-engines gradient from 50 ft to 200 ft;

             YERC = scheduled all engines en-route gross gradient;

             VERC = en-route climb speed, all engines, knots TAS; and

             V2 = take-off speed at 50 ft, knots TAS.

Figure 2

Assumed engine failure height 200 ft

(3) Assumed engine failure height less than 200 ft

Construction of a take-off flight path is only possible if the AFM contains the required flight path data.

(4) Assumed engine failure height more than 300 ft

The construction of a take-off flight path for an assumed engine failure height of 400 ft is illustrated below.

Figure 3

Assumed engine failure height less than 200 ft

CAT.POL.A.315 En-route – multi-engined aeroplanes

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The aeroplane, in the meteorological conditions expected for the flight and in the event of the failure of one engine, with the remaining engines operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified, shall be capable of continuing flight at or above the relevant minimum altitudes for safe flight stated in the operations manual to a point of 1 000 ft above an aerodrome at which the performance requirements can be met.

(b) It shall be assumed that, at the point of engine failure:

(1) the aeroplane is not flying at an altitude exceeding that at which the rate of climb equals 300 ft per minute with all engines operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified; and

(2) the en-route gradient with OEI shall be the gross gradient of descent or climb, as appropriate, respectively increased by a gradient of 0,5 %, or decreased by a gradient of 0,5 %.

CRUISING ALTITUDE

(a) The altitude at which the rate of climb equals 300 ft per minute is not a restriction on the maximum cruising altitude at which the aeroplane can fly in practice, it is merely the maximum altitude from which the driftdown procedure can be planned to start.

(b) Aeroplanes may be planned to clear en-route obstacles assuming a driftdown procedure, having first increased the scheduled en-route OEI descent data by 0.5 % gradient.

CAT.POL.A.320 En-route – single-engined aeroplanes

Regulation (EU) 2017/363

(a) In the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, and in the event of engine failure, the aeroplane shall be capable of reaching a place at which a safe forced landing can be made, unless the operator is approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part-SPA), Subpart L — SINGLE-ENGINED TURBINE AEROPLANE OPERATIONS AT NIGHT OR IN IMC (SET-IMC) and makes use of a risk period.

(b) For the purposes of point (a), it shall be assumed that, at the point of engine failure:

(1) the aeroplane is not flying at an altitude exceeding that at which the rate of climb equals 300 ft per minute, with the engine operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified; and

(2) the en-route gradient is the gross gradient of descent increased by a gradient of 0,5 %.

ENGINE FAILURE

CAT.POL.A.320requires the operator not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Subpart L (SET-IMC) of Annex V (Part-SPA) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, and not making use of a risk period, to ensure that in the event of an engine failure, the aeroplane should be capable of reaching a point from which a safe forced landing can be made. Unless otherwise specified by the competent authority, this point should be 1 000 ft above the intended landing area.

ENGINE FAILURE

Considerations for the operator not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Subpart L (SET-IMC) of Annex V (Part-SPA) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, and not making use of a risk period:

(a) In the event of an engine failure, single-engined aeroplanes have to rely on gliding to a point suitable for a safe forced landing. Such a procedure is clearly incompatible with flight above a cloud layer that extends below the relevant minimum safe altitude.

(b) The operator should first increase the scheduled engine-inoperative gliding performance data by 0.5 % gradient when verifying the en-route clearance of obstacles and the ability to reach a suitable place for a forced landing.

(c) The altitude at which the rate of climb equals 300 ft per minute is not a restriction on the maximum cruising altitude at which the aeroplane can fly in practice, it is merely the maximum altitude from which the engine-inoperative procedure can be planned to start.

RISK PERIOD

In the context of commercial air transport operations with single-engined turbine aeroplanes in instrument meteorological conditions or at night (CAT SET-IMC), a risk period is a period of flight during which no landing site has been selected by the operator.

CAT.POL.A.325 Landing – destination and alternate aerodromes

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.105(a) shall not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected at the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and alternate aerodrome.

ALTITUDE MEASURING

The operator should use either pressure altitude or geometric altitude for its operation and this should be reflected in the operations manual.

CAT.POL.A.330 Landing – dry runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.105(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and at any alternate aerodrome shall allow a full-stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold within 70 % of the LDA.

(b) By way of derogation from point (a), and where point CAT.POL.A.355 is complied with, the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.105(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome shall be such as to allow a full-stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold within 80 % of the LDA.

(c) When determining the landing mass, the operator shall take the following into account:

(1) the altitude at the aerodrome;

(2) not more than 50 % of the headwind component or not less than 150 % of the tailwind component;

(3) the type of runway surface;

(4) the runway slope in the direction of landing.

(d) For steep approach operations, the operator shall use landing distance data factored in accordance with point (a), based on a screen height of less than 60 ft, but not less than 35 ft, and comply with point CAT.POL.A.345.

(e) For short landing operations, the operator shall use landing distance data factored in accordance with point (a), and comply with point CAT.POL.A.350.

(f) For dispatching the aeroplane, the aeroplane shall either:

(1) land on the most favourable runway, in still air;

(2) land on the runway most likely to be assigned considering the probable wind speed and direction, the ground-handling characteristics of the aeroplane and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.

(g) If the operator is unable to comply with point (f)(2) for the destination aerodrome, the aeroplane shall only be dispatched if an alternate aerodrome is designated that permits full compliance with points (a) to (f).

LANDING DISTANCE CORRECTION FACTORS

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturers, the variable affecting the landing performance and the associated factor that should be applied to the AFM data are shown in the table below. It should be applied in addition to the operational factors as prescribed in CAT.POL.A.330 (a) and CAT.POL.A.330(b).

Table 1

Landing distance correction factors

Surface type

Factor

Grass (on firm soil up to 20 cm long)

1.15

(b) The soil should be considered firm when there are wheel impressions but no rutting.

RUNWAY SLOPE

Unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the landing distances required should be increased by 5 % for each 1 % of downslope.

LANDING MASS

CAT.POL.A.330 establishes two considerations in determining the maximum permissible landing mass at the destination and alternate aerodromes.

(a) Firstly, the aeroplane mass will be such that on arrival the aeroplane can be landed within 70 % or 80 %, as applicable, of the LDA on the most favourable (normally the longest) runway in still air. Regardless of the wind conditions, the maximum landing mass for an aerodrome/aeroplane configuration at a particular aerodrome cannot be exceeded.

(b) Secondly, consideration should be given to anticipated conditions and circumstances. The expected wind, or ATC and noise abatement procedures, may indicate the use of a different runway. These factors may result in a lower landing mass than that permitted under (a), in which case dispatch should be based on this lesser mass.

(c) The expected wind referred to in (b) is the wind expected to exist at the time of arrival.

ALTERNATE AERODROMES

The alternate aerodromes for which the landing mass is required to be determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.330 are:

(a) destination alternate aerodromes;

(b) fuel ERA aerodromes; and

(c) re-dispatch or re-clearance aerodromes.

CAT.POL.A.335 Landing – wet and contaminated runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) When the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be wet, the LDA shall be one of the following distances:

(1) a landing distance provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, but not less than that required by point CAT.POL.A.330;

(2) if a landing distance is not provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, at least 115 % of the required landing distance, determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.330(a);

(3) a landing distance shorter than that required by point (a)(2), but not less than that required by point CAT.POL.A.330(a), as applicable, if the runway has specific friction improving characteristics and the AFM includes specific additional information for landing distance on that runway type;

(4) by way of derogation from points (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), for aeroplanes that are approved for reduced landing distance operations under point CAT.POL.A.355, the landing distance determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.355(b)(7)(iii).

(b) When the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be contaminated, the landing distance shall not exceed the LDA. The operator shall specify in the operations manual the landing distance data to be applied.

WET AND CONTAMINATED RUNWAY DATA

The determination of landing performance data should be based on information provided in the OM on the reported RWYCC. The RWYCC is determined by the aerodrome operator using the RCAM and associated procedures defined in Annex V (Part-ADR.OPS) to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014. The RWYCC is reported through an RCR in the SNOWTAM format in accordance with ICAO Annex 15.

LANDING ON WET GRASS RUNWAYS

(a) When landing on very short grass that is wet and with a firm subsoil, the surface may be slippery, in which case the distances may increase by as much as 60 % (1.60 factor).

(b) As it may not be possible for a pilot to determine accurately the degree of wetness of the grass, particularly when airborne, in cases of doubt, the use of the wet factor (1.15) is recommended.

DISPATCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARGINAL CASES

The LDTA required by CAT.OP.MPA.303 may, in some cases, and in particular on wet or contaminated runways, exceeds the landing distance considered at the time of dispatch. The requirements for dispatch remain unchanged; however, when the conditions at the time of arrival are expected to be marginal, it is a good practice to carry out at the time of dispatch a preliminary calculation of the LDTA.

AFM LANDING DISTANCES FOR WET RUNWAYS

Specific landing distances provided in the AFM for dispatch on wet runways, unless otherwise indicated, include a safety factor, which renders the application of the 15 % safety factor used in CAT.POL.A.335(a)(2) not necessary. This implies that the AFM distance may be presented as factored distance. When the AFM distance is not factored, a safety factor of 15 % should be applied. These distances may be longer or shorter than those resulting from CAT.POL.A.335(a)(2), but when provided, they are intended as a replacement of CAT.POL.A.335(a)(2) and it is mandatory to be used at the time of dispatch.

RUNWAYS WITH FRICTION IMPROVING CHARACTERISTICS

(a) Materials or construction techniques meant to improve the friction characteristics of a runway may be grooved runways, runways treated with PFC or other materials or techniques for which the AFM provides specific performance data.

(b) Before taking the AFM performance credit for such runways, the operator should verify that the runways intended to be operated on are maintained to the extent necessary to ensure the expected improved friction characteristics.

LANDING DISTANCES AND CORRECTIVE FACTORS

The AFM provides performance data for the landing distance under conditions defined in the applicable certification standards. This distance, commonly referred to as the ALD, is the distance from the position on the runway of the screen height to the point where the aeroplane comes to a full stop on a dry runway.

The determination of the ALD is based on the assumption that the landing is performed in accordance with the conditions and the procedures set out in the AFM on the basis of the applicable certification standards.

As a matter of fact, any particular landing may be different from the landing technique that is assumed in the AFM for certification purposes. The aircraft may approach the runway faster and/or higher than assumed; the aircraft may touch down further along the runway than the optimum point; the actual winds and other weather factors may be different from those assumed in the calculation of the ALD; and maximum braking may not be always achievable. For this reason, the LDA is required by CAT.POL.A.330 and CAT.POL.A.335 to be longer than the ALD.

The margins by which the LDA shall exceed the ALD on dry runways, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.330, are shown in the following Table 1.

Table 1: Corrective factors for dry runways

Aeroplane category

Required Margin (dry runway)

Resulting factor (dry runway)

All aeroplanes

ALD < 70 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.43 x ALD

Aeroplanes approved under CAT.POL.A.355

ALD < 80 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.25 x ALD

If the runway is wet and the AFM does not provide specific performance data for dispatch on wet runways, a further increase of 15 % of the landing distance on dry runways has to be applied, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.335, as shown in the following Table 2:

Table 2: Corrective factors for wet runways

Aeroplane category

Resulting factor (dry runway)

All aeroplanes

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.43 x ALD = 1.64 x ALD

Aeroplanes approved under CAT.POL.A.355

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.25 X ALD = 1.44 x ALD

However, for aeroplanes approved under CAT.POL.A.355, when landing on wet runways, CAT.POL.A.355 further requires the flight crew to apply the longer of the landing distance resulting from the above table and the landing distance resulting from the application of CAT.OP.MPA.303(b).). If performance information for the assessment of LDTA is not available as per CAT.OP.MPA.303(b)(2), the required landing distance on wet runways should be at least: 1.15 x 1.67 x ALD for turbojet-powered aircraft and 1.15 x 1.43 x ALD for turbopropeller-powered aircraft.

CAT.POL.A.340 Take-off and landing climb requirements

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

The operator of a two-engined aeroplane shall fulfil the following take-off and landing climb requirements.

(a) Take-off climb

(1) All engines operating

(i) The steady gradient of climb after take-off shall be at least 4 % with:

(A) take-off power on each engine;

(B) the landing gear extended, except that if the landing gear can be retracted in not more than seven seconds, it may be assumed to be retracted;

(C) the wing flaps in the take-off position(s); and

(D) a climb speed not less than the greater of 1,1 VMC (minimum control speed on or near ground) and 1,2 VS1 (stall speed or minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration).

(2) OEI

(i) The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 ft above the take-off surface shall be measurably positive with:

(A) the critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;

(B) the remaining engine at take-off power;

(C) the landing gear retracted;

(D) the wing flaps in the take-off position(s); and

(E) a climb speed equal to that achieved at 50 ft.

(ii) The steady gradient of climb shall be not less than 0,75 % at an altitude of 1 500 ft above the take-off surface with:

(A) the critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;

(B) the remaining engine at not more than maximum continuous power;

(C) the landing gear retracted;

(D) the wing flaps retracted; and

(E) a climb speed not less than 1,2 VS1.

(b) Landing climb

(1) All engines operating

(i) The steady gradient of climb shall be at least 2,5 % with:

(A) not more than the power or thrust that is available eight seconds after initiation of movement of the power controls from the minimum flight idle position;

(B) the landing gear extended;

(C) the wing flaps in the landing position; and

(D) a climb speed equal to VREF (reference landing speed).

(2) OEI

(i) The steady gradient of climb shall be not less than 0,75 % at an altitude of 1 500 ft above the landing surface with:

(A) the critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the minimum drag position;

(B) the remaining engine at not more than maximum continuous power;

(C) the landing gear retracted;

(D) the wing flaps retracted; and

(E) a climb speed not less than 1,2 VS1.

CAT.POL.A.345 Approval of steep approach operations

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

 (a) Steep approach operations using glideslope angles of 4,5° or more and with screen heights of less than 60 ft, but not less than 35 ft, require prior approval by the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval, the operator shall provide evidence that the following conditions are met:

(1) the AFM states the maximum approved glideslope angle, any other limitations, normal, abnormal or emergency procedures for the steep approach as well as amendments to the field length data when using steep approach criteria; and

(2) for each aerodrome at which steep approach operations are to be conducted:

(i) a suitable glide path reference system, comprising at least a visual glide path indicating system, is available;

(ii) weather minima are specified; and

(iii) the following items are taken into consideration:

(A) the obstacle situation;

(B) the type of glide path reference and runway guidance;

(C) the minimum visual reference to be required at DH and MDA;

(D) available airborne equipment;

(E) pilot qualification and special aerodrome familiarisation;

(F) AFM limitations and procedures; and

(G) missed approach criteria.

SCREEN HEIGHT

For the purpose of steep approach operations, the screen height is the reference height above the runway surface, typically above the runway threshold, from which the landing distance is measured. The screen height is set at 50 ft for normal operations and at another value between 60 ft and 35 ft for steep approach operations.

CAT.POL.A.350 Approval of short landing operations

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) Short landing operations require prior approval by the competent authority.

(b) To obtain the approval, the operator shall provide evidence that the following conditions are met:

(1) the distance used for the calculation of the permitted landing mass may consist of the usable length of the declared safe area plus the declared LDA;

(2) the use of the declared safe area is approved by the State of the aerodrome;

(3) the declared safe area is clear of obstructions or depressions that would endanger an aeroplane undershooting the runway and no mobile object is permitted on the declared safe area while the runway is being used for short landing operations;

(4) the slope of the declared safe area does not exceed 5 % upward nor 2 % downward slope in the direction of landing;

(5) the usable length of the declared safe area does not exceed 90 m;

(6) the width of the declared safe area is not less than twice the runway width, centred on the extended runway centreline;

(7) the crossing height over the beginning of the usable length of the declared safe area is not less than 50 ft;

(8) weather minima are specified for each runway to be used and are not less than the greater of VFR or NPA minima;

(9) pilot experience, training and special aerodrome familiarisation requirements are specified and met;

(10) additional conditions, if specified by the competent authority, taking into account the aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the approach area, available approach aids and missed approach/balked landing considerations.

CAT.POL.A.355 Approval of reduced required landing distance operations

Regulation (EU) 2020/1176

(a) Operations with a landing mass of the aeroplane that allows a full-stop landing within 80 % of the landing distance available (LDA) require prior approval by the competent authority. Such approval shall be obtained for each runway on which operations with reduced required landing distance are conducted.

(b) To obtain the approval referred to in point (a), the operator shall conduct a risk assessment to demonstrate that a level of safety equivalent to that intended by point CAT.POL.A.330(a) is achieved and at least the following conditions are met:

(1) the State of the aerodrome has determined a public interest and operational necessity for the operation, either due to the remoteness of the aerodrome or to physical limitations relating to the extension of the runway;

(2) short landing operations in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.350 and approaches outside stabilised approach criteria approved under point CAT.OP.MPA.115(a) are prohibited;

(3) landing on contaminated runways is prohibited;

(4) a specific control procedure of the touchdown area is defined in the operations manual (OM) and implemented; this procedure shall include adequate go-around and balked-landing instructions when touchdown in the defined area cannot be achieved;

(5) an adequate aerodrome training and checking programme for the flight crew is established;

(6) the flight crew is qualified and has recency in reduced required landing distance operations at the aerodrome concerned;

(7) an aerodrome landing analysis programme (ALAP) is established by the operator to ensure that the following conditions are met:

(i) no tailwind is forecast at the expected time of arrival;

(ii) if the runway is forecast to be wet at the expected time of arrival, the landing distance at dispatch shall either be determined in accordance with point CAT.OP.MPA.303(c), or shall be 115 % of the landing distance determined for dry runways, whichever is longer;

(iii) no forecast contaminated runway conditions exist at the expected time of arrival;

(iv) no forecast adverse weather conditions exist at the expected time of arrival;

(8) operational procedures are established to ensure that:

(i) all the equipment that affects landing performance and landing distance is operative before commencing the flight;

(ii) deceleration devices are correctly used by the flight crew;

(9) specific maintenance instructions and operational procedures are established for the aeroplane’s deceleration devices to enhance the reliability of those systems;

(10) the final approach and landing are conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) only;

(11) additional aerodrome conditions, if specified by the competent authority that has certified the aerodrome, taking into account orographic characteristics of the approach area, available approach aids, missed-approach and balked-landing considerations.

EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

A level of safety equivalent to that intended by CAT.POL.A.330(a) may be achieved when conducting reduced required landing distance operations if mitigating measures are established and implemented. Such measures should address flight crew, aircraft characteristics and performance, aerodromes and operations. It is, however, essential that all conditions established are adhered to as it is the combination of said conditions that achieves the intended level of safety. The operator should in fact also consider the interrelation of the various mitigating measures.

The competent authority may require other mitigating measures in addition to those proposed by the operator.

CONTROL OF THE TOUCHDOWN AREA

The control of the touchdown area may be ensured by using external references visible from the flight crew compartment. The end of the designated touchdown area should be clearly identified with a ground reference point beyond which a go-around is required. Adequate go-around and balked landing instructions should be established in the OM. A written and/or pictorial description of the procedure should be provided for crew use.

TYPE EXPERIENCE

The operator should specify in the OM the minimum pilot’s experience on the aircraft type or class used to conduct such operations.

TRAINING PROGRAMME

(a) Initial training

(1) The aerodrome training programme shall include ground and flight training with a suitably qualified instructor.

(2) Flight training should be carried out on the runway of the intended operations, and should include a suitable number of:

(i) approaches and landings; and

(ii) missed approach/balked landings.

(3) When performing approaches and landings, particular emphasis should be placed on:

(i) stabilised approach criteria;

(ii) accuracy of flare and touchdown;

(iii) positive identification of the ground reference point controlling the touchdown area; and

(iv) correct use of deceleration devices.

(4) These exercises should be conducted in accordance with the specific control procedure of the touchdown area established by the operator and should enable the flight crew to identify the external visual references and the designated touchdown area.

(b) Recurrent training

 The operator should ensure that in conjunction with the recurrent training and checking programme required by Subpart FC of Annex III (Part-ORO) to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, the pilot’s knowledge and ability to perform the tasks associated with this particular operation, for which the pilot is authorised by the operator, are verified.

RECENCY

The operator should define in the OM appropriate recent-experience requirements to ensure that the pilot’s ability to perform an approach to and landing on the intended runway is maintained.

AERODROME LANDING ANALYSIS PROGRAMME (ALAP)

The intent of an ALAP is to ensure that the aerodrome critical data related to landing performance in reduced required landing distance operations is known and taken into account in order to avoid any further increase of the landing distance. Two important aerodrome-related variables largely contribute to increasing the landing distance: landing (ground) speed and deceleration capability. Related factors to consider should include at least the following elements:

(a) Topography

Terrain around the aerodrome should be considered. High, fast-rising terrain may require special approach or decision points, missed approach or balked landing procedures and may affect landing performance. Aerodromes located on top of hilly terrain or downwind of mountainous terrain may occasionally experience conditions of wind shear and gusts. Such conditions are particularly relevant during the landing manoeuvre, particularly during the flare, and may increase landing distance.

(b) Runway conditions

Runway characteristics, such as unknown slope and surface composition, can cause the actual landing distance to be longer than the calculated landing distance. Braking action always impacts the landing distance required as it deteriorates. To this regard, consideration should be given to, and information obtained on, the maintenance status of the runway, as a wet runway surface may be significantly degraded due to poor aerodrome maintenance.

(c) Aerodrome or area weather

Some aerodromes may not have current weather reports and forecast available for flight planning. Others may have automated observations for operational use. Others may depend on the weather forecast of a nearby aerodrome. Area forecasts are also valuable in evaluating weather conditions for a particular operation. Comparing forecasted conditions to current conditions provides insight on upcoming changes as weather systems move and forecasts are updated. Longer flight segments may lean more heavily on the forecast for the ETA, as current conditions may change significantly as weather systems move. The most important factors that should be considered are contained in AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.300(a), AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.311, GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.311, GM1 CAT.OP.MPA.303 and GM2 CAT.OP.MPA.303.

(d) Adverse weather

Adverse weather conditions include, but are not restricted to, thunderstorms, showers, downbursts, squall lines, tornadoes, moderate or severe turbulence on approach, heavy precipitation, wind shear and icing conditions. In general, all weather phenomena having the potential to increase the landing distance should be carefully assessed. Among these, tailwind is particularly relevant.

Wind variations should be carefully monitored as they may lead to variations in the reported and/or actual wind at the touchdown zone. Due consideration should be given also to the crosswind perpendicular to the landing runway as a slight variation in the direction of the crosswind may result in a considerable tailwind component.

(e) Runway safety margins

Displaced thresholds, aerodrome construction, and temporary obstacles (such as cranes and drawbridges) may impact the runway length available for landing. NOTAMs must be consulted during the flight preparation. Another safety margin is the size and adequacy of the runway strip and the RESA. A well-designed and well-maintained runway strip and RESA decrease the risk of damaging

AERODROME LANDING ANALYSIS PROGRAMME (ALAP) — AERODROME FACILITIES

The ALAP may also consider the services that are available at the aerodrome. Services such as communications, maintenance, and fuelling, availability of adequate RFFS and medical services may have an impact on operations to and from that aerodrome, though not directly related to the landing distance. It is also worth considering whether the aerodrome is only meeting ICAO and national standards or also ICAO recommendations, as well as when the aerodrome bearing ratios are below the design and maintenance criteria indicated in ICAO Doc 9157 ‘Aerodrome Design Manual’.

EQUIPMENT AFFECTING LANDING PERFORMANCE

Equipment affecting landing performance typically includes flaps, slats, spoilers, brakes, anti-skid, autobrakes, reversers, etc. The operator should establish procedures to identify, based on the aircraft characteristics, those systems and the equipment that are performance relevant, and to ensure that they are verified to be operative before commencing the flight. Appropriate entries should be included in the MEL to prohibit dispatch with such equipment inoperative when conducting reduced required landing distance operations.

EQUIPMENT AFFECTING LANDING PERFORMANCE

Should any item of equipment affecting landing performance become inoperative during flight, the failure will be dealt with in accordance with the abnormal/emergency procedures established in the OM and, based on the prevailing conditions for the remainder of the flight, the commander will decide upon the discontinuation of the planned operation of reduced required landing distance.

CORRECT USE OF DECELERATION DEVICES

Flight crew should use full reverse when landing, irrespective of any noise-related restriction on its use, unless this affects the controllability of the aircraft. The use of all stopping devices, including reverse thrust, should commence immediately after touchdown without any delay.

SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS

Additional maintenance instructions, such as, but not limited to, more frequent checks for the aircraft’s deceleration devices, especially for the reverse system, should be established by the operator in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, and be included in the operator’s maintenance programme in accordance with Annex I (Part-M) to Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014.

SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES

The operator should establish procedures for the flight crew to check before take-off the correct deployment of the deceleration devices, such as the reverse system.

ADDITIONAL AERODROME CONDITIONS

(a) Operators should establish procedures to ensure that:

(1) the aerodrome information is obtained from an authoritative source, or when this is not available, from a source that has been verified by the operator to meet quality standards that are adequate for the intended use; and

(2) any change reducing landing distances that has been declared by the aerodrome operator has been taken into account.

(b) Additional aerodrome conditions related to aeroplane type characteristics, orographic characteristics in the approach area, available approach aids and missed approach/balked landing considerations, as well as operating limitations, should also be taken into account.

(c) When assessing the aerodrome characteristics and the level of risk of the aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway, the operator should consider the nature and location of any hazard beyond the runway end, including the topography and obstruction environment beyond the runway strip, the length of the RESA and the effectiveness of any other mitigation measures that may be in place to reduce the likelihood and the consequences of a runway overrun.

CHAPTER 4 – Performance class C

CAT.POL.A.400 Take-off

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The take-off mass shall not exceed the maximum take-off mass specified in the AFM for the pressure altitude and the ambient temperature at the aerodrome of departure.

(b) For aeroplanes that have take-off field length data contained in their AFM that do not include engine failure accountability, the distance from the start of the take-off roll required by the aeroplane to reach a height of 50 ft above the surface with all engines operating within the maximum take-off power conditions specified, when multiplied by a factor of either:

(1) 1,33 for aeroplanes having two engines;

(2) 1,25 for aeroplanes having three engines; or

(3) 1,18 for aeroplanes having four engines,

shall not exceed the take-off run available (TORA) at the aerodrome at which the take-off is to be made.

(c) For aeroplanes that have take-off field length data contained in their AFM which accounts for engine failure, the following requirements shall be met in accordance with the specifications in the AFM:

(1) the accelerate-stop distance shall not exceed the ASDA;

(2) the take-off distance shall not exceed the take-off distance available (TODA), with a clearway distance not exceeding half of the TORA;

(3) the take-off run shall not exceed the TORA;

(4) a single value of V1 for the rejected and continued take-off shall be used; and

(5) on a wet or contaminated runway the take-off mass shall not exceed that permitted for a take-off on a dry runway under the same conditions.

(d) The following shall be taken into account:

(1) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(2) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome;

(3) the runway surface condition and the type of runway surface;

(4) the runway slope in the direction of take-off;

(5) not more that 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component; and

(6) the loss, if any, of runway length due to alignment of the aeroplane prior to take-off.

LOSS OF RUNWAY LENGTH DUE TO ALIGNMENT

(a) The length of the runway that is declared for the calculation of TODA, ASDA and TORA does not account for line-up of the aeroplane in the direction of take-off on the runway in use. This alignment distance depends on the aeroplane geometry and access possibility to the runway in use. Accountability is usually required for a 90°-taxiway entry to the runway and 180°-turnaround on the runway. There are two distances to be considered:

(1) the minimum distance of the main wheels from the start of the runway for determining TODA and TORA, ‘L’; and

(2) the minimum distance of the most forward wheel(s) from the start of the runway for determining ASDA, ‘N’.

Figure 1

Line-up of the aeroplane in the direction of take-off — L and N

Where the aeroplane manufacturer does not provide the appropriate data, the calculation method given in (b) may be used to determine the alignment distance.

(b) Alignment distance calculation

The distances mentioned in (a)(1) and (a)(2) above are:

 

90°-entry

180°-turnaround

L =

RM + X

RN + Y

N =

RM + X + WB

RN + Y + WB

where:

RN = A + WN = WB/cos(90°-α) + WN

X   =  safety distance of outer main wheel during turn to the edge of the runway

Y   =  safety distance of outer nose wheel during turn to the edge of the runway

Note:  Minimum edge safety distances for X and Y are specified in FAA AC 150/5300-13 and ICAO Annex 14, 3.8.3

RN  =  radius of turn of outer nose wheel

RM = radius of turn of outer main wheel

WN = distance from aeroplane centre-line to outer nose wheel

WM = distance from aeroplane centre-line to outer main wheel

WM = wheel base

α   =  steering angle.

RUNWAY SLOPE

Unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturers, the take-off distance should be increased by 5 % for each 1 % of upslope. However, correction factors for runways with slopes in excess of 2 % should only be applied when:

(a) the operator has demonstrated to the competent authority that the necessary data in the AFM or the operations manual contain the appropriated procedures; and

(b) the crew is trained to take-off on runways with slopes in excess of 2 %.

AMC3 CAT.POL.A.400 Take-off

ED Decision 2021/005/R

RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION

The determination of take-off performance data for wet and contaminated runways, when such data is available, should be based on the reported runway surface condition in terms of contaminant and depth.

RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITION

Operation on runways contaminated with water, slush, snow or ice implies uncertainties with regard to runway friction and contaminant drag and, therefore, to the achievable performance and control of the aeroplane during take-off, since the actual conditions may not completely match the assumptions on which the performance information is based. An adequate overall level of safety can, therefore, only be maintained if such operations are limited to rare occasions. In case of a contaminated runway, the first option for the commander is to wait until the runway is cleared. If this is impracticable, he/she may consider a take-off, provided that he/she has applied the applicable performance adjustments, and any further safety measures he/she considers justified under the prevailing conditions.

CAT.POL.A.405 Take-off obstacle clearance

Regulation (EU) No 379/2014

(a) The take-off flight path with OEI shall be determined such that the aeroplane clears all obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft plus 0,01 × D, or by a horizontal distance of at least 90 m plus 0,125 × D, where D is the horizontal distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of the TODA. For aeroplanes with a wingspan of less than 60 m, a horizontal obstacle clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m plus 0,125 × D may be used.

(b) The take-off flight path shall begin at a height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the take-off distance required by CAT.POL.A.400(b) or (c), as applicable, and end at a height of 1500 ft above the surface.

(c) When showing compliance with (a), the following shall be taken into account:

(1) the mass of the aeroplane at the commencement of the take-off run;

(2) the pressure altitude at the aerodrome;

(3) the ambient temperature at the aerodrome; and

(4) not more than 50 % of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 % of the reported tailwind component.

(d) Track changes shall not be allowed up to that point of the take-off flight path where a height of 50 ft above the surface has been achieved. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater than 15°, but not more than 25°, may be scheduled. Adequate allowance shall be made for the effect of bank angle on operating speeds and flight path, including the distance increments resulting from increased operating speeds.

(e) For cases that do not require track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(1) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain the required navigational accuracy through the obstacle accountability area; or

(2) 600 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(f) For cases that do require track changes of more than 15°, the operator does not need to consider those obstacles that have a lateral distance greater than:

(1) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain the required navigational accuracy through the obstacle accountability area; or

(2) 900 m, for flights under all other conditions.

(g) The operator shall establish contingency procedures to satisfy (a) to (f) and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles, to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the en-route requirements of CAT.POL.A.410, or land at either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off alternate aerodrome.

EFFECT OF BANK ANGLES

(a) The AFM generally provides a climb gradient decrement for a 15° bank turn. Unless otherwise specified in the AFM or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, acceptable adjustments to assure adequate stall margins and gradient corrections are provided by the following:

Table 1

Effect of bank angles

Bank

Speed

Gradient correction

15°

V2

1 x AFM 15° gradient loss

20°

V2 + 5 kt

2 x AFM 15° gradient loss

25°

V2 + 10 kt

3 x AFM 15° gradient loss

(b) For bank angles of less than 15°, a proportionate amount may be applied, unless the manufacturer or AFM has provided other data.

REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL ACCURACY

(a) Navigation systems

The obstacle accountability semi-widths of 300 m and 600 m may be used if the navigation system under OEI conditions provides a two-standard deviation accuracy of 150 m and 300 m respectively.

(b) Visual course guidance

(1) The obstacle accountability semi-widths of 300 m and 600 m may be used where navigational accuracy is ensured at all relevant points on the flight path by use of external references. These references may be considered visible from the flight crew compartment if they are situated more than 45° either side of the intended track and with a depression of not greater than 20° from the horizontal.

(2) For visual course guidance navigation, the operator should ensure that the weather conditions prevailing at the time of operation, including ceiling and visibility, are such that the obstacle and/or ground reference points can be seen and identified. The operations manual should specify, for the aerodrome(s) concerned, the minimum weather conditions that enable the flight crew to continuously determine and maintain the correct flight path with respect to ground reference points, so as to provide a safe clearance with respect to obstructions and terrain as follows:

(i) the procedure should be well defined with respect to ground reference points so that the track to be flown can be analysed for obstacle clearance requirements;

(ii) the procedure should be within the capabilities of the aeroplane with respect to forward speed, bank angle and wind effects;

(iii) a written and/or pictorial description of the procedure should be provided for crew use; and

(iv) the limiting environmental conditions (such as wind, the lowest cloud base, ceiling, visibility, day/night, ambient lighting, obstruction lighting) should be specified.

CAT.POL.A.410 En-route – all engines operating

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) In the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, at any point on its route or on any planned diversion therefrom, the aeroplane shall be capable of a rate of climb of at least 300 ft per minute with all engines operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified at:

(1) the minimum altitudes for safe flight on each stage of the route to be flown, or of any planned diversion therefrom, specified in or calculated from the information contained in the operations manual relating to the aeroplane; and

(2) the minimum altitudes necessary for compliance with the conditions prescribed in CAT.POL.A.415 and 420, as appropriate.

CAT.POL.A.415 En-route – OEI

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) In the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, in the event of any one engine becoming inoperative at any point on its route or on any planned diversion therefrom and with the other engine(s) operating within the maximum continuous power conditions specified, the aeroplane shall be capable of continuing the flight from the cruising altitude to an aerodrome where a landing can be made in accordance with CAT.POL.A.430 or CAT.POL.A.435, as appropriate. The aeroplane shall clear obstacles within 9,3 km (5 NM) either side of the intended track by a vertical interval of at least:

(1) 1 000 ft, when the rate of climb is zero or greater; or

(2) 2 000 ft, when the rate of climb is less than zero.

(b) The flight path shall have a positive slope at an altitude of 450 m (1 500 ft) above the aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made after the failure of one engine.

(c) The available rate of climb of the aeroplane shall be taken to be 150 ft per minute less than the gross rate of climb specified.

(d) The width margins provided for in point (a) shall be increased to 18,5 km (10 NM) if the navigational accuracy does not meet at least navigation specification RNAV 5.

(e) Fuel jettisoning is permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome where the aeroplane is assumed to land after engine failure with the required fuel reserves in accordance with point CAT.OP.MPA.150, appropriate for an alternate aerodrome, if a safe procedure is used.

ROUTE ANALYSIS

The high terrain or obstacle analysis should be carried out by making a detailed analysis of the route using contour maps of the high terrain, and plotting the highest points within the prescribed corridor width along the route. The next step is to determine whether it is possible to maintain level flight with OEI 1 000 ft above the highest point of the crossing. If this is not possible, or if the associated weight penalties are unacceptable, a drift down procedure must be evaluated, based on engine failure at the most critical point, and must show obstacle clearance during the drift down by at least 2 000 ft. The minimum cruise altitude is determined from the drift down path, taking into account allowances for decision making, and the reduction in the scheduled rate of climb (See Figure 1).

Figure 1

Intersection of the drift down paths

CAT.POL.A.420 En-route – aeroplanes with three or more engines, two engines inoperative

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) An aeroplane that has three or more engines shall not be away from an aerodrome at which the requirements of point CAT.POL.A.430 for the expected landing mass are met, at any point along the intended track for more than 90 minutes with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate, at standard temperature in still air, unless points (b) to (e) of this point are complied with.

(b) The two-engines-inoperative flight path shall permit the aeroplane to continue the flight, in the expected meteorological conditions, clearing all obstacles within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track by a vertical interval of at least 2 000 ft, to an aerodrome at which the performance requirements applicable for the expected landing mass are met.

(c) The two engines shall be assumed to fail at the most critical point of that portion of the route where the aeroplane is operated for more than 90 minutes, with all engines operating at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate, at standard temperature in still air, away from the aerodrome referred to in point (a).

(d) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel to proceed to an aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made and to arrive there at an altitude of at least 450 m (1 500 ft) directly over the landing area and thereafter to fly for 15 minutes at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate.

[applicable until 29 October 2022]

(d) The expected mass of the aeroplane at the point where the two engines are assumed to fail shall not be less than that which would include sufficient fuel/energy to proceed to an aerodrome where the landing is assumed to be made, and to arrive there at an altitude of at least 1 500 ft (450 m) directly over the landing area, and thereafter, to fly for 15 minutes at cruising power or thrust, as appropriate.

[applicable from 30 October 2022 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1296]

(e) The available rate of climb of the aeroplane shall be 150 ft per minute less than that specified.

(f) The width margins provided for in point (b) shall be increased to 18,5 km (10 NM) if the navigational accuracy does not meet at least navigation specification RNAV 5.

(g) Fuel jettisoning is permitted to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome with the required fuel reserves in accordance with point (d), if a safe procedure is used.

CAT.POL.A.425 Landing – destination and alternate aerodromes

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.105(a) shall not exceed the maximum landing mass specified in the AFM for the altitude and, if accounted for in the AFM, the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and alternate aerodrome.

CAT.POL.A.430 Landing – dry runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) The landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.105(a) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome and any alternate aerodrome shall allow a full stop landing from 50 ft above the threshold within 70 % of the LDA taking into account:

(1) the altitude at the aerodrome;

(2) not more than 50 % of the headwind component or not less than 150 % of the tailwind component;

(3) the type of runway surface; and

(4) the runway slope in the direction of landing.

(b) For dispatching the aeroplane it shall be assumed that:

(1) the aeroplane will land on the most favourable runway in still air; and

(2) the aeroplane will land on the runway most likely to be assigned considering the probable wind speed and direction, the ground handling characteristics of the aeroplane and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.

(c) If the operator is unable to comply with (b)(2) for the destination aerodrome, the aeroplane shall only be dispatched if an alternate aerodrome is designated that permits full compliance with (a) and (b).

LANDING DISTANCE CORRECTION FACTORS

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the AFM or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturers, the variables affecting the landing performance and the associated factors to be applied to the AFM data are shown in the table below. It should be applied in addition to the factor specified in CAT.POL.A.430.

Table 1

Landing distance correction factor

Surface type

factor

Grass (on firm soil up to 20 cm long)

1.2

(b) The soil should be considered firm when there are wheel impressions, but no rutting.

RUNWAY SLOPE

Unless otherwise specified in the AFM, or other performance or operating manuals from the manufacturer, the landing distances required should be increased by 5 % for each 1 % of downslope.

LANDING MASS

         CAT.POL.A.430 establishes two considerations in determining the maximum permissible landing mass at the destination and alternate aerodromes.

(a) Firstly, the aeroplane mass will be such that on arrival the aeroplane can be landed within 70 % of the LDA on the most favourable (normally the longest) runway in still air. Regardless of the wind conditions, the maximum landing mass for an aerodrome/aeroplane configuration at a particular aerodrome cannot be exceeded.

(b) Secondly, consideration should be given to anticipated conditions and circumstances. The expected wind, or ATC and noise abatement procedures may indicate the use of a different runway. These factors may result in a lower landing mass than that permitted under (a), in which case dispatch should be based on this lesser mass.

(c) The expected wind referred to in (b) is the wind expected to exist at the time of arrival.

ALTERNATE AERODROMES

The alternate aerodromes for which the landing mass is required to be determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.430 are:

(a) destination alternate aerodromes;

(b) fuel ERA aerodromes; and

(c) re-dispatch or re-clearance aerodromes.

CAT.POL.A.435 Landing – wet and contaminated runways

Regulation (EU) 2019/1387

(a) When the appropriate weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be wet, the LDA shall be one of the following distances:

(1) a landing distance provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, but not less than that required by point CAT.POL.A.430;

(2) if a landing distance is not provided in the AFM for use on wet runways at time of dispatch, at least 115 % of the required landing distance, determined in accordance with point CAT.POL.A.430.

(b) When the appropriate weather reports and/or forecasts indicate that the runway at the estimated time of arrival may be contaminated, the landing distance shall not exceed the LDA. The operator shall specify in the operations manual the landing distance data to be applied.

WET AND CONTAMINATED RUNWAY DATA

The determination of landing performance data should be based on information provided in the OM on the reported RWYCC. The RWYCC is determined by the aerodrome operator using the RCAM and associated procedures defined in Annex V (Part-ADR.OPS) to Regulation (EU) No 139/2014. The RWYCC is reported through an RCR in the SNOWTAM format in accordance with ICAO Annex 15.

DISPATCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR MARGINAL CASES

The LDTA required by CAT.OP.MPA.303 may, in some cases, and in particular on wet or contaminated runways, exceeds the landing distance considered at the time of dispatch. The requirements for dispatch remain unchanged; however, when the conditions at the time of arrival are expected to be marginal, it is a good practice to carry out at the time of dispatch a preliminary calculation of the LDTA.

AFM LANDING DISTANCES FOR WET RUNWAYS

Specific landing distances provided in the AFM for dispatch on wet runways, unless otherwise indicated, include a safety factor, which renders the application of the 15% safety factor used in CAT.POL.A.435(a)(2) not necessary. This implies that the AFM distance may be presented as factored distance. When the AFM distance is not factored, a safety factor of 15 % should be applied. These distances may be longer or shorter than those resulting from CAT.POL.A.435(a)(2), but when provided they are intended as a replacement of CAT.POL.A.435(a)(2) and it is mandatory to be used at the time of dispatch.

LANDING DISTANCES AND CORRECTIVE FACTORS

The AFM provides performance data for landing distance under conditions defined in the applicable certification standards. This distance, commonly referred to as the ALD, is the distance from the position on the runway of the screen height to the point where the aeroplane comes to a full stop on a dry runway.

The determination of the ALD is based on the assumption that the landing is performed in accordance with the conditions and the procedures set out in the AFM on the basis of the applicable certification standards.

As a matter of fact, any particular landing may be different from the landing technique that is assumed in the AFM for certification purposes. The aircraft may approach the runway faster and/or higher than assumed; the aircraft may touch down further along the runway than the optimum point; the actual winds and other weather factors may be different from those assumed in the calculation of the ALD; and maximum braking may not be always achievable. For this reason, the LDA is required by CAT.POL.A.430 and CAT.POL.A.435 to be longer than the ALD.

The margins by which the LDA shall exceed the ALD on dry runways, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.430, are shown in the following Table 1.

Table 1: — Corrective factors for dry runways

Aeroplane category

Required Margin (dry runway)

Resulting factor (dry runway)

All aeroplanes

ALD < 70 % of the LDA

LDA = at least 1.43 x ALD

If the runway is wet and the AFM does not provide specific performance data for dispatch on wet runways, a further increase of 15 % of the landing distance on dry runways has to be applied, in accordance with CAT.POL.A.435, as shown in the following Table 2.

Table 2: Corrective factors for wet runways

Aeroplane category

Resulting factor (dry runway)

All aeroplanes

LDA = at least 1.15 x 1.43 x ALD = 1.64 x ALD

CAT.POL.H.100 Applicability

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) Helicopters shall be operated in accordance with the applicable performance class requirements.

(b) Helicopters shall be operated in performance class 1:

(1) when operated to/from aerodromes or operating sites located in a congested hostile environment, except when operated to/from a public interest site (PIS) in accordance with CAT.POL.H.225; or

(2) when having an MOPSC of more than 19, except when operated to/from a helideck in performance class 2 under an approval in accordance with CAT.POL.H.305.

(c) Unless otherwise prescribed by (b), helicopters that have an MOPSC of 19 or less but more than nine shall be operated in performance class 1 or 2.

(d) Unless otherwise prescribed by (b), helicopters that have an MOPSC of nine or less shall be operated in performance class 1, 2 or 3.

CAT.POL.H.105 General

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The mass of the helicopter:

(1) at the start of the take-off; or

(2) in the event of in-flight replanning, at the point from which the revised operational flight plan applies,

shall not be greater than the mass at which the applicable requirements of this Section can be complied with for the flight to be undertaken, taking into account expected reductions in mass as the flight proceeds and such fuel jettisoning as is provided for in the relevant requirement.

(b) The approved performance data contained in the AFM shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements of this Section, supplemented as necessary with other data as prescribed in the relevant requirement. The operator shall specify such other data in the operations manual. When applying the factors prescribed in this Section, account may be taken of any operational factors already incorporated in the AFM performance data to avoid double application of factors.

(c) When showing compliance with the requirements of this Section, account shall be taken of the following parameters:

(1) mass of the helicopter;

(2) the helicopter configuration;

(3) the environmental conditions, in particular:

(i) pressure altitude and temperature;

(ii) wind:

(A) except as provided in (C), for take-off, take-off flight path and landing requirements, accountability for wind shall be no more than 50 % of any reported steady headwind component of 5 kt or more;

(B) where take-off and landing with a tailwind component is permitted in the AFM, and in all cases for the take-off flight path, not less than 150 % of any reported tailwind component shall be taken into account; and

(C) where precise wind measuring equipment enables accurate measurement of wind velocity over the point of take-off and landing, wind components in excess of 50 % may be established by the operator, provided that the operator demonstrates to the competent authority that the proximity to the FATO and accuracy enhancements of the wind measuring equipment provide an equivalent level of safety;

(4) the operating techniques; and

(5) the operation of any systems that have an adverse effect on performance.

REPORTED HEADWIND COMPONENT

The reported headwind component should be interpreted as being that reported at the time of flight planning and may be used, provided there is no significant change of unfactored wind prior to take-off.

CAT.POL.H.110 Obstacle accountability

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) For the purpose of obstacle clearance requirements, an obstacle located beyond the FATO, in the take-off flight path, or the missed approach flight path shall be considered if its lateral distance from the nearest point on the surface below the intended flight path is not further than the following:

(1) For operations under VFR:

(i) half of the minimum width defined in the AFM — or, when no width is defined, ‘0,75 × D’, where D is the largest dimension of the helicopter when the rotors are turning;

(ii) plus, the greater of ‘0,25 × D’ or ‘3 m’;

(iii) plus:

(A) 0,10 × distance DR for operations under VFR by day; or

(B) 0,15 × distance DR for operations under VFR at night.

(2) For operations under IFR:

(i) ‘1,5 D’ or 30 m, whichever is greater, plus:

(A) 0,10 × distance DR, for operations under IFR with accurate course guidance;

(B) 0,15 × distance DR, for operations under IFR with standard course guidance; or

(C) 0,30 × distance DR for operations under IFR without course guidance.

(ii) When considering the missed approach flight path, the divergence of the obstacle accountability area only applies after the end of the take-off distance available.

(3) For operations with initial take-off conducted visually and converted to IFR/IMC at a transition point, the criteria required in (1) apply up to the transition point, and the criteria required in (2) apply after the transition point. The transition point cannot be located before the end of the take-off distance required for helicopters (TODRH) operating in performance class 1 or before the defined point after take-off (DPATO) for helicopters operating in performance class 2.

(b) For take-off using a back-up or a lateral transition procedure, for the purpose of obstacle clearance requirements, an obstacle located in the back-up or lateral transition area shall be considered if its lateral distance from the nearest point on the surface below the intended flight path is not further than:

(1) half of the minimum width defined in the AFM or, when no width is defined, ‘0,75 × D’;

(2) plus the greater of ‘0,25 × D’ or ‘3 m’;

(3) plus:

(i) for operations under VFR by day 0,10 × the distance travelled from the back of the FATO, or

(ii) for operations under VFR at night 0,15 × the distance travelled from the back of the FATO.

(c) Obstacles may be disregarded if they are situated beyond:

(1) 7 × rotor radius (R) for day operations, if it is assured that navigational accuracy can be achieved by reference to suitable visual cues during the climb;

(2) 10 × R for night operations, if it is assured that navigational accuracy can be achieved by reference to suitable visual cues during the climb;

(3) 300 m if navigational accuracy can be achieved by appropriate navigation aids; or

(4) 900 m in all other cases.

COURSE GUIDANCE

Standard course guidance includes automatic direction finder (ADF) and VHF omnidirectional radio range (VOR) guidance.

Accurate course guidance includes ILS, MLS or other course guidance providing an equivalent navigational accuracy.

CHAPTER 2 – Performance class 1

CAT.POL.H.200 General

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

Helicopters operated in performance class 1 shall be certified in category A or equivalent as determined by the Agency.

CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B

(a) Helicopters that have been certified according to any of the following standards are considered to satisfy the Category A criteria. Provided that they have the necessary performance information scheduled in the AFM, such helicopters are, therefore, eligible for performance class 1 or 2 operations:

(1) certification as Category A under CS-27 or CS-29;

(2) certification as Category A under JAR-27 or JAR-29;

(3) certification as Category A under FAR Part 29;

(4) certification as group A under BCAR Section G; and

(5) certification as group A under BCAR-29.

(b) In addition to the above, certain helicopters have been certified under FAR Part 27 and with compliance with FAR Part 29 engine isolation requirements as specified in FAA Advisory Circular AC 27-1. Provided that compliance is established with the following additional requirements of CS-29:

(1) CS 29.1027(a) Independence of engine and rotor drive system lubrication;

(2) CS 29.1187(e);

(3) CS 29.1195(a) & (b) Provision of a one-shot fire extinguishing system for each engine;

(i) The requirement to fit a fire extinguishing system may be waived if the helicopter manufacturer can demonstrate equivalent safety, based on service experience for the entire fleet showing that the actual incidence of fires in the engine fire zones has been negligible.

(4) CS 29.1197;

(5) CS 29.1199;

(6) CS 29.1201; and

(7) CS 29.1323(c)(1) Ability of the airspeed indicator to consistently identify the take-off decision point,

these helicopters are considered to satisfy the requirement to be certified as equivalent to Category A.

(c) The performance operating rules of JAR-OPS 3, which were transposed into this Part, were drafted in conjunction with the performance requirements of JAR-29 Issue 1 and FAR Part 29 at amendment 29-39. For helicopters certificated under FAR Part 29 at an earlier amendment, or under BCAR section G or BCAR-29, performance data will have been scheduled in the AFM according to these earlier requirements. This earlier scheduled data may not be fully compatible with this Part.

(d) Before any AOC is issued under which performance class 1 or 2 operations are conducted, it should be established that scheduled performance data are available that are compatible with the requirements of performance class 1 and 2 respectively.

(e) Any properly certified helicopter is considered to satisfy the Category B criteria. If appropriately equipped (in accordance with CAT.IDE.H), such helicopters are, therefore, eligible for performance class 3 operations.

CAT.POL.H.205 Take-off

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The take-off mass shall not exceed the maximum take-off mass specified in the AFM for the procedure to be used.

(b) The take-off mass shall be such that:

(1) it is possible to reject the take-off and land on the FATO in case of the critical engine failure being recognised at or before the take-off decision point (TDP);

(2) the rejected take-off distance required (RTODRH) does not exceed the rejected take-off distance available (RTODAH); and

(3) the TODRH does not exceed the take-off distance available (TODAH).

(4) Notwithstanding (b)(3), the TODRH may exceed the TODAH if the helicopter, with the critical engine failure recognised at TDP can, when continuing the take-off, clear all obstacles to the end of the TODRH by a vertical margin of not less than 10,7 m (35 ft).

(c) When showing compliance with (a) and (b), account shall be taken of the appropriate parameters of CAT.POL.H.105(c) at the aerodrome or operating site of departure.

(d) That part of the take-off up to and including TDP shall be conducted in sight of the surface such that a rejected take-off can be carried out.

(e) For take-off using a backup or lateral transition procedure, with the critical engine failure recognition at or before the TDP, all obstacles in the back-up or lateral transition area shall be cleared by an adequate margin.

THE APPLICATION OF TODRH

The selected height should be determined with the use of AFM data, and be at least 10.7 m (35 ft) above:

(a) the take-off surface; or

(b) as an alternative, a level height defined by the highest obstacle in the take-off distance required.

THE APPLICATION OF TODRH

(a) Introduction

Original definitions for helicopter performance were derived from aeroplanes; hence, the definition of take-off distance owes much to operations from runways. Helicopters on the other hand can operate from runways, confined and restricted areas and rooftop FATOs — all bounded by obstacles. As an analogy, this is equivalent to a take-off from a runway with obstacles on and surrounding it.

It can, therefore, be said that unless the original definitions from aeroplanes are tailored for helicopters, the flexibility of the helicopter might be constrained by the language of operational performance.

This GM concentrates on the critical term ‘take-off distance required (TODRH)’ and describes the methods to achieve compliance with it and, in particular, the alternative procedure described in ICAO Annex 6 Attachment A 4.1.1.3:

(1) the take-off distance required does not exceed the take-off distance available; or

(2) as an alternative, the take-off distance required may be disregarded provided that the helicopter with the critical engine failure recognised at TDP can, when continuing the take-off, clear all obstacles between the end of the take-off distance available and the point at which it becomes established in a climb at VTOSS by a vertical margin of 10.7 m (35 ft) or more. An obstacle is considered to be in the path of the helicopter if its distance from the nearest point on the surface below the intended line of flight does not exceed 30 m or 1.5 times the maximum dimension of the helicopter, whichever is greater.

(b) Definition of TODRH

The definition of TODRH from Annex I is as follows:

‘Take-off distance required (TODRH)’ in the case of helicopters means the horizontal distance required from the start of the take-off to the point at which take-off safety speed (VTOSS), a selected height and a positive climb gradient are achieved, following failure of the critical engine being recognised at the TDP, the remaining engines operating within approved operating limits.

AMC1 CAT.POL.H.205(b)(4) states how the specified height should be determined.

The original definition of TODRH was based only on the first part of this definition.

(c) The clear area procedure (runway)

In the past, helicopters certified in Category A would have had, at the least, a ‘clear area’ procedure. This procedure is analogous to an aeroplane Category A procedure and assumes a runway (either metalled or grass) with a smooth surface suitable for an aeroplane take-off (see Figure 1).

The helicopter is assumed to accelerate down the FATO (runway) outside of the height velocity (HV) diagram. If the helicopter has an engine failure before TDP, it must be able to land back on the FATO (runway) without damage to helicopter or passengers; if there is a failure at or after TDP the aircraft is permitted to lose height — providing it does not descend below a specified height above the surface (usually 15 ft if the TDP is above 15 ft). Errors by the pilot are taken into consideration, but the smooth surface of the FATO limits serious damage if the error margin is eroded (e.g. by a change of wind conditions).

Figure 1

Clear Area take – off

The operator only has to establish that the distances required are within the distance available (take-off distance and reject distance). The original definition of TODRH meets this case exactly.

From the end of the TODRH obstacle clearance is given by the climb gradient of the first or second climb segment meeting the requirement of CAT.POL.H.210 (or for performance class 2 (PC2): CAT.POL.H.315). The clearance margin from obstacles in the take-off flight path takes account of the distance travelled from the end of the take-off distance required and operational conditions (IMC or VMC).

(d) Category A procedures other-than-clear area

Procedures other-than-the-clear area are treated somewhat differently. However, the short field procedure is somewhat of a hybrid as either (a) or (b) of AMC1 CAT.POL.H.205(b)(4) can be utilised (the term ‘helipad’ is used in the following section to illustrate the principle only, it is not intended as a replacement for ‘aerodrome’ or ‘FATO’).

(1) Limited area, restricted area and helipad procedures (other than elevated)

The exact names of the procedure used for other-than-clear area are as many as there are manufacturers. However, principles for obstacle clearance are generic and the name is unimportant.

These procedures (see Figure 2 and Figure 3) are usually associated with an obstacle in the continued take-off area — usually shown as a line of trees or some other natural obstacle. As clearance above such obstacles is not readily associated with an accelerative procedure, as described in (c), a procedure using a vertical climb (or a steep climb in the forward, sideways or rearward direction) is utilised.

Figure 2

Short Field take-off

With the added complication of a TDP principally defined by height together with obstacles in the continued take off area, a drop down to within 15 ft of the take-off surface is not deemed appropriate and the required obstacle clearance is set to 35 ft (usually called ‘min-dip’). The distance to the obstacle does not need to be calculated (provided it is outside the rejected distance required), as clearance above all obstacles is provided by ensuring that helicopter does not descend below the min-dip associated with a level defined by the highest obstacle in the continued take-off area.

Figure 3

Helipad take-off

These procedures depend upon (b) of AMC1 CAT.POL.H.205(b)(4).

 As shown in Figure 3, the point at which VTOSS and a positive rate of climb are met defines the TODRH. Obstacle clearance from that point is assured by meeting the requirement of CAT.POL.H.210 (or for PC2, CAT.POL.H.315). Also shown in Figure 3 is the distance behind the helipad which is the backup distance (B/U distance).

(2) Elevated helipad procedures

The elevated helipad procedure (see Figure 4) is a special case of the ground level helipad procedure discussed above.

Figure 4

Elevate Helipad take-off

The main difference is that drop down below the level of the take-off surface is permitted. In the drop down phase, the Category A procedure ensures deck-edge clearance but, once clear of the deck-edge, the 35 ft clearance from obstacles relies upon the calculation of drop down. Subparagraph (b) of AMC1 CAT.POL.H.205(b)(4) is applied.

Although 35 ft is used throughout the requirements, it may be inadequate at particular elevated FATOs that are subject to adverse airflow effects, turbulence, etc.

OBSTACLE CLEARANCE IN THE BACKUP AREA

(a) The requirement in CAT.POL.H.205(e) has been established in order to take into account the following factors:

(1) in the backup: the pilot has few visual cues and has to rely upon the altimeter and sight picture through the front window (if flight path guidance is not provided) to achieve an accurate rearward flight path;

(2) in the rejected take-off: the pilot has to be able to manage the descent against a varying forward speed whilst still ensuring an adequate clearance from obstacles until the helicopter gets in close proximity for landing on the FATO; and

(3) in the continued take-off; the pilot has to be able to accelerate to VTOSS (take-off safety speed for Category A helicopters) whilst ensuring an adequate clearance from obstacles.

(b) The requirements of CAT.POL.H.205(e) may be achieved by establishing that:

(1) in the backup area no obstacles are located within the safety zone below the rearward flight path when described in the AFM (see Figure 1, in the absence of such data in the AFM, the operator should contact the manufacturer in order to define a safety zone);or

(2) during the backup, the rejected take-off and the continued take-off manoeuvres, obstacle clearance is demonstrated to the competent authority.

Figure 1

Rearward flight path

(c) An obstacle, in the backup area, is considered if its lateral distance from the nearest point on the surface below the intended flight path is not further than:

(1) half of the minimum FATO (or the equivalent term used in the AFM) width defined in the AFM (or, when no width is defined 0.75 D, where D is the largest dimension of the helicopter when the rotors are turning); plus

(2) 0.25 times D (or 3 m, whichever is greater); plus

(3) 0.10 for VFR day, or 0.15 for VFR night, of the distance travelled from the back of the FATO (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Obstacle accountability

Description: C:\Documents and Settings\pratac1\Desktop\Final Picture Bas.png

APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING PROCEDURES

(a) A reduction in the size of the take-off surface may be applied when the operator has demonstrated to the competent authority that compliance with the requirements of CAT.POL.H.205, 210 and 220 can be assured with:

(1) a procedure based upon an appropriate Category A take-off and landing profile scheduled in the AFM;

(2) a take-off or landing mass not exceeding the mass scheduled in the AFM for a hover-out-of-ground-effect one-engine-inoperative (HOGE OEI) ensuring that:

(i) following an engine failure at or before TDP, there are adequate external references to ensure that the helicopter can be landed in a controlled manner; and

(ii) following an engine failure at or after the landing decision point (LDP), there are adequate external references to ensure that the helicopter can be landed in a controlled manner.

(b) An upwards shift of the TDP and LDP may be applied when the operator has demonstrated to the competent authority that compliance with the requirements of CAT.POL.H.205, 210 and 220 can be assured with:

(1) a procedure based upon an appropriate Category A take-off and landing profile scheduled in the AFM;

(2) a take-off or landing mass not exceeding the mass scheduled in the AFM for a HOGE OEI ensuring that:

(i) following an engine failure at or after TDP compliance with the obstacle clearance requirements of CAT.POL.H.205 (b)(4) and CAT.POL.H.210 can be met; and

(ii) following an engine failure at or before the LDP the balked landing obstacle clearance requirements of CAT.POL.H.220 (b) and CAT.POL.H.210 can be met.

(c) The Category A ground level surface area requirement may be applied at a specific elevated FATO when the operator can demonstrate to the competent authority that the usable cue environment at that aerodrome/operating site would permit such a reduction in size.

APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING PROCEDURES

The manufacturer’s Category A procedure defines profiles and scheduled data for take-off, climb, performance at minimum operating speed and landing, under specific environmental conditions and masses.

Associated with these profiles and conditions are minimum operating surfaces, take-off distances, climb performance and landing distances; these are provided (usually in graphic form) with the take-off and landing masses and the take-off decision point (TDP) and landing decision point (LDP).

The landing surface and the height of the TDP are directly related to the ability of the helicopter — following an engine failure before or at TDP — to reject onto the surface under forced landing conditions. The main considerations in establishing the minimum size of the landing surface are the scatter during flight testing of the reject manoeuvre, with the remaining engine operating within approved limits, and the required usable cue environment.

Hence, an elevated site with few visual cues — apart from the surface itself — would require a greater surface area in order that the helicopter can be accurately positioned during the reject manoeuvre within the specified area. This usually results in the stipulation of a larger surface for an elevated site than for a ground level site (where lateral cues may be present).

This could have the unfortunate side effect that a FATO that is built 3 m above the surface (and, therefore, elevated by definition) might be out of operational scope for some helicopters — even though there might be a rich visual cue environment where rejects are not problematical. The presence of elevated sites where ground level surface requirements might be more appropriate could be brought to the attention of the competent authority.

It can be seen that the size of the surface is directly related to the requirement of the helicopter to complete a rejected take-off following an engine failure. If the helicopter has sufficient power such that a failure before or at TDP will not lead to a requirement for rejected take-off, the need for large surfaces is removed; sufficient power for the purpose of this GM is considered to be the power required for hover-out-of-ground-effect one-engine-inoperative (HOGE OEI).

Following an engine failure at or after the TDP, the continued take-off path provides OEI clearance from the take-off surface and the distance to reach a point from where climb performance in the first, and subsequent segments, is assured.

If HOGE OEI performance exists at the height of the TDP, it follows that the continued take-off profile, which has been defined for a helicopter with a mass such that a rejected take-off would be required following an engine failure at or before TDP, would provide the same, or better, obstacle clearance and the same, or less, distance to reach a point where climb performance in the first, and subsequent segments, is assured.

If the TDP is shifted upwards, provided that the HOGE OEI performance is established at the revised TDP, it will not affect the shape of the continued take-off profile but should shift the min-dip upwards by the same amount that the revised TDP has been increased — with respect to the basic TDP.

Such assertions are concerned only with the vertical or the backup procedures and can be regarded as achievable under the following circumstances:

(a) when the procedure is flown, it is based upon a profile contained in the AFM — with the exception of the necessity to perform a rejected take-off;

(b) the TDP, if shifted upwards (or upwards and backward in the backup procedure) will be the height at which the HOGE OEI performance is established; and

(c) if obstacles are permitted in the backup area, they should continue to be permitted with a revised TDP.

CAT.POL.H.210 Take-off flight path

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) From the end of the TODRH with the critical engine failure recognised at the TDP:

(1)The take-off mass shall be such that the take-off flight path provides a vertical clearance, above all obstacles located in the climb path, of not less than 10,7 m (35 ft) for operations under VFR and 10,7 m (35 ft) + 0,01 × distance DR for operations under IFR. Only obstacles as specified in CAT.POL.H.110 have to be considered.

(2) Where a change of direction of more than 15° is made, adequate allowance shall be made for the effect of bank angle on the ability to comply with the obstacle clearance requirements. This turn is not to be initiated before reaching a height of 61 m (200 ft) above the take-off surface unless it is part of an approved procedure in the AFM.

(b) When showing compliance with (a), account shall be taken of the appropriate parameters of CAT.POL.H.105(c) at the aerodrome or operating site of departure.

CAT.POL.H.215 En-route – critical engine inoperative

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The mass of the helicopter and flight path at all points along the route, with the critical engine inoperative and the meteorological conditions expected for the flight, shall permit compliance with (1), (2) or (3):

(1) When it is intended that the flight will be conducted at any time out of sight of the surface, the mass of the helicopter permits a rate of climb of at least 50 ft/minute with the critical engine inoperative at an altitude of at least 300 m (1 000 ft), or 600 m (2 000 ft) in areas of mountainous terrain, above all terrain and obstacles along the route within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track.

(2) When it is intended that the flight will be conducted without the surface in sight, the flight path permits the helicopter to continue flight from the cruising altitude to a height of 300 m (1 000 ft) above a landing site where a landing can be made in accordance with CAT.POL.H.220. The flight path clears vertically, by at least 300 m (1 000 ft) or 600 m (2 000 ft) in areas of mountainous terrain, all terrain and obstacles along the route within 9,3 km (5 NM) on either side of the intended track. Drift-down techniques may be used.

(3) When it is intended that the flight will be conducted in VMC with the surface in sight, the flight path permits the helicopter to continue flight from the cruising altitude to a height of 300 m (1 000 ft) above a landing site where a landing can be made in accordance with CAT.POL.H.220, without flying at any time below the appropriate minimum flight altitude. Obstacles within 900 m on either side of the route need to be considered.

(b) When showing compliance with (a)(2) or (a)(3):

(1) the critical engine is assumed to fail at the most critical point along the route;

(2) account is taken of the effects of winds on the flight path;

(3) fuel jettisoning is planned to take place only to an extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome or operating site with the required fuel reserves and using a safe procedure; and

(4) fuel jettisoning is not planned below 1 000 ft above terrain.

(c) The width margins of (a)(1) and (a)(2) shall be increased to 18,5 km (10 NM) if the navigational accuracy cannot be met for 95 % of the total flight time.

FUEL JETTISON

The presence of obstacles along the en-route flight path may preclude compliance with CAT.POL.H.215 (a)(1) at the planned mass at the critical point along the route. In this case fuel jettison at the most critical point may be planned, provided that the procedures of (c) in AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.150(b) are complied with.

[applicable until 29 October 2022 — ED Decision 2022/005/R]

The presence of obstacles along the en route flight path may preclude compliance with point CAT.POL.H.215(a)(1) with the planned mass at the critical point along the route. In this case, fuel jettison at the most critical point may be planned, provided that the procedures of point (d) of AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.191(b)&(c) are complied with.

[applicable from 30 October 2022 — ED Decision 2022/005/R]

CAT.POL.H.220 Landing

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) The landing mass of the helicopter at the estimated time of landing shall not exceed the maximum mass specified in the AFM for the procedure to be used.

(b) In the event of the critical engine failure being recognised at any point at or before the landing decision point (LDP), it is possible either to land and stop within the FATO, or to perform a balked landing and clear all obstacles in the flight path by a vertical margin of 10,7 m (35 ft). Only obstacles as specified in CAT.POL.H.110 have to be considered.

(c) In the event of the critical engine failure being recognised at any point at or after the LDP, it is possible to:

(1) clear all obstacles in the approach path; and

(2) land and stop within the FATO.

(d) When showing compliance with (a) to (c), account shall be taken of the appropriate parameters of CAT.POL.H.105(c) for the estimated time of landing at the destination aerodrome or operating site, or any alternate if required.

(e) That part of the landing from the LDP to touchdown shall be conducted in sight of the surface.

APPLICATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING PROCEDURES

The manufacturer’s Category A procedure defines profiles and scheduled data for take-off, climb, performance at minimum operating speed and landing, under specific environmental conditions and masses.

Associated with these profiles and conditions are minimum operating surfaces, take-off distances, climb performance and landing distances; these are provided (usually in graphic form) with the take-off and landing masses and the take-off decision point (TDP) and landing decision point (LDP).

The landing surface and the height of the TDP are directly related to the ability of the helicopter — following an engine failure before or at TDP — to reject onto the surface under forced landing conditions. The main considerations in establishing the minimum size of the landing surface are the scatter during flight testing of the reject manoeuvre, with the remaining engine operating within approved limits, and the required usable cue environment.

Hence, an elevated site with few visual cues — apart from the surface itself — would require a greater surface area in order that the helicopter can be accurately positioned during the reject manoeuvre within the specified area. This usually results in the stipulation of a larger surface for an elevated site than for a ground level site (where lateral cues may be present).

This could have the unfortunate side effect that a FATO that is built 3 m above the surface (and, therefore, elevated by definition) might be out of operational scope for some helicopters — even though there might be a rich visual cue environment where rejects are not problematical. The presence of elevated sites where ground level surface requirements might be more appropriate could be brought to the attention of the competent authority.

It can be seen that the size of the surface is directly related to the requirement of the helicopter to complete a rejected take-off following an engine failure. If the helicopter has sufficient power such that a failure before or at TDP will not lead to a requirement for rejected take-off, the need for large surfaces is removed; sufficient power for the purpose of this GM is considered to be the power required for hover-out-of-ground-effect one-engine-inoperative (HOGE OEI).

Following an engine failure at or after the TDP, the continued take-off path provides OEI clearance from the take-off surface and the distance to reach a point from where climb performance in the first, and subsequent segments, is assured.

If HOGE OEI performance exists at the height of the TDP, it follows that the continued take-off profile, which has been defined for a helicopter with a mass such that a rejected take-off would be required following an engine failure at or before TDP, would provide the same, or better, obstacle clearance and the same, or less, distance to reach a point where climb performance in the first, and subsequent segments, is assured.

If the TDP is shifted upwards, provided that the HOGE OEI performance is established at the revised TDP, it will not affect the shape of the continued take-off profile but should shift the min-dip upwards by the same amount that the revised TDP has been increased — with respect to the basic TDP.

Such assertions are concerned only with the vertical or the backup procedures and can be regarded as achievable under the following circumstances:

(a) when the procedure is flown, it is based upon a profile contained in the AFM — with the exception of the necessity to perform a rejected take-off;

(b) the TDP, if shifted upwards (or upwards and backward in the backup procedure) will be the height at which the HOGE OEI performance is established; and

(c) if obstacles are permitted in the backup area, they should continue to be permitted with a revised TDP.

CAT.POL.H.225 Helicopter operations to/from a public interest site

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

(a) Operations to/from a public interest site (PIS) may be conducted in performance class 2, without complying with CAT.POL.H.310(b) or CAT.POL.H.325(b), provided that all of the following are complied with:

(1) the PIS was in use before 1 July 2002;

(2) the size of the PIS or obstacle environment does not permit compliance with the requirements for operation in performance class 1;

(3) the operation is conducted with a helicopter with an MOPSC of six or less;

(4) the operator complies with CAT.POL.H.305(b)(2) and (b)(3);

(5) the helicopter mass does not exceed the maximum mass specified in the AFM for a climb gradient of 8 % in still air at the appropriate take-off safety speed (VTOSS) with the critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines operating at an appropriate power rating; and

(6) the operator has obtained prior approval for the operation from the competent authority. Before such operations take place in another Member State, the operator shall obtain an endorsement from the competent authority of that State.

(b) Site-specific procedures shall be established in the operations manual to minimise the period during which there would be danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the surface in the event of an engine failure during take-off and landing.

(c) The operations manual shall contain for each PIS: a diagram or annotated photograph, showing the main aspects, the dimensions, the non-conformance with the requirements performance class 1, the main hazards and the contingency plan should an incident occur.

HELICOPTER MASS LIMITATION

(a) The helicopter mass limitation at take-off or landing specified in CAT.POL.H.225(a)(5) should be determined using the climb performance data from 35 ft to 200 ft at VTOSS (first segment of the take-off flight path) contained in the Category A supplement of the AFM (or equivalent manufacturer data acceptable in accordance with GM1-CAT.POL.H.200 & CAT.POL.H.300 & CAT.POL.H.400).

(b) The first segment climb data to be considered is established for a climb at the take-off safety speed VTOSS, with the landing gear extended (when the landing gear is retractable), with the critical engine inoperative and the remaining engines operating at an appropriate power rating (the 2 min 30 sec or 2 min OEI power rating, depending on the helicopter type certification). The appropriate VTOSS, is the value specified in the Category A performance section of the AFM for vertical take-off and landing procedures (VTOL, helipad or equivalent manufacturer terminology).

(c) The ambient conditions at the site (pressure-altitude and temperature) should be taken into account.

(d) The data are usually provided in charts in one of the following ways:

(1) Height gain in ft over a horizontal distance of 100 ft in the first segment configuration (35 ft to 200 ft, VTOSS, 2 min 30 sec/2 min OEI power rating). This chart should be entered with a height gain of 8 ft per 100 ft horizontally travelled, resulting in a mass value for every pressure-altitude/temperature combination considered.

(2) Horizontal distance to climb from 35 ft to 200 ft in the first segment configuration (VTOSS, 2 min 30 sec/2 min OEI power rating). This chart should be entered with a horizontally distance of 628 m (2 062 ft), resulting in a mass value for every pressure-altitude/temperature combination considered.

(3) Rate of climb in the first segment configuration (35 ft to 200 ft, VTOSS, 2 min 30 sec/2 min OEI power rating). This chart can be entered with a rate of climb equal to the climb speed (VTOSS) value in knots (converted to true airspeed) multiplied by 8.1, resulting in a mass value for every pressure-altitude/temperature combination considered.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

(a) General

The original Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(i) was introduced in January 2002 to address problems that had been encountered by Member States at hospital sites due to the applicable performance requirements of JAR-OPS 3 Subparts G and H. These problems were enumerated in ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) paragraph 8, part of which is reproduced below.

‘8 Problems with hospital sites

During implementation of JAR-OPS 3, it was established that a number of States had encountered problems with the impact of performance rules where helicopters were operated for HEMS. Although States accept that progress should be made towards operations where risks associated with a critical power unit failure are eliminated, or limited by the exposure time concept, a number of landing sites exist which do not (or never can) allow operations to performance class 1 or 2 requirements.

These sites are generally found in a congested hostile environment:

             in the grounds of hospitals; or

             on hospital buildings;

The problem of hospital sites is mainly historical and, whilst the Authority could insist that such sites not be used - or used at such a low weight that critical power unit failure performance is assured, it would seriously curtail a number of existing operations.

Even though the rule for the use of such sites in hospital grounds for HEMS operations (Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A)) attracts alleviation until 2005, it is only partial and will still impact upon present operations.

Because such operations are performed in the public interest, it was felt that the Authority should be able to exercise its discretion so as to allow continued use of such sites provided that it is satisfied that an adequate level of safety can be maintained - notwithstanding that the site does not allow operations to performance class 1 or 2 standards. However, it is in the interest of continuing improvements in safety that the alleviation of such operations be constrained to existing sites, and for a limited period.’

As stated in this ACJ and embodied in the text of the appendix, the solution was short-term (until 31 December 2004). During the commenting period of JAA NPA 18, representations were made to the JAA that the alleviation should be extended to 2009. The review committee, in not accepting this request, had in mind that this was a short-term solution to address an immediate problem, and a permanent solution should be sought.

(b) After 1 January 2005

Although elimination of such sites would remove the problem, it is recognised that phasing out, or rebuilding existing hospital sites, is a long-term goal which may not be cost-effective, or even possible, in some Member States.

It should be noted, however, that CAT.POL.H.225(a) limits the problem by confining approvals to hospital sites established before 1 July 2002 (established in this context means either: built before that date, or brought into service before that date — this precise wording was used to avoid problems associated with a ground level aerodrome/operating site where no building would be required). Thus the problem of these sites is contained and reducing in severity. This date was set approximately 6 months after the intended implementation of the original JAR-OPS 3 appendix.

EASA adopted the JAA philosophy that, from 1st January 2005, approval would be confined to those sites where a CAT A procedure alone cannot solve the problem. The determination of whether the helicopter can or cannot be operated in accordance with performance class 1 should be established with the helicopter at a realistic payload and fuel to complete the mission. However, in order to reduce the risk at those sites, the application of the requirements contained in CAT.POL.H.225(a) should be applied.

Additionally and in order to promote understanding of the problem, the text contained in CAT.POL.H.225(c) refers to the performance class and not to ICAO Annex 14. Thus, Part C of the operations manual should reflect the non-conformance with performance class 1, as well as the site-specific procedures (approach and departure paths) to minimise the danger to third parties in the event of an incident.

The following paragraphs explain the problem and solutions.

(c) The problem associated with such sites

There is a number of problems: some of which can be solved with the use of appropriate helicopters and procedures; and others which, because of the size of the site or the obstacle environment, cannot. They consist of:

(1) the size of the surface of the site (smaller than that required by the manufacturer’s procedure);

(2) an obstacle environment that prevents the use of the manufacturer’s procedure (obstacles in the backup area); and

(3) an obstacle environment that does not allow recovery following an engine failure in the critical phase of take-off (a line of buildings requiring a demanding gradient of climb) at a realistic payload and fuel to complete the mission.

             Problems associated with (c)(1): the inability to climb and conduct a rejected landing back to the site following an engine failure before the Decision Point (DP).

             Problems associated with (c)(2): as in (c)(1)).

             Problems associated with (c)(3): climb into an obstacle following an engine failure after DP.

Problems cannot be solved in the immediate future, but can, when mitigated with the use of the latest generation of helicopters (operated at a weight that can allow useful payloads and endurance), minimise exposure to risk.

(d) Long-term solution

Although not offering a complete solution, it was felt that a significant increase in safety could be achieved by applying an additional performance margin to such operations. This solution allowed the time restriction of 2004 to be removed.

The required performance level of 8 % climb gradient in the first segment reflects ICAO Annex 14 Volume II in ‘Table 4-3 'Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitations surfaces’ for performance class 2.

The performance delta is achieved without the provision of further manufacturer’s data by using existing graphs to provide the reduced take-off mass (RTOM).

If the solution in relation to the original problem is examined, the effects can be seen.

(1) Solution with relation to (c)(1): although the problem still exists, the safest procedure is a dynamic take-off reducing the time taken to achieve Vstayup and thus allowing VFR recovery — if the failure occurs at or after Vy and 200 ft, an IFR recovery is possible.

(2) Solution with relation to (c)(2): as in (c)(1) above.

(3) Solution with relation to (c)(3): once again this does not give a complete solution, however, the performance delta minimises the time during which a climb over the obstacle cannot be achieved.

ENDORSEMENT FROM ANOTHER STATE

(a) Application to another State

To obtain an endorsement from another State, the operator should submit to that State:

(1) the reasons that preclude compliance with the requirements for operations in performance class 1;

(2) the site-specific procedures to minimise the period during which there would be danger to helicopter occupants and person on the surface in the event of an engine failure during take-off and landing; and

(3) the extract from the operations manual to comply with CAT.POL.H.225(c).

(b) Endorsement from another State

Upon receiving the endorsement from another State, the operator should submit it together with the site-specific procedures and the reasons and justification that preclude the use of performance class 1 criteria to the competent authority issuing the AOC to obtain the approval or extend the approval to a new public interest site.

CHAPTER 3 – Performance class 2

CAT.POL.H.300 General

Regulation (EU) No 965/2012

Helicopters operated in performance class 2 shall be certified in category A or equivalent as determined by the Agency.

OPERATIONS IN PERFORMANCE CLASS 2

(a) Introduction

This GM describes performance class 2 as established in Part-CAT. It has been produced for the purpose of:

(1) explaining the underlying philosophy of operations in performance class 2;

(2) showing simple means of compliance; and

(3) explaining how to determine — with examples and diagrams:

(i) the take-off and landing masses;

(ii) the length of the safe forced landing area;

(iii) distances to establish obstacle clearance; and

(iv) entry point(s) into performance class 1.

It explains the derivation of performance class 2 from ICAO Annex 6 Part III and describes an alleviation that may be approved in accordance with CAT.POL.H.305 following a risk assessment.

It examines the basic requirements, discusses the limits of operation, and considers the benefits of the use of performance class 2.

It contains examples of performance class 2 in specific circumstances, and explains how these examples may be generalised to provide operators with methods of calculating landing distances and obstacle clearance.

(b) Definitions used in this GM

The definitions for the following terms, used in this GM, are contained in Annex I and its AMC:

(1) distance DR;

(2) defined point after take-off (DPATO);

(3) defined point before landing (DPBL);

(4) landing distance available (LDAH);

(5) landing distance required (LDRH);

(6) performance class 2;

(7) safe forced landing (SFL); and

(8) take-off distance available (TODAH).

The following terms, which are not defined Annex I, are used in this GM:

             VT : a target speed at which to aim at the point of minimum ground clearance (min-dip) during acceleration from TDP to VTOSS;

             V50. : a target speed and height utilised to establish an AFM distance (in compliance with the requirement of CS/JAR 29.63) from which climb out is possible; and

             Vstayup : a colloquial term used to indicate a speed at which a descent would not result following an engine failure. This speed is several knots lower than VTOSS at the equivalent take-off mass.

(c) What defines performance class 2

Performance class 2 can be considered as performance class 3 take-off or landing, and performance class 1 climb, cruise and descent. It comprises an all-engines-operating (AEO) obstacle clearance regime for the take-off or landing phases, and a OEI obstacle clearance regime for the climb, cruise, descent, approach and missed approach phases.

For the purpose of performance calculations in Part-CAT, the CS/JAR 29.67 Category A climb performance criteria is used:

             150 ft/min at 1 000 ft (at Vy);

and depending on the choice of DPATO:

             100 ft/min up to 200 ft (at VTOSS)

at the appropriate power settings.

(1) Comparison of obstacle clearance in all performance classes

Figure 1 shows the profiles of the three performance classes — superimposed on one diagram.

             Performance class 1 (PC1): from TDP, requires OEI obstacle clearance in all phases of flight; the construction of Category A procedures, provides for a flight path to the first climb segment, a level acceleration segment to Vy (which may be shown concurrent with the first segment), followed by the second climb segment from Vy at 200 ft (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

All Performance Classes (a comparison)

             Performance class 2 (PC2): requires AEO obstacle clearance to DPATO and OEI from then on. The take-off mass has the PC1 second segment climb performance at its basis th