A quick review of the discussion on this thread…
In simply trying to provide information to prevent accidents, I started it by giving warning not to trust the wet runway data in Aircraft Flight Manuals because it may not always be reliable. I mentioned that this information is not flight tested and is in fact made by calculation. Along with that, I then posted an accident report that happened to a business jet in Texas that discusses this very fact. I also posted a reference to an FAA issued Safety Alert For Operators(SAFO) that basically says the same thing. In fact, the SAFO 15009 says that on certain runways in moderate to heavy rain, the landing distances may be 30-40% longer than the AFM wet landing distances.
Another poster, Rockie, stated that his airline uses a fairly new procedure called TALPA(Takeoff Landing And Performance Assessment) which was implemented subsequent to this accident report and SAFO 15009 being issued. Basically, it is a new runway condition reporting system at many large American airports along with modification to AFM landing performance calculations.
I thanked him for the reply but pointed out that the new style of runway condition reports(or any reports) are not available at many airports that business jets used which has been a source of concern for the National Business Aircraft Association. The same thing applies outside the US.
After some polite back and forth discussion I mentioned about a 737 overrun in YUL where the pilot got a surprise when intentionally approaching the runway end at a relatively high speed. Rockie stated that the 737 incident wasn't a case of not being able to trust wet runway performance numbers, which is what the thread title is about.
So I pointed out that the FAA still has SAFO 15009 that I originally provided a link to on their website even though we have the TALPA procedure. And I made common sense statements about this discussion about aircraft performance such as quoting the SAFO statement of "Analysis of this data indicates that 30 to 40 percent of additional stopping distance may be required in certain cases where the runway is very wet, but not flooded." And then stating “Yet as far as I know, the TALPA performance calculations for wet runway did not increase landing distance requirements by 30-40%. So as far as I am concerned, the wet performance data cannot be trusted as it was likely made under ideal conditions.”
This is when the really unprofessional stuff started getting posted by Rockie such as…
“when the FAA made their original 30-40% additive recommendations it was a gouge, a rough hack, a wild ass guess” as well as saying that even though the SAFO is still on their website, it is no longer applicable because it pre-dates the TALPA procedure and how he knows that it is no longer applicable(as shown below)…
Rockie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 3:52 pmI can't explain why the FAA has on their website a SAFO recommendation that has been superceded by the TALPS-ARC recommendations - now regulation. Maybe you should ask them.
Rockie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:58 pmCheck the dates on your documents versus the TALPA regulation implementation date Pelmet. The ones you're quoting are at least a year before the implementation of TALPA and do not even mention it. Really...stop. Betraying yourself as a moron is not worth another pointless argument with me. Or...continue. This should be good...
Rockie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:37 pmBy simply looking at the date on the SAFO which is 8/11/15. TALPA regulations came in force October 2016.
All this was followed by the usual insults such as idiot and moron being posted by him whenever he is challenged. And of course sending me a message saying "...don't for a second think you know more about this stuff than I do" (which shows more about a personality disorder than anything else).
Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to convince him that this SAFO likely still has applicability, so as suggested, I have decided to ask the FAA for clarification.