Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Module 11
Where are we?
2
Wet and contaminated runways
Agenda – Module 11
Wet runways
Contaminated
runways
3
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance
Take-off performance on wet runways is based on the same
considerations as take-off performance on dry runways with the
following exceptions
4
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced
• Data for wet grooved runway or for runway covered with porous
friction course material may be presented in the AFM at the option of
the applicant (better braking performance)
FB = η AS µ B WBR
5
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
6
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
7
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Braking coefficient is reduced (Cont’d)
8
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Overall, the field length-limited take-off weight on a wet runway is normally
slightly lower than on a dry runway
• In this case, the dry runway weight limit must be used when operating on
a wet runway (i.e. it is not acceptable to have a higher field length-limited
take-off weight when operating on a wet runway)
For given operating conditions (weight, altitude, temperature, …), the dry
runway V1 must be reduced when operating on a wet runway
• Mainly due to the fact that ASD increases significantly on a wet runway
(will be discussed in more detail later)
• VR and V2 are unchanged when operating on a wet runway
9
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet runways – Landing performance
10
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance
Take-off performance is significantly degraded when operating on
contaminated runways
• The presence of precipitation such as standing water, slush or loose
snow on the runway will increase drag during take-off roll
• Braking coefficients will be even lower than on a wet smooth runway
• Aquaplaning may take place above a certain speed
• Calculation methods are detailed in JAR 25 AMJ25X1591 (main points
are summarized in this presentation)
• Field length-limited take-off weight can be reduced by as much as 25 %
relative to dry runway conditions!
11
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Additional precipitation drag is due to two effects
• Landing gear displacement drag : drag caused by the fact that
contamination is displaced by the tires
• Impingement drag : drag due to airframe impingement of contamination
spray from tires
• Landing gear displacement drag and impingement drag are proportional
to contamination Water Equivalent Depth (WED = depth * SG) and
increase as function of VG2 until the aquaplaning speed is reached and
then they reduce gradually as speed in increased
12
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Aquaplaning speed
• An airplane will aquaplane at high speed due to the
incompressibility of water on a surface contaminated by
standing water, slush or wet snow
• The aquaplaning speed (VP) in knots (ground speed) can be
estimated as
where P is tire pressure in lb/in2
Vp = 9 P
13
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Current certification requirements define braking coefficients for
different contaminated runway conditions
14
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Take-off performance (cont’d)
Runway friction measurement devices are used in many airports
• Airport personnel measure friction
• Friction measurements are reported to the crews
• Canadian Runway Friction Index (CRFI) has been defined
15
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Landing performance
JAR 25 AMJ25X1591 also provides details for calculation of
landing distance on contaminated runways
16
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Other considerations
17
Wet and contaminated runways
Contaminated runways – Other considerations (Cont’d)
18
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1
• Dry runway
• Shallow contamination
- Low mu
- No precipitation drag
- Examples : wet runway, icy runway, …
• Deep contamination
- Low mu
- Precipitation drag
- Examples: Slush, standing water, …
Dry runway
DISTANCE
ASD (AEO)
ASD (OEI)
Minimum
Distance
(BFL)
TOD (AEO)
TOD (OEI)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1 (Cont’d)
Contaminated ASD
Field Length (low Mu)
(Dry V1/VR)
Contaminated
BFL(Optimum
V1/VR) ASD (dry)
Dry BFL
TOD (dry)
TOD (15 ft)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR
Wet and contaminated runways
Wet and contaminated runways – impact on V1 (Cont’d)
Contaminated ASD
Field Length (low Mu)
(Dry V1/VR)
Contaminated
BFL(Optimum
V1/VR)
ASD (dry)
TOD (15 ft
Dry BFL and DCONTAM)
TOD (dry)
V1/VR
Optimum V1/VR Dry V1/VR 22
Wet and contaminated runways
Example of Takeoff Performance
Shallow Contamination (Low Mu)
2 engine commuter jet
Runway Conditions
• Dry
• Shallow Contamination, CRFI = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
• CRFI / Mu relationship established by JWRFP
Runway Conditions
• Dry
• Snow (SG = 0.2), Depth = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 inch
• DCONTAM/EWD = 2000 lbf/inch (from JWRFP)
• Mu = 0.15 (from JWRFP)
• By Gerard van Es, Senior Research Engineer, Flight Testing & Safety
Department, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, The Netherlands.
www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/commerce/operationalstandards/crfi/CRFI.pdf