Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

Published on Vereniging van Nederlandse Verkeersvliegers (https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl) Start > Takeoff Performance Margins

Takeoff Performance Margins

Thomas Bos Introduction
Takeoff performance is regulated by certification specifications and operational regulations. These standards contain various assumptions regarding the weather, the flight crew, the runway and last but not least the aircraft. Many factors affecting takeoff performance are explicitly addressed in these regulations; others are not. Those factors that are not explicitly included may be partly or completely offset by what in engineering terms is often referred to as margins but what is better described as allowances. Those factors that are only partly compensated by an allowance and those assumptions that are not valid in the real world stress the need for conservatism or an additional margin.

Certification Specifications
The maximum allowable takeoff weight is dictated by the field length, obstacle clearance requirements, climb gradient requirements, brake energy requirements and the maximum tire speed. Certification specifications addressing field length and brake energy have changed over the years as a result of amongst others incident and accident analyses and scientific research. Except for safety critical findings (airworthiness directives), changes to these regulations do generally not require retroactive application. As a consequence the assumptions and allowances included in the performance data may differ from aircraft type to aircraft type and manufacturer to manufacturer.

Performance Tools
With the increasing use of computer based (onboard) performance tools such as Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs), laptop tools and ACARS based systems airlines may reduce maintenance and fuel costs and increase payload by optimizing the takeoff performance calculation. This optimization may take advantage of stopways, clearways, optimum flap settings, improved climb procedures, V1 policies and fixed thrust derates or assumed temperature (flex temperature) methods. Where paper methods or digitized paper charts inherently provide margins as a result of data interpolation and a requirement for ease of use, first principle calculations may remove these arbitrary margins and perform a legally acceptable single point calculation. A concern regarding such calculations is the obvious fact that the accuracy of the output will depend on the accuracy of the input and validity of the assumptions. Furthermore an optimization process may lead to a shift in risk exposure where more takeoffs or more parts of the takeoff are critical as compared to a paper method. The human habit to trust a computed result with multiple digit accuracy must be questioned at all times when performing takeoff calculations and probably in other fields as well.

Operational Considerations
In the following the assumptions and allowances present in the performance regulations will be discussed in relation to the real world as well as any operational considerations that could be relevant.

V1
A great deal of misunderstanding and disagreement regarding the definition and use of the V1 speed has been present. In general, inconsistent terminology used over the years in reference to V1 has probably contributed to this confusion. V1 has been referred to at various times as the critical engine failure speed, the engine failure recognition speed, and the takeoff decision speed. Operationally, V1 represents the minimum speed from which the takeoff can be safely continued following an engine failure within the takeoff distance shown in the AFM, and the maximum speed
https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266 Page 1 of 7

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

from which the airplane can be stopped within the accelerate-stop distance shown in the AFM. Typically, the pilot-notflying will call out V1 as the airplane accelerates through this speed. If the pilot flying the airplane has not taken action to stop the airplane before this callout is made, the takeoff should be continued unless the airplane is unsafe to fly. For the continued takeoff case the current certification specifications assume an engine failure at a speed VEF occurring 1 second prior to V1. For the reject case the first action to stop the aircraft should have been taken at V1. An allowance of typically 2 seconds is included in the time required to bring the aircraft in the stopping configuration as compared to the flight test crew. These 2 seconds should not be considered a margin or an additional time to make a decision whether to stop or not but are required to account for the reaction time of line crews to a highly unlikely event as compared to a flight test crew reaction time that knows the takeoff will be aborted.

Stopways
Stopways should not be confused with Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) which may not be included in takeoff performance calculations. ICAO Annex 14 contains the following recommendations concerning stopways: A stopway should be prepared or constructed so as to be capable, in the event of an abandoned takeoff, of supporting the aeroplane which the stopway is intended to serve without inducing structural damage to the aeroplane. The surface of a paved stopway should be so constructed as to provide a good coefficient of friction to be compatible with that of the associated runway when the stopway is wet. The friction characteristics of an unpaved stopway should not be substantially less than that of the runway with which the stopway is associated. Unfortunately these recommendations are ambiguous and are not uniformly applied worldwide. What is a good friction coefficient? What is compatible? What is not substantially less? Sometimes stopways are not cleared of contaminants in the broadest sense, friction is considerably reduced when the runway is wet or maintenance friction assessments cannot be carried out on the stopway simply because of the required speeds of friction testers (65 km/h and 95 km/h). Furthermore, some countries do not carry out maintenance friction tests at all! Operators and flight crew should therefore pay particular attention to the weather and the condition of the runway especially when field length is critical. When in doubt about the quality of a stopway, consideration in performance optimization tools may be inappropriate.

Clearways
Clearway credit is accounted for in the certification requirements and can be expressed in percent and reflects the amount of the flare to the screen height following rotation that is allowed to be above the clearway. For the engine inoperative takeoff distance calculation clearway credit of 50% would allow half of the air distance to 35 ft (dry runway) to be above the runway and half above the clearway. A 50% or 100% wet runway engine-out clearway credit could result in the aircraft achieving lift off at or very close to the end of the runway which may be a safety concern. The following table identifies the allowed amount of clearway credit as a function of the certification requirement:

Regulation/ AEO* OEI** AEO* OEI** Amendment dry dry wet wet FAR 25/0 50% 50% N/A N/A FAR 25/92 50% 50% 50% 0% JAR 25/1 50% 50% N/A N/A JAR 25/2 50% 50% 50% 100% JAR 25/5 UK 50% 50% 50% 100% JAR 25/13 50% 50% 50% 100% JAR 25/15 50% 50% 50% 0% * All Engines Operative | ** One Engine Inoperative
Examples of aircraft with one-engine-inoperative clearway credit on wet runways are the Boeing 747-400 (100%) and
https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266 Page 2 of 7

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

the Boeing 777-200 (50%). As can be concluded from the table current FAR/JAR/EASA certification requirements do not allow clearway credit for the engine inoperative takeoff distance calculation on wet runways.

Declared Distances
Operational regulations define the following relationship: ASDA = TORA + Stopway TODA = TORA + Clearway ASDA: Accelerate-Stop Distance Available TODA: Takeoff Distance Available TORA: Takeoff Run Available Databases may contain errors and there are instances where the declared distances by the airport authorities are not in agreement with the above definitions (e.g. to accommodate RESA requirements). Another issue is the change to the declared distance per NOTAM. When calculating takeoff performance it is of utmost importance that the distances used are valid. Even more so when optimizing the performance and using the entire runway length. Database validity should be checked by the operator and as a further safety barrier flight crews should know the distances used for the performance calculation (TORA, TODA and ASDA) in order to detect errors, discrepancies or amendments. A final check could be the verification of the numbers used for the performance calculation with the distance remaining indicated on signs when entering the runway.

Obstacle Clearance
Regulations require the consideration of an engine failure in all flight phases. Without real-time computer based tools (EFB, laptop, ACARS based) evaluation of obstacle clearance criteria is a laborious task and requires the availability of up-to-date and accurate obstacle charts. Unfortunately not all states produce these charts with the required accuracy. With the advent of more advanced computer based tools calculation limits have disappeared allowing obstacle clearance evaluations and performance optimizations in a matter of seconds. Previously both the absence of sufficiently accurate obstacle charts, the difficulty in performing obstacle clearance calculations for a multitude of departure routings without the modern computer tools and frequent changes to these routings have led authorities to allow engine failure accountability for a limited portion of a departure routing or limited to a specific engine-out routing for a particular runway. As such, obstacle clearance following an engine failure may not be guaranteed on the entire departure routing. As flight deck instruments do not facilitate direct reading of the actual climb gradient, obstacle clearance should be assured in advance by the performance calculation and should provide a safe routing following an engine failure anywhere on the expected departure route. This becomes especially important when performing optimizations. As obstacle clearance is calculated using a net flight path, the gross-net margin will provide an increasing margin with an engine failure occurring further down the departure route. In combination with the availability of all engines prior to the engine failure a point can be identified on the departure routing where after continuation on that routing up to a safe altitude is feasible.

Weather
In takeoff performance calculations it is only allowed to take account of 50% of the reported headwind where 150% of the tailwind should be taken into account. According to ICAO Document 7401/AIR/OPS/612 Final Report of the Standing Committee on Performance (1953) this rule is intended to cover variations of the wind around the forecasted wind. Current ICAO Annex 3 requirements specify a wind reporting accuracy of 2 knots and 10 degrees whereas gusts should be reported when equal to or exceeding 10 knots or the variation in wind direction exceeds 60 degrees. Although the 50% / 150% factors may generally cover variations in wind speed and direction, certain variations are not adequately covered by these factors, e.g. a shifting crosswind or headwind condition to a tailwind condition. Flight crews have no insight in the actual accuracy of wind reporting as this will depend largely on the airport geography (e.g. terrain roughness, buildings, runway layout, etc.), the quality of the meteorological services and the amount and
https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266 Page 3 of 7

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

position of measuring poles. More detailed insight in wind behavior near the surface and enhancement of wind measurement data can improve reliability and validity of promulgated wind reports. Low Level Temperature Inversions (LLTI) are often associated with wind shear phenomena which should warrant a delayed or at least full thrust takeoff. However LLTI can also occur in the absence of wind shear and in a still atmosphere. Current ICAO Annex 3 does not contain requirements for reporting LLTI. Adverse phenomena related to LLTI such as wind shifts, icing conditions below the inversion layer, speed defects and AP/FD behavior in combination with temperature effects on performance and the available engine thrust may partly or completely negate the difference between gross and net performance levels used in evaluating obstacle clearance requirements. It should be noted that different engine models will have different responses to LLTI, depending on the details of the engine control design. Modern FADEC engine controls will command rated thrust consistent with the locally sensed ambient conditions in the inversion layer. However, this feature only protects thrust in an inversion if the locally sensed temperature and the temperature used for performance calculations are both below the flat rated temperature.

Dry Runways
Dry runway takeoff performance is based on flight test data. For operational use reverse thrust is not taken into account although it will likely be used on the operating engine in case of a rejected takeoff. Because of the high deceleration on dry runways and engine spool up times the effect of not accounting for reverse thrust is limited but should cater according to the certification specifications for differences in runway friction of operational runways as compared to the flight test surfaces, heat retention and dragging brakes.

Wet Runways
Wet runway friction is subject to runway maintenance requirements contained in ICAO Annex 14 and the Airport Services Manual such as rubber removal frequencies and friction measurements using friction testing equipment in self-wetting mode. Annex 14 defines three maintenance friction levels: the Design Objective Level (DOL) for newly built runways, the Maintenance Planning (MPL) for scheduling runway maintenance and the Minimum Friction Level (MFL) below which a NOTAM Slippery when Wet should be issued. Unfortunately these maintenance standards are not correlated to aircraft performance and the absence of a NOTAM may not guarantee the validity of applying regular wet runway performance calculations. Of greater concern is the fact that not all states adhere to recommended rubber removal frequencies, not all states perform maintenance friction tests and not all states issue a NOTAM Slippery when Wet when the friction has dropped below MFL. Depending on the local situation and weather conditions an additional amount of conservatism can be justified.

Contaminated / Slippery Runways

Runway state reporting is covered by the SNOWTAM format contained in ICAO Annex 15. Requirements and guidance for runway state reporting and operational friction measurements are contained in ICAO Annex 14 and the Airport Services Manual. Part of the guidance is a correlation between measured friction coefficient and aircraft braking action. It should be understood that the correlation is considered valid for compacted snow and ice only and not even this is an exact science! Friction measurements on other types of winter contaminants should be considered unreliable but do not relieve the airport authority from the requirement of providing an estimated aircraft braking action to the flight crew. Accident analyses have revealed occasions where measured and reported friction measurements were in the order of braking action GOOD with actual aircraft braking action deduced from flight data analysis in the order of POOR. The operational impact of operations on contaminated and slippery runways is probably best described by the following paragraph in the operational regulations:

JAR-OPS 1 IEM-OPS 1.490(c)(3)(1):

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 or landing, 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 pilot in command is to wait until the runway is cleared. If this is impracticable, he may consider a takeoff or landing, provided that he has applied the applicable performance adjustments, and any further safety measures he/she considers justified under the prevailing conditions. The excess runway length available including the criticality of the overrun area should also be considered.

https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266

Page 4 of 7

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

Reverse Thrust and Screen Height

Wet and slippery/contaminated runways may include credit for reverse thrust on the operating engine(s) and a reduction of the screen height from 35 feet to 15 feet. Both measures reduce V1 and were considered a means for reducing the risk of high speed overruns on these types of surfaces. Application of optimization tools may negate an actual reduction of V1 however. It should be noted that minimum control speeds do not take any crosswind effects into account. Especially on slippery runways crosswind in combination with asymmetrical reverse thrust may lead to controllability problems requiring a reduction to idle reverse thrust or even forward idle thrust to regain control thereby invalidating the assumptions regarding reverse thrust credit throughout the stop.

Brake Energy and Tire Speed Limits

In May 1988 a DC-10 overran the runway during an aborted takeoff as the result of an (erroneous) flap/slat disagree warning. The majority of the brakes was at the overhaul limit and was not capable of absorbing the kinetic energy during the rejected takeoff. The accident triggered the issue of Airworthiness Directives requiring the establishing of maximum allowable break wear limits allowing absorption of the kinetic energy during rejected takeoffs and resulted in the brake wear pins we find on our aircraft today. Revised brake energy requirements were included in FAR 25 Amendment 92 (1998) and JAR 25 Change 15 (2000). Aircraft certified to older specifications are covered by the Airworthiness Directives concerning brake energy albeit that the effect of brake wear on stopping distances does not need to be taken into account. This effect is generally small and more pronounced for steel brakes than for carbon brakes. Brake cooling is slow and mainly dictated by the amount of airflow available for cooling. Considerable heat can be build up in the brake system as a result of long taxi distances and repeated brake applications. Operational concerns when limited by brake energy requirements are quick turn-around limits, taxi speed, proper brake application and the possibility of an increased tailwind component (or less headwind) resulting from inaccuracies in wind reporting. As takeoff performance may also be limited by the maximum tire speed (usually on hot and high airports and limiting the maximum liftoff speed) inaccuracies in wind reporting may equally be a concern for takeoffs limited by this requirement.

Tire Tread Depth

The wet runway certification standards are based on tire tread depths of 2 mm which represent roughly 20% of the original tread depth. Typical tire groove depth at the time of removal varies from 1.5 to 5 mm and maintenance manuals usually recommend tire removal below tread depths of 1.2 mm although operation with zero tread depth is allowed. Furthermore ESDU Data Item 71025 indicates flattening out of remaining tire grooves under operational loads when tread depth is below 2 mm. Although it is unlikely that all tires will have worn to the same extent, significant tire wear on multiple wheels should be a concern and could justify an amount of conservatism when field length limited.

Runway Slope
A takeoff performance calculation is typically based on a single runway slope figure. As a rejected takeoff consists of an acceleration segment and a deceleration segment use of an average slope value may be inappropriate. A concave runway with an upslope on the first half of the runway and a similar downslope on the second half may evaluate to small or zero slope figure. The adverse effect of the upslope on aircraft acceleration and the adverse effect of downslope on deceleration may not be reflected in the performance calculation. Non-linear slope effects can be substantial and could warrant use of different slope values for the accelerate-go and the accelerate-stop calculation or the use of an effective slope value or an additional margin.

Thrust Settings
Two different methods for thrust reduction exist: either a fixed derated thrust setting which satisfies all certification requirements or use of the assumed/flex temperature method. When using the assumed/flex temperature method the takeoff performance is based on a higher temperature than the actual ambient temperature. This will reduce the available engine thrust but will also introduce a margin as the takeoff speeds are evaluated for the assumed temperature and not for the actual ambient temperature. As such the assumed groundspeeds will be higher than those encountered during the actual takeoff and a margin is created which will
https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266 Page 5 of 7

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

increase with increasing difference between the assumed temperature and the actual ambient temperature. This is known as the True Airspeed or TAS effect. The actual margin can be quantified and depending on the situation could be sufficient to cover operational concerns. The maximum allowable amount of thrust reduction below an approved takeoff rating (maximum or derated) when using the assumed temperature method used to be 25%. During recent certifications however, authorities have approved thrust reductions up to 40% below the maximum takeoff rating. When further thrust reduction could have been feasible this limitation may also provide an additional performance margin.

Takeoff Weight
With or without onboard measurement systems there will inevitably be inaccuracies in the estimated takeoff weight used in performance calculations. These inaccuracies need to be addressed by additional conservatisms, such as weight margins or generic assumed/flex temperature policies.

Aerodynamic Speeds
Presentation of the minimum allowable takeoff speeds (V1, VR and V2) in addition to the computed values could be useful for runway incursions or wind shear encounters as they will indicate to the flight crew the minimum speed at which the aircraft is able to liftoff the runway. Obviously flight crews should be aware that these minimum speeds may not satisfy regulations and engine-out considerations and obstacle clearance may therefore not be assured. As such reference to these speeds should only be considered in case of an emergency.

Conclusions
The assumptions and allowances present in takeoff performance regulations may or may not adequately cover operational situations. With increasing use of performance optimization tools considerable cost reductions can be realized, however cost reduction should not be the sole driving force behind these applications. Other aspects such as training, human factors aspects of the user interface and quantification of margins and the need for conservatism should be addressed. As such it is essential that: Operators provide flight crews with the required training, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and tools to address the issues below. Flight crews have thorough knowledge of allowances and assumptions present in takeoff performance regulations. Flight crews use conservative wind values taking inaccuracies in wind reporting into account Flight crews use conservative runway state information taking inaccuracies in measurement/reporting into account. Flight crews have direct insight in remaining performance margins (weight/distance) and performance limits. Flight crews have the possibility to verify takeoff distances used in calculations against published/displayed distances and amendments thereof. Flight crews have the possibility to introduce additional margins (weight/distance) when deemed necessary. Operators consider airport specific margins or generic assumed/flex temperature policies. Operators address inaccuracies in takeoff weight estimates. Performance calculations/optimizations are based on expected departure routings and provide safe routings following an engine failure on that routing.

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. CAA CAP 683 The Assessment of Runway Surface Friction for Maintenance Purposes ESDU Data Item 71025 Frictional and Retarding Forces on Aircraft Tyres Part I ESDU Data Item 71026 Frictional and Retarding Forces on Aircraft Tyres Part II FAA AC 20-99 Antiskid and Associated Systems FAA AC 25-7A Flight Test Guide For Certification of Transport Category Airplanes FAA AC 25-13 Reduced and Derated Takeoff Thrust (Power) Procedures FAA AC 25-15 Approval of Flight Management Systems in Transport Category Airplanes FAA AC 25.735-1 Brakes and Braking Systems Certification Test and Analysis FAA AC 91-6A Water, Slush and Snow on the Runway FAA AC 91-13C Cold Weather Operation of Aircraft FAA AC 120-62 Takeoff Safety Training Aid
Page 6 of 7

https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266

Takeoff Performance Margins

5/9/12 2:51 PM

12. FAA AC 150-5320-12C Measurement, Construction and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces 13. FAR 25 Airworthiness Standards Transport Category Airplanes 14. ICAO Annex 3 Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation 15. ICAO Annex 14 Aerodromes 16. ICAO Annex 15 Aeronautical Information Services 17. ICAO Document 8126 Aeronautical Information Services Manual 18. ICAO Document 9137 Airport Services Manual 19. JAR/CS 25 Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes 20. JAA NPA 25B-335 Flight Test Guide 21. NTSB Special Investigative Report 90/02: Runway Overruns Following High Speed Rejected Takeoffs 22. TSO C26c Aircraft Wheels and Wheel-Brake Assemblies 23. TSO C135 Transport Airplane Wheels and Wheel and Brake Assemblies 24. Joint Aviation Requirements JAR-OPS 1. Commercial Air Transportation (Aeroplanes Technische publicatie

https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/print/4266

Page 7 of 7