1
$\begingroup$

I'm curious about why some airplanes have accelerate-stop distance (ASD) and accelerate-go distance (AGD) in their performance charts and some don’t include that. Does anyone know why?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you include examples of those that do and don't to get a better answer? $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jun 21 '18 at 1:48
-1
$\begingroup$

It depends on the aircraft in question. This isn’t required for the certification of a light twin and is solely up to the OEM’s discretion to publish said information.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My recollection is the FAA prohibits commercial operations out of airports that are shorter than the accelerate stop distance. I have never seen a twin manufacture that does not publish the data. $\endgroup$ – jwzumwalt Jun 21 '18 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ Try out Diamond. They do not publish that data on the DA42 or the DA62 airplanes $\endgroup$ – Carlo Felicione Jun 21 '18 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ @ Carlo Felicion - thanks, I did... and it prompted me to answer :) $\endgroup$ – jwzumwalt Jun 21 '18 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ FAR 23.1585 f(2) and FAR 23.1587 d(5) require the POH manual to have accelerate-stop data. $\endgroup$ – jwzumwalt Jun 24 '18 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ The regulations are phrase that the OEM must provide “procedures and speeds for accelerate-stop distances”, not the publication of charts and accelerate stop distances. Also the requirement for the publication of accelerate-stop distances only apply to commuter-category airplanes under 23.1587. Little different in the eyes of the law. $\endgroup$ – Carlo Felicione Jun 24 '18 at 11:17
-1
$\begingroup$

So, if we use the Diamond DA62, the POH manual says...

The certification basis is JAR-23, published on 11-Mar-1994, including Amdt. 1 with some paragraphs elected to comply from CS-23 and additional requirements as laid down in CRI A-01 and published in the Type Certificate Data Sheet. The certification basis for US registered aircraft is 14 CFR Part 23 effective February 1, 1965, including Amendment 23-1 through Amendment 23-55.

I don't have any JAR knowledge but I can comment on FAR's.

FAR 23.1585 f(2) and FAR 23.1587 d(5) says the pilot manual must include...

(2) Procedures and speeds for carrying out an accelerate-stop in accordance with § 23.55.

(5) The effect on accelerate-stop distance, takeoff distance, and if determined, takeoff run, of runway slope and 50 percent of the headwind component and 150 percent of the tailwind component;

This specific Diamond aircraft was approved on February 1, 1965 and would have been required to meet FAR 23 but may have been granted some waivers based on JAR-23 approval. I don't know the requirements in 1965 but similar aircraft like Cessna and Piper Manuals had inaccurate information in the same time period.

In about 1985 the FAA wanted manufactures to update deficiencies in their manuals but the mfg resisted because the laws said a change would re-instate liability. Eventually congress passed a bill in 1994 that released them from liability after 18yr from mfg date and allowed changes to manuals.

I am most familiar with how this affected Cessna. Cessna manuals had deficiencies in "un-usable fuel", "emergency procedures", and "equipment operations". Cessna had addressed some issues such has equipment operations with separate "supplements". The FAA wanted all the information available to the pilot in a single manual.

Take for example the C-172. The un-usable fuel in the POH went through several changes i.e. from 1gal in 1967 to eventually 3gal in 2007 - in certain instances, even higher. The parts for the C-172 fuel system have never changed but the FAA got stricter (FAR 23.959) about calculating it.

One of the changes the FAA forced Cessna to make is an "emergency" section plainly visible (FAR 23.1581 b(2-i)) and easy for the pilot to turn to. Now, POH manuals are required to be bound in such a way they can be revised and amended (FAR 23.1581.(f)). The Cessna manuals made this change but the Diamond manual clearly is lacking this feature.

In conclusion: Diamond likely was either given a waiver, or was allowed to slip through the cracks based on the JAR-23 approval. This does happen. In addition, for some reason the FAA did not require Diamond to update deficiencies in their manual as they have done with other manufactures, and only the FAA knows why.

What will eventually happen is Diamond will get sued and they will either update the manuals or declare bankruptcy and reform under a new legal entity. (like Marvel-Schebler/Bendix/Precision Aeromotive)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great information guys appreciate it, for example I fly a PC-12 and in its performance charts it has a ASD but no AGD. We still brief our take off in a event of a engine failure like you should but I’m learning that theirs more to AGD besides clearing a 35 Ft obstacle end of runway at V2. I was maybe thinking a FAR for 121/135 requirement. Makes a lot of sense that they have to include it in the POH for legality purposes but don’t you think they should have tht information for you any ways. The FAA does say some multi engine airplanes don’t have a AGD wondering why so when it’s so critical. $\endgroup$ – Melvin Toro Jun 21 '18 at 11:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.