Narrative:

Departing eddf the only takeoff runway available was runway 18. It had an accumulation of wet slush on the runway up to 3 mm; which equates to just at 1/8 inch; which equals a cluttered runway environment. This flight was planned utilizing the commercially provided flight optimization program [fop] recently incorporated by our company. Under the guidance materials provided; we requested via ACARS the takeoff performance for runway 18 with a 'clutter condition' of '1' along with our final takeoff gross weight. The runway 18 data was as follows: flaps 20 three packs on engine anti-ice on tog 798.5 mtogw 853.2; V1 120; vr 164; V2 174 with a tailwind of two knots. We identified the reduced V1 for a slippery runway condition (old optional V1 procedure) as the VMC minimum ground for maximum thrust. We briefed the conditions and identified the corrective actions in the event of engine failure prior to V1. We had just spent two hours getting the airplane deiced and there were times of moderate snow falling during that period of time. Runway 18 was mostly clear with patches of snow and the centerline of the runway was wet slush as defined in the ATIS with braking action as good in all reports; plus the deceleration reports validated the braking action reports. We followed the fop operating procedures as outlined in both the fom and FM bulletins; but we did question the allowance for a tail wind departure. Per our fom; takeoff is prohibited on cluttered runways with a tail wind. Per the aom; there are nine conventions that must be followed for a takeoff on a cluttered/contaminated runway; one of which is tail winds for departure are not authorized. Per the fop; the only approved takeoff performance data allowed are those generated by the fop's own aircraft performance data product; other sources of data are not to be utilized. We briefed the departure accordingly and determined the operating condition of the runway and the information provided by the fop was reasonable for a safe operation. Issues: 1. For the immediate near term; the B747 will be operating with the fop generated speeds for all flight operations; however; there are statements in the company fom and FM that contradict the bulletin. 2. The fop generated 'V' speeds for cluttered runway environments do not spell out the fom and aom convention allowances for a safe operating environment. (I.e. Optional V1; tailwind; etc) 3. Flight operations manual and fop generated takeoff performance should be compatible with respect to the conventions and allowances for a safe operating environment. 4. Flight crew exposure to the fop generated takeoff performance for these operating conditions was not provided in any of the training documentation. (I.e. Clutter one with a tail wind; wet runway conditions with reduced thrust). There are many aspects to fop generated performance calculations that are still felt to be outside our company's normal operating practices. The more exposure we get to the various operating conditions; the more questions are being raised about the fop. After over thirty years under our historical operational scheme; company flight crews may be reluctant to take into consideration the fop generated takeoff performance without some verification of the process and operating conditions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747-400 Captain found his company's commercially provided Flight Optimization Program (FOP) produced takeoff performance data that was contradictory to published restrictions in their Flight Operations and Aircraft Operations Manuals.

Narrative: Departing EDDF the only takeoff runway available was Runway 18. It had an accumulation of wet slush on the runway up to 3 mm; which equates to just at 1/8 inch; which equals a cluttered runway environment. This flight was planned utilizing the commercially provided Flight Optimization Program [FOP] recently incorporated by our company. Under the guidance materials provided; we requested via ACARS the Takeoff Performance for Runway 18 with a 'clutter condition' of '1' along with our final takeoff gross weight. The Runway 18 data was as follows: FLAPS 20 THREE PACKS ON ENGINE ANTI-ICE ON TOG 798.5 MTOGW 853.2; V1 120; VR 164; V2 174 with a tailwind of two knots. We identified the reduced V1 for a slippery runway condition (Old Optional V1 Procedure) as the VMC Minimum Ground for maximum thrust. We briefed the conditions and identified the corrective actions in the event of engine failure prior to V1. We had just spent two hours getting the airplane deiced and there were times of moderate snow falling during that period of time. Runway 18 was mostly clear with patches of snow and the centerline of the runway was wet slush as defined in the ATIS with braking action as GOOD in all reports; plus the deceleration reports validated the braking action reports. We followed the FOP operating procedures as outlined in both the FOM and FM bulletins; but we did question the allowance for a tail wind departure. Per our FOM; takeoff is prohibited on cluttered runways with a tail wind. Per the AOM; there are nine conventions that must be followed for a takeoff on a cluttered/contaminated runway; one of which is tail winds for departure are not authorized. Per the FOP; the only approved takeoff performance data allowed are those generated by the FOP's own aircraft performance data product; other sources of data are not to be utilized. We briefed the departure accordingly and determined the operating condition of the runway and the information provided by the FOP was reasonable for a safe operation. Issues: 1. For the immediate near term; the B747 will be operating with the FOP generated speeds for all flight operations; however; there are statements in the company FOM and FM that contradict the Bulletin. 2. The FOP Generated 'V' speeds for cluttered runway environments do not spell out the FOM and AOM convention allowances for a safe operating environment. (i.e. Optional V1; Tailwind; etc) 3. Flight Operations Manual and FOP generated Takeoff Performance should be compatible with respect to the conventions and allowances for a safe operating environment. 4. Flight crew exposure to the FOP Generated Takeoff Performance for these operating conditions was not provided in any of the training documentation. (i.e. Clutter One with a tail wind; wet runway conditions with reduced thrust). There are many aspects to FOP Generated performance calculations that are still felt to be outside our company's normal operating practices. The more exposure we get to the various operating conditions; the more questions are being raised about the FOP. After over thirty years under our historical operational scheme; company flight crews may be reluctant to take into consideration the FOP Generated takeoff performance without some verification of the process and operating conditions.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.