172driver wrote:
It’s a VERY big part of twin training
In the sim or for real? with breif or surprise? at Vr-1kts or Vr+1kts? 
Peter wrote:
I do recall somebody having done the research when EASA proposed forcing a balanced runway for all jets, even privately operated.
Yep. IIRC we even had a discussion on here at the time. Been a while.
Ibra wrote:
In the sim or for real? with breif or surprise? at Vr-1kts or Vr+1kts?
For real, anywhere from slow (say 30kts) to Vr. Sometimes with, sometimes without brief 
Peter wrote:
I do recall somebody (NBAA?) having done the research when EASA proposed forcing a balanced runway for all jets, even privately operated. Currently AFAIK it is a requirement only for AOC ops. It was found that some huge number of European runways, currently usable, would become inaccesible to jets (900 from vague memory). About 5 years ago?
It’s in Part-CAT, you have to calculate trajectories AND assume engine failures when calculating the required runway lengths, you will be looking for 900m for DA40 and 1100m for DA42 under ISA and zero wind, in Part-NCO, the engine never fails…
172driver wrote:
Sometimes with, sometimes without brief
I think EASA instructors are way more honest ;)
They are after all supposed to take off and fly on one engine – subject to the required speed having been achieved.
Not a requirement for piston twins I believe (FAR23/CS23).
Just because they can do something doesn’t mean they will.
Standard MEP training is if you are on the ground stay on it.
If you have taken off and the wheels are still down or you have runway available if an engine fails pull both engines and land straight ahead, exactly as one would do in a single. In the Piper PA44, this was challenged a couple of years ago by a couple of American University students. They showed that even wheels down, fully loaded the aircraft would climb at around 200ft a minute. IiRC this was not at altitude or in high temperatures.
These are procedures for light twins. The larger, more powerful twins, must be able to take off and climb on one engine to as part of their certification procedure.
@Ibra the figures for a DA 42 are far less than 1100m. They are more like 600m if I remember correctly. Although ASDR is not listed it takes around 300m fully loaded to get to Vr. To stop from Vr is around 300m. The figure normally used in the calculations is take off distance to 15m.
Are there any commercial operators operating a DA42s under Part-CAT with 600m? I am sure the CAA will not be happy, there is a blanket 1.4 factor on any figure you come up with, but you can operate it privately in/out of 500m if you ignore engine failures & comercial add-ons
I don’t know about how many Part-CAT operations DA42 there are, but many of the ATO’s do use shorter airfields in their training eg Ouessant and Aldernay.
Is the CAA blanket 1.4 a UK thing? I have always referred to manufacturer’s guidelines and added my own security margins as and when I see fit.
Reading again I have just a quick question 1.4 of what?
I guess for ATO training you have concession to revert to NCO?
The +40% is probably UK specific (on top of Part-CAT), it’s a figure that you apply to any POH performance numbers (it’s CAA POH supplement for public transport), not sure if you have apply it to TOD or ASDR but I doubt you are getting less than 900m for CAT operations
The Air Florida flight 90 accident was a prime mover in the change in gas turbine power indication from EPR to N1. The N1 turbine being the last thing in the engine reflects the performance of all that is forward of it.
