Flysmart 起飞性能计算 RWYCC 双输入的补充说明

1. 本文的原因和目的

空客在 Flysmart 的起飞性能计算中引入 RWYCC 双输入后，一开始大家都只是觉得终于有了一个省事儿的方法，不用再去判断是否“降级”了，如果机场报了 RWYCC，输入就行了。但后面发现并不是这么回事儿……机组还是要自己判断是不是降级，而只有在降级的情况下才能选对应的 RWYCC，不降级的时候都必须选“None”。

主要有两点疑惑：

第一，为什么不降级时 RWYCC 要选 None？

由于没有太多的解释，不降级的时候必须选“None” 很容易让人迷惑，选“None”和选对应的 RWYCC 有什么区别，而且大多数情况下算出来的都一样。

第二，为什么不能双输入后软件自己判断是否降级？

如果机组知道有降级这个问题，就意味着知道怎么在 FCOM 中去查，这和在 Flysmart 中输入降级后的 RWYCC 让软件去算相比，几乎没有麻烦多少。那设置双输入对机组的帮助并不大。

在写 《空客手册中关于性能计算的相关内容》 的时候，公司的 EFB 中的 Flysmart 还没有升级，我也没有意识到这些问题，所以文中没有做详细解释。

后来翻阅了一些资料，主要包括：

• 空客 2023 年 6 月网络会议的宣传和答疑文档：
  • Global Reporting Format Takeoff Consideration
  • Webinar ‒ Q&A Global Reporting Format ‒ Takeoff consideration
• 公众号“Airbus 资料库”的两篇文章：
  • FS+ 起飞性能 RWYCC 项应该如何设置？你也选错了么？空客机型Flysmart+5.3版本 起飞性能查询注意事项
  • 进阶篇：FS+起飞性能 RWYCC 项应该如何设置？软件选项设计理念、ICAO文件、CAAC规章、空客手册要求等

“Airbus 资料库” 在《进阶篇》中做了较为详细的解释和相关法规的延申，没读过的可以学习一下。其中法规相关部分确实有点复杂，我也没有完全理解。

空客的宣传和答疑文档也非常实用，尤其是答疑文档中其他航司提出的 30 个问题，基本上已经包含了机组能想到的所有方面。所以本文结合这篇答疑文档，对上述两点疑惑进行一些说明。

答疑文档的原文和翻译留在本文第 4 部分，并对个人觉得比较重要的做了高亮标记（问题 5、6、8、9、10、11、13、23、26、28），有兴趣的可以自行阅读。

仍然要先说明的是，性能计算背后涉及很复杂的道面摩擦力评估和计算模型，以及基于此的法规制定、延续和改革问题。对这些深层的问题我实在是理解有限，不敢保证都正确。

2. 为什么不降级时 RWYCC 要选 None

根本原因在于积水跑道的附加阻力，这是位移阻力、摩擦阻力和冲击阻力综合的一个概念，比平时经常提到的“滑水阻力”包含更多的内容。

这些阻力对于落地减速来说是有帮助的，RWYCC 是为了计算着陆性能而设计的，出于保守起见，没有考虑附加阻力。而对于起飞来说，附加阻力既会阻碍加速，增加加速滑跑距离，又能帮助飞机减速，缩短中断距离，所以附加阻力的影响并不是绝对的正向或者负向，就需要考虑进去。

也就是说，相较于“污染物类型和深度”模型，“RWYCC”模型的摩擦系数通常上会低一些。所以，在大多数情况时，起飞性能计算如果输入了 RWYCC 都会带来更保守的结果。空客认为，为了避免不必要的保守，在没有降级的情况下，RWYCC 应该选择 NONE。

关于“污染物类型及深度”和“RWYCC”两种模型中摩擦系数的区别，在 [[#4.18. A9|问题 9]] 中有较为详细的解释。

但需要注意的是，对于没有降级但输入了对应的 RWYCC 的情况，少量时候会带来一点点更好的性能（比如 MTOW 增加 100kg）。在 [[#4.16. A8|问题8]] 中，空客做了解释，认为只是性能数据库不同以及取值精度不同带来的结果，不是普遍情况：

但是，当选择 WET SNOW 30mm 和 RWYCC 3 时，您将获得更好的结果，因为计算将更改为纯第一原理模式。这意味着不使用神经元数据库。然后，计算更加精确并产生更好的结果。我们想澄清的是，这些结果仍然可以在操作中使用，因为它们更加精确，我们确认计算的最大起飞重量和起飞速度满足所有监管要求。

但是，当选择 WET SNOW 30mm 和 RWYCC 3 时，您将获得更好的结果，因为计算将更改为纯第一原理模式。这意味着不使用神经元数据库。然后，计算更加精确并产生更好的结果。我们想澄清的是，这些结果仍然可以在操作中使用，因为它们更加精确，我们确认计算的最大起飞重量和起飞速度满足所有监管要求。

直接参考 [[#4.19. Q10|问题10]]：

You stated that if a RWYCC is entered that agrees with the Contaminant Type/Depth in the RCAM, the result will still encounter penalties. Can the software be changed to ignore RWYCC entries if they match the RCAM value?

这个问答我认为并没有解释清楚。因为要实现不降级则忽略 RWYCC 在技术上是完全可行的，对比：

1. 选择的污染物，与
2. 选择的 RWYCC 在 RCAM 中对应的污染物列表

如果 1 属于 2 的范畴，意味着没有降级，则忽略选择的 RWYCC。我认为这是软件代码里几个判断条件就可以实现的，没有技术难度。

从另一方面也可以印证，即在 [[#4.21. Q11|问题11]] 中，空客明确了软件不会按照更好的 RWYCC 来升级：

如果您选择的 RWYCC 优于相应的跑道污染物类型和深度，则计算将使用最低的摩擦系数。因此，在 RWYCC 升级时，将根据跑道污染物摩擦系数进行计算。

既然是否升级能够判断，那是否降级也应该可以判断。而现在的情况是，机组还需要自己先判断是否降级，如果降级才能去选择 RWYCC。这只比去查询 FCOM 中的 FCOM PER-TOF-30-30 B PERFORMANCE CALCULATION - EQUIVALENCES 方便一步，对机组的帮助很小。让软件自行判断是否降级，才是符合用户逻辑的方式。

于是我又在 TR-81500177  （原文在本文第 5 部分）中再次进行了咨询，但空客并没有给出令人满意的回答，口径和上述 Q&A 文档中一样，都反复强调这个功能就是为了降级才设计的，设计符合行业建议，并且能满足那些经常遇到降级情况的运营商的需求。空客认为当前的功能与设计意图相符，目前预计不会对当前设计进行更改。

或许确实有什么背后的技术或者法规原因让空客没法这么做，但我仍然感到不合理和费解。

4. 答疑文档原文及翻译

4.1. Q1
Hello, in what version of Flysmart+ will this feature be available?
When the new version of Flysmart+ with the dual function will be published How can an operator get this modification and what is the cost?
In what version of Octopus will this new functionality first be offered? In what version of PEP?
In which Octopus version will the new feature be implemented?

您好，请问 Flysmart+什么版本可以使用此功能？
双功能 Flysmart+新版本何时发布，营运人如何获得此修改，费用是多少？
哪个版本的 Octopus 会首先提供这项新功能？在什么版本的 PEP 中？
新功能会在哪个 Octopus 版本实施？

4.2. A1
This feature is available on FlySmart+ Windows 7.3 or FlySmart+ iOS 5.3 in combination with PAAdmin 10.3. It is also available in PEP 5.14. This feature is free of charge and automatically implemented in the tools versions above-mentioned. The Octopus version 40 is required to have this function.

此功能可在 FlySmart+ Windows 7.3 或 FlySmart+ iOS 5.3 与 PAAdmin 10.3 结合使用。 PEP 5.14 中也提供了该功能。该功能是免费的，并且在上述工具版本中自动实现。

4.3. Q2
Can the dual computation (contamination type and Runway Condition Code (RWYCC)) be run in Octopus / SCAP module?

双重计算（污染类型和跑道状况代码（RWYCC））可以在 Octopus / SCAP 模块中运行吗？

4.4. A2
Yes, the dual computation can be run with the SCAP module. The input of RWYCC is POPT (16).

是的，可以使用SCAP模块来运行对偶计算。 RWYCC 的输入是 POPT (16)。

4.5. Q3
Good morning, is this function (dual input in T.O perf application) currently only available for the Single Aisle program? If yes, will it be available for other programs soon?

早上好，此功能（T.O perf 应用程序中的双输入）目前仅适用于单通道程序吗？如果是的话，它很快就会适用于其他程序吗？

4.6. A3
This function is available on all programs except A220, A300/A310. Please note that, even if it is available for A380 in PEP and Flysmart+, it is not available in the A380 NSS/OIS.

除 A220、A300/A310 外，所有程序均支持此功能。请注意，即使它在 PEP 和 Flysmart+ 中适用于 A380，但在 A380 NSS/OIS 中则不可用。

4.7. Q4
Is this feature available for A310? What will happen if we activate this feature in Flysmart+ if we have A330 and A310 at the same time?

A310有此功能吗？如果我们同时拥有 A330 和 A310，在 Flysmart+中激活此功能会发生什么？

4.8. A4
If the user activates the dual input feature in FlySmart+ while he has A330 and A310 in his loads, the additional RWYCC input field for takeoff will be visible for A330 aircrafts only. For A310, the activation of the dual input feature in the PAAdmin will have no impact because it is not available yet on A310 aircraft.

如果用户在装载 A330 和 A310 时激活 FlySmart+ 中的双输入功能，则仅 A330 飞机才能看到用于起飞的附加 RWYCC 输入字段。对于 A310，在 PAAdmin 中激活双输入功能不会产生任何影响，因为该功能在 A310 飞机上尚不可用。

4.9. Q5
Is this computation method (RWYCC) optional for takeoff in Flysmart+ or not?

Flysmart+ 起飞时是否可选用此计算方法（RWYCC）？

4.10. A5
Yes, the feature is optional, the user can activate or deactivate it in the PAAdmin. When it is active, it is also possible to leave the “RWYCC” input field to “None” in FlySmart+ in the case of a computation on a runway that is not contaminated or if the RWYCC is not downgraded.

是的，该功能是可选的，用户可以在 PAAdmin 中激活或停用它。当它处于活动状态时，如果在未受污染的跑道上进行计算或 RWYCC 未降级，也可以在 FlySmart+ 中将“RWYCC”输入字段保留为“None”。

4.11. Q6
Why did Airbus recommend not to activate the feature if the operator does not expect to use it frequently?
如果营运人不希望经常使用该功能，为什么空客建议不要激活该功能？

4.12. A6
If the feature is activated, it means that the flight crews are trained to use it. For example, the RWYCC entry must remain at “None” if no downgrade is reported in the SNOWTAM. Customer experience indicates that flight crews will ask questions if the feature is activated without appropriate training. Then, the double input feature adds an entry field in FlySmart+ interface, therefore additional workload.

如果该功能被激活，则意味着机组人员接受过使用该功能的培训。例如，如果 SNOWTAM 中未报告降级，则 RWYCC 条目必须保持为“无”。顾客经验表明，如果在没有经过适当培训的情况下激活该功能，机组人员会提出问题。然后，双输入功能在 FlySmart+界面中增加了一个输入字段，因此增加了工作量。

The FCOM provides guidance for several cases of downgrade. Before activation of the feature, the question the operator need to answer is: “What is the probability of a delayed takeoff in operation?”

FCOM 针对多种降级案例提供了指导。在激活该功能之前，操作员需要回答的问题是：  “运营中延推迟起飞的概率有多大？”

This probability has to be compared with the additional workload for the flight crew to manage a new input in the Flysmart+ interface. The operator has to keep in mind that a wrong RWYCC input may provide conservative results.

必须将此概率与机组人员管理 Flysmart+ 界面中的新输入的额外工作量进行比较。营运人必须记住，错误的 RWYCC 输入可能会提供保守的结果。

4.13. Q7
Is RWYCC mainly used when there is a SNOWTAM and also for Landing Distance at Time of Arrival (LDTA) assessment?

RWYCC 主要用于有 SNOWTAM 时以及到达时着陆距离 (LDTA) 评估吗？

4.14. A7
Yes, the RWYCC is mainly used when there is a SNOWTAM and for LDTA. However, it may be used for takeoff depending on your operations.

是的，RWYCC 主要用于有 SNOWTAM 和 LDTA 的情况。但是，根据您的运行，它可能会用于起飞。

4.15. Q8
Hello, I tested a scenario with WET SNOW 30mm and no RWYCC, then another case with WET SNOW 30mm and a RWYCC 3-MEDIUM. For the A320, there was a difference between the above-mentioned scenarios of 109 kg on the MTOW (MTOW is 109kg higher when RWYCC 3 is selected). Also, V2/Vs ratio was different. Can you confirm that this is expected?

您好，我测试了一个使用 WET SNOW 30mm 且没有 RWYCC 的场景，然后测试了另一个使用 WET SNOW 30mm 和 RWYCC 3-MEDIUM 的场景。对于 A320，上述场景的 MTOW 存在 109 公斤的差异（当选择 RWYCC 3 时，MTOW 会高出 109 公斤）。此外，V2/Vs 比率也不同。你能否证实这是预期的？

For example, when we select both RWY state and code together as DRY on PEP, the results are sometimes better than the selection of just RWY State as DRY. What is the problem here?

例如，当我们在 PEP 上同时选择 RWY 状态和代码作为 DRY 时，结果有时比仅选择 RWY 状态作为 DRY 更好。这里有什么问题呢？

4.16. A8
We confirm that this is expected. The normal computation using WET SNOW 30mm will use the Neuronal database even if you select First principle mode. This is a hybrid computation.

我们确认这是预期的。即使您选择第一原理模式，使用 WET SNOW 30mm 的正常计算也将使用 Neuronal 数据库。这是一种混合计算。

However, when selecting WET SNOW 30mm and RWYCC 3, you will get better results because the computation will change to pure first principle mode. This means that the Neuronal database is notused. Then, the computation is more precise and leads to better results. We would like to clarify that these results can still be used in operations as they are simply more precise, we confirm that the  MTOW and takeoff speeds computed meet all the regulatory requirements.

但是，当选择 WET SNOW 30mm 和 RWYCC 3 时，您将获得更好的结果，因为计算将更改为纯第一原理模式。这意味着不使用神经元数据库。然后，计算更加精确并产生更好的结果。我们想澄清的是，这些结果仍然可以在操作中使用，因为它们更加精确，我们确认计算的最大起飞重量和起飞速度满足所有监管要求。

Airbus recommends not to use the dual input in case the Runway contaminant type and depth and RWYCC are equivalent as per the RCAM. Therefore, in the current example, the input must be WET SNOW 30mm / RWYCC None in FlySmart+.

如果跑道污染物类型和深度以及 RWYCC 与 RCAM 相同，空客建议不要使用双输入。因此，在当前示例中，FlySmart+ 中的输入必须为 WET SNOW 30mm / RWYCC None。

For the selection of DRY and RWYCC 6, the MTOW obtained should be lower than the one obtained with the selection of DRY only. The reason is that the RWYCC 6 has a lower friction coefficient than DRY. (please refer to the next question for additional information).

选择 DRY 和 RWYCC 6 时，获得的 MTOW 会低于仅选择 DRY 获得的 MTOW。原因是 RWYCC 6 的摩擦系数比 DRY 低。 （请参阅下一个问题以获取更多信息）。

4.17. Q9
Why entering the RWYCC corresponding to the RWY COND (type/depth) may result in penalized performance? I expected the same results.

为什么输入与 RWY COND（类型/深度）相对应的 RWYCC 可能会导致性能下降？我期待同样的结果。

If RWYCC is selected in Flysmart+ when not needed (no downgrade), can you confirm this will always provide a penalized output?

如果在不需要时（不降级）在 Flysmart+ 中选择 RWYCC，您能否确认这将始终提供损失性输出？

If we enter the RWY COND as dry snow 10mm (which corresponds to a RWYCC of 3) and we enter RWYCC 3 (i.e. no downgrade), will we have a lower MTOW?

如果我们输入 RWY COND 为干雪 10 毫米（对应于 RWYCC 3）并输入 RWYCC 3（即不降级），我们的 MTOW 会更低吗？

Can you please describe in detail how the input of the RWYCC affects the calculation? We have noticed that the performance is degraded compared to no RWYCC input. Example: Slush 13mm No RWYCC input: MTOW 77.7T / RWYCC 3 input 76.6T / RWYCC input 76.0T For takeoff, will code 5 (good) have the same level of performance as the current takeoff WET performance?

您能详细描述一下 RWYCC 的输入如何影响计算吗？我们注意到，与没有 RWYCC 输入相比，性能有所下降。示例：雪泥 13mm 无 RWYCC 输入：MTOW 77.7T / RWYCC 3 输入 76.6T / RWYCC 输入 76.0T 对于起飞，代码 5（良好）是否具有与当前起飞 WET 性能相同的性能水平？

Will it be possible to input WET + RWYCC 5-good for takeoff computation? If yes, how will the resulting performance compare with only WET input ?

是否可以输入 WET + RWYCC 5-good 进行起飞计算？如果是，与仅 WET 输入相比，所得性能如何？

4.18. A9
When the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment subgroup) (TALPA ARC) defined the RWYCC, some margins were taken when compared with the certified contaminant .

FAA 航空规则制定委员会（起飞和着陆性能评估小组）(TALPA ARC) 定义 RWYCC 时，与认证污染物相比采取了一些裕度。

Now, the RWYCC are described in the latest revision of the Certification Specification (CS-25 (Amendment 27)). You can therefore compare the definition and friction considered for takeoff (paragraph 25.1591) and for Landing Distance at Time of Arrival (25.1592). Although Airbus Aircraft were certified prior to the embodiment of paragraph 25.1592, the model considered for RWYCC is compliant with this certification paragraph.

现在，RWYCC 在最新修订的认证规范（CS-25（修正案 27））中进行了描述。因此，您可以比较对于起飞（第 25.1591 段）和着陆距离（第 25.1592 段）的定义和所考虑的摩擦力。尽管空中客车飞机在第 25.1592 段实施之前获得认证，但 RWYCC 考虑的模型符合本认证段。

For example, the friction coefficient (mu) for RWYCC 2 is limited to 0.16. The corresponding RUNWAY COND (slush or standing water) is certified based on the certification standards model
(The so-called ESDU (Engineering Science Data Unit) model). Therefore, the friction coefficient is a function of the speed that is not limited to 0.16. (Please refer to Airbus Performance Programs Manual (PPM) for additional information).

例如，RWYCC 2 的摩擦系数 (mu) 限制为 0.16。相应的 RUNWAY COND（雪泥或积水）是根据认证标准模型（所谓的 ESDU（工程科学数据单元）模型）进行认证的。因此，摩擦系数是速度的函数，不限于 0.16。 （请参阅空客性能计划手册 (PPM) 了解更多信息）。

If you select Slush 13mm, at low speed, the friction coefficient is better than 0.16. If you select Slush and RWYCC 3, the friction coefficient is limited to 0.16 (friction coefficient of RWYCC 3) at low speed.

如果选择 Slush 13mm，低速时摩擦系数优于 0.16。如果选择 Slush 和 RWYCC 3，则低速时摩擦系数限制为 0.16（RWYCC 3 的摩擦系数）。

Therefore, in the second case, the performance is degraded.

因此，在第二种情况下，性能会下降。

If you select RWYCC 2 and Slush, you will have different results because even at high speeds, the friction coefficient model is slightly different between Slush (The ESDU model which is a function of speed) and RWYCC 2 (the TALPA ARC model which uses the friction coefficient of the WET divided by 2 and limited to 0.16).

如果您选择 RWYCC 2 和 Slush，您将得到不同的结果，因为即使在高速下，Slush（ESDU 模型，是速度的函数）和 RWYCC 2（TALPA ARC 模型，使用 WET 的摩擦系数除以 2 并限制为 0.16）。

The RWYCC 5 friction coefficient is not entirely identical to the certified WET runway friction coefficient. At low speeds, the RWYCC 5 friction coefficient is slightly reduced compared to the
WET one.When we enter an RWYCC on top of a runway contaminant type and depth, this will usually return conservative results.

RWYCC 5 摩擦系数与经过认证的 WET 跑道摩擦系数并不完全相同。低速时，RWYCC 5 的摩擦系数比 WET 略有降低。当我们在跑道污染物类型和深度之上输入 RWYCC 时，通常会返回保守的结果。

There are a few cases where we may have approximately 100 kg better MTOW when the dual feature is used. However, this is only due to the precision of the code of the optimization process.
(For more information about this, please refer to the previous question above.)

在少量情况下，使用双重功能时，我们的 MTOW 可能会提高大约 100 公斤。然而，这只是由于优化过程的代码的精度所致。 （有关这方面的更多信息，请参阅上面的上一个问题。）

4.19. Q10
You stated that if a RWYCC is entered that agrees with the Contaminant Type/Depth in the RCAM, the result will still encounter penalties. Can the software be changed to ignore RWYCC entries if they match the RCAM value?

您提到如果输入的 RWYCC 与 RCAM 中的污染物类型/深度一致，结果仍然会受到处罚。如果 RWYCC 条目与 RCAM 值匹配，是否可以更改软件以忽略它们？

4.20. A10
The objective of the function is to consider the RWYCC input. In addition, some operators may want to consider the reasons why the RWYCC applies a conservative method. Therefore, as per the design of the code it is not possible to ignore the RWYCC entry, even if it corresponds to the runway contaminant type and depth.

该函数的目标是考虑 RWYCC 输入。此外，一些营运人可能要考虑 RWYCC 采用保守方法的原因。因此，根据代码的设计，不可能忽略 RWYCC 条目，即使它对应于跑道污染物类型和深度。

4.21. Q11
If an upgrade is not considered, will it result in an error, or will Flysmart+ revert to the RWYCC corresponding to the runway contaminant?

如果不考虑升级，是否会导致错误，或者 Flysmart+会恢复为跑道污染物对应的 RWYCC？

4.22. A11
If you select a RWYCC that is better than the corresponding runway contaminant type and depth, the computation is using the lowest friction coefficient. Therefore, in case of RWYCC upgrade, the computation will be performed according to the runway contaminant friction coefficient.

如果您选择的 RWYCC 优于相应的跑道污染物类型和深度，则计算将使用最低的摩擦系数。因此，在 RWYCC 升级时，将根据跑道污染物摩擦系数进行计算。 4.23. Q12
If the dual input function is activated in Flysmart, does that mean that each section must be selected when computing the takeoff calculation?

如果 Flysmart 启用了双输入功能，是否意味着在计算起飞计算时必须选择每个部分？

4.24. A12
For the takeoff computation, the “RWY COND” input (contaminant type and depth) must always be inserted as per the regulation. If the optional dual input function is activated in FlySmart+, the “RWYCC” must be inserted only in the case of a RWYCC downgrade. If the RWY COND corresponds to the RWYCC, then the RWYCC must have the value “None”, which is the standard value.

对于起飞计算，“RWY COND”输入（污染物类型和深度）必须始终按照规定插入。如果在 FlySmart+ 中激活可选双输入功能，仅当 RWYCC 降级时才必须插入“RWYCC”。如果 RWY COND 对应于 RWYCC，则 RWYCC 必须输入标准值“None”。

4.25. Q13
We receive a RWYCC which reports 5/5/5 100/100/100 NR/NR/NR WET/WET/WET SNOW. Can we use the RWYCC-5 with Wet Snow Runway Conditions in the new feature ? For landing, which part of the runway do we need to use for calculation (dispatch)?

我们收到 RWYCC，报告 5/5/5 100/100/100 NR/NR/NR WET/WET/WET SNOW。我们可以在新功能中在湿雪跑道条件下使用 RWYCC-5 吗？对于着陆，我们需要使用跑道的哪一部分进行计算（放行）？

4.26. A13
For this SNOWTAM example, we should have WET SNOW reported on the latest runway third with non reported contaminant depth “NR” for the corresponding runway third.

对于这个 SNOWTAM 示例，我们应该使用最后三分之一跑道报的湿雪，以及相应的污染物深度“NR”。

Performance on a runway covered with less than 3mm of WET SNOW corresponds to WET RWY performance, and the user will compute takeoff performance on a WET runway.

覆盖小于 3 毫米湿雪的跑道上的性能对应于 WET RWY 性能，用户可以用湿跑道上来计算起飞性能。

If the WET SNOW is more than 3mm deep, then the runway is contaminated with WET SNOW. The takeoff performance computation must be computed on WET SNOW and the appropriate depth of contaminant.

如果湿雪深度超过 3 毫米，则跑道被湿雪污染。起飞性能计算必须根据湿雪和适当的污染物深度进行计算。

It is not possible to consider different contaminants on different runway parts (contaminants are reported by runway third). Therefore, for takeoff, if different contaminants are reported on each part of the runway, several computations may be required in order to consider the most penalizing one.

不可能考虑不同跑道部分的不同污染物（污染物每三分之一跑道有报告）。因此，对于起飞，如果跑道的每个部分报告了不同的污染物，则可能需要进行多次计算才能考虑最严重的污染物。

For landing computation, the worst RWYCC, or the contaminant that has the lowest friction coefficient must be used.

对于着陆计算，必须使用最差的 RWYCC，或具有最低摩擦系数的污染物。

4.27. Q14
Can you please explain if the crosswind limitations in Flysmart+ are taken into account when operating from a 30m wide runway or reduced runway width.

您能否解释一下，在 30m 宽的跑道或缩小的跑道宽度上运行时，Flysmart+ 中是否考虑了侧风限制。

4.28. A14
In FlySmart+, it is not possible to segregate crosswind limitations based on the runway characteristics. Therefore, the limitations for narrow runways are not taken into account.

在 FlySmart+ 中，无法根据跑道特性来区分侧风限制。因此，不考虑狭窄跑道的限制。

4.29. Q15
When does this new function apply?

什么时候应用这个新功能？

4.30. A15
It must be used only in the case of RWYCC downgrade.

仅限于 RWYCC 降级时使用。

4.31. Q16
Will this presentation be available in PDF format for future reference in the company?
这次的演示文稿能不能获得 PDF 版本，用来以后在公司内做参考么？

4.32. A16
Yes, the presentation will be published on Airbus World.

是的，演示文稿将在 Airbus World 中发布。

4.33. Q17
When using the FCOM “equivalences to wet” section (slush and snow less than 3mm), can Flex Temp be used?

在使用 FCOM“等效于湿”部分（雪和雪水小于 3 毫米）时，可以使用 Flex Temp 吗？

4.34. A17
Yes. In the certification of Airbus Aircraft, slush or snow less than 3mm is considered as a WET runway where a flexible temperature procedure can be used.

是的。在空中客车飞机的认证中，小于 3 毫米的雪浆或雪被认为是湿跑道，可以使用灵活温度程序。

4.35. Q18
If the runway condition and the RWYCC are equal, what is the Airbus recommendation in this case?

如果跑道状况和 RWYCC 相等，在这种情况下空客有何建议？

4.36. A18
In this case, the RWYCC entry field must be kept as “None”.

在这种情况下，RWYCC 条目字段必须保持为“None”。

4.37. Q19
If the feature is not available for the A380, what is the guidance from Airbus to use these SNOWTAMs on OIS TOPA for takeoff?

如果该功能对 A380 不可用，空中客车公司对于在 OIS TOPA 上使用这些 SNOWTAMs 起飞有何指导？

4.38. A19
The double input feature will bring additional value when the RWYCC is downgraded from/to a fluid contaminant. If a SNOWTAM provides such a downgrade, it is possible to request a computation from ground support using PEP software. The flight crew can also contact the ATC in order to have more information about the SNOWTAM.

当 RWYCC 从/降至流体污染物时，双输入功能将带来额外的价值。如果 SNOWTAM 提供此类降级，可以使用 PEP 软件请求地面支持进行计算。机组人员还可以联系 ATC 以获取有关 SNOWTAM 的更多信息。

4.39. Q20
For A380 On-board Information system (OIS) we currently perform a double computation for takeoff in cases where the contaminant depth reported is between two values in the contaminant depth list. How does the addition of RWYCC affect this scenario: 40 mm dry snow and RWYCC 3-4. Does this dual input option change the process of double computation on a contaminated
runway takeoff for an A380?

对于 A380 机载信息系统（OIS），我们目前在污染物深度报告介于污染物深度列表中的两个值之间的情况下进行双重计算以进行起飞。RWYCC 的增加如何影响这种场景：40 毫米干雪和 RWYCC 3-4。这种双重输入选项是否会改变 A380 在污染跑道起飞时的双重计算过程？

4.40. A20
There is no change in the double computation at takeoff due to the introduction of the RWYCC dual input. In the case above mentioned, if you have 40 mm of dry snow and a RWYCC 3 in a SNOWTAM, this means that the RWYCC and the contaminant reported are equal. Therefore, the computation will be performed for 100 mm of dry snow. Because there is no automatic double
computation, the crew will also perform the computation on 10 mm of dry snow. If you have a reported RWYCC 4, this is an upgrade, so you will perform the same computation as
previously described.

由于引入了 RWYCC 双输入，起飞时的双重计算没有变化。在上述情况下，如果您有 40 毫米的干雪和 SNOWTAM 中的 RWYCC 3，这意味着 RWYCC 和报告的污染物相等。因此，计算将针对 100 毫米的干雪进行。因为没有自动双重计算，机组人员也将对 10 毫米的干雪进行计算。如果您报告的 RWYCC 为 4，这是一个升级，所以您将执行之前描述的相同计算。

4.41. Q21
When will this feature be available for A380 Operators (NSS-OIS users). We see that Only Flysmart+ v5.3 (iPad) & L7.3.0 (Windows) provides this feature. Will this new feature be available on the A380 Flysmart+?

这个功能何时对 A380 营运人（NSS-OIS 用户）可用？我们注意到只有 Flysmart+ v5.3（iPad）和 L7.3.0（Windows）提供此功能。

4.42. A21
There is no plan to introduce this feature on NSS-OIS.

没有计划在 NSS-OIS 上引入此功能。

4.43. Q22
What is the guidance in the case of contaminant depth between two limits? Please explain contaminant depth between limits for OIS TOPA as we do not use Flysmart+ on our A380s.

在两个限制之间的污染物深度情况下有何指导？请解释 OIS TOPA 的限界污染物深度，因为我们不在我们的 A380 上使用 Flysmart+。

4.44. A22
The recommended guidance is to select the upper limit of runway contaminants. However, as described in FCOM / Performance / Takeoff / Runway Conditions / Takeoff on Contaminated Runway / Performance Calculation, the lower limit of contaminant depth must also be checked. FlySmart+ performs this check automatically except on A380 NSS OIS.

建议选择跑道污染物的上限。然而，如 FCOM/性能/起飞/跑道条件/在污染跑道上起飞/性能计算中所述，必须检查污染深度的下限。FlySmart+自动执行此检查，但 A380 NSS OIS 除外。

4.45. Q23
Do you plan to change the crosscheck function of X-wind on Flysmart+ so that it will check with the downgraded RWYCC? It will be of use to the flight crew. Are there any plans for Flysmart+ to identify the most restrictive crosswind condition in future versions (when there is a downgrade) or will this check remain the responsibility of the crew based on RWYCC?

您计划在 Flysmart+上更改侧风的交叉检查功能，以便它将检查降级的 RWYCC 吗？这对机组人员将很有用。Flysmart+在未来版本（降级时）是否有计划识别最限制性的侧风条件，或者这项检查仍将是基于 RWYCC，由机组负责？

4.46. A23
We have no plan to update the feature in order to consider the crosswind limitation of the RWYCC in the case of a downgrade. However, we think that an update like this in a future version of FlySmart+ or Mission+ is possible.

我们没有计划更新该功能，以考虑在降级情况下 RWYCC 的侧风限制。然而，我们认为在 FlySmart+或 Mission+的未来版本中更新此类功能是可能的。

4.47. Q24
Will the information provided in this briefing be published, in the FCOM or in Flysmart+ documentation? For example the information that crosswind limitations are related to RWY contaminants and not RWYCC? That is strange because in the Flysmart+ Landing APP the crosswind limitation is related to the RWYCC.

本次简报中提供的信息将在 FCOM 或 Flysmart+文档中发布吗？例如，关于侧风限制与 RWY 污染物有关，而与 RWYCC 无关的信息？这很奇怪，因为在 Flysmart+着陆 APP 中，侧风限制与 RWYCC 有关。

4.48. A24
No additional information will be provided in the FCOM or FlySmart+. The application of the crosswind limitation is based on the RWYCC for an in-flight landing distance computation. This is because for this computation, RWYCC is the only input available for runway contamination.

FCOM 或 FlySmart+中不会提供更多信息。侧风限制的应用基于 RWYCC 进行飞行着陆距离计算。这是因为在此计算中，RWYCC 是跑道污染的唯一可用输入。

4.49. Q25
Can the pilot leave the field empty?

飞行员能让这个输入区域空着么？

4.50. A25
There is no “empty field” possibility, however, it is possible to have “None” in the RWYCC entry field. In this case, the computation is performed based on the contaminant type and depth only. Please know that the default value in the RWYCC field is “None”.

没有“空字段”的可能性，然而，RWYCC 中可能有 “None” 输入字段。在这种情况下，计算仅基于污染物类型和深度进行。请知悉，RWYCC 字段中的默认值为“无”。

4.51. Q26
How does it affect the takeoff AFM checks?

它如何影响起飞 AFM 检查？

4.52. A26
The “checkAFM” routine of FlySmart+ is based on the reported contaminant type and depth as per the certification of the aircraft. Then, the RWYCC input will increase ASD or will reduce the MTOW. Therefore, the introduction of the dual input does not affect the checkAFM function of Flysmart+.

FlySmart+的“checkAFM”例程基于报告的污染物类型和根据飞机认证的深度。然后，RWYCC 输入将增加 ASD 或减少 MTOW。因此，引入双重输入不会影响 Flysmart+的 checkAFM 功能。

4.53. Q27
Is there a temperature range associated with RWYCC?

RWYCC 是否有相关的温度范围？

4.54. A27
No, the RWYCC input is available for the entire temperature envelope.

不，RWYCC 输入在整个温度范围内都可用。

4.55. Q28
In the future, will Airbus consider having only one RWY Condition Entry (RWYCC) like in the Landing application?

在未来，空中客车是否会考虑像着陆应用一样只使用一个跑道条件输入（RWYCC）？

4.56. A28
It is not possible to consider only the RWYCC input for takeoff computation. Because the RWYCC does not take into account the precipitation drag, a computation based on RWYCC as a
single input will not always provide valid results. As per the certification of the aircraft, the takeoff performance computation remains based on contaminant type and depth.

仅考虑 RWYCC 输入进行起飞计算是不可能的。因为 RWYCC 没有考虑降水阻力，仅以 RWYCC 作为单一输入的计算并不总是提供有效结果。根据飞机的认证，起飞性能计算仍然基于污染物类型和深度。

4.57. Q29
Will it be possible to activate the dual input feature for specific airports?

能否为特定机场激活双输入功能？

4.58. A29
No, it is not possible to activate the dual input feature for specific airports. It is activated or deactivated on all of the airports in the database.

不，无法为特定机场激活双输入功能。该功能在数据库中的所有机场上统一启用或禁用。

4.59. Q30
Will the change to CS-25, result in future aircraft that are only certified according to RWYCC? Will Required Landing Distance (RLD) based on runway condition no longer be used?

CS-25 的改变会导致未来飞机仅根据 RWYCC 进行认证吗？基于跑道条件的必需着陆距离（RLD）将不再使用吗？

4.60. A30
The CS-25 only takes into account runway contaminant type and depth for takeoff (paragraph 25.1591). The new certification revision (CS25 amendment 27) contains a new paragraph: 25.1592. This paragraph certifies the use of the RWYCC for computation of Landing Distance at Time of Arrival (LDTA). This paragraph also confirms the use of the Required Landing Distance (RLD) based on runway contaminants for landing assessment at dispatch.

CS-25 仅考虑起飞时的跑道污染类型和深度（第 25.1591 段）。新的认证修订（CS25 修正案 27）包含一个新段落：25.1592。本段落认证了在到达时刻计算着陆距离（LDTA）时使用 RWYCC。本段落还确认了使用基于跑道污染物的 RLD 作为放行的着陆评估。

This new certification standard will be applicable to future Airbus Aircraft. Although CS-25.1592 is not applicable to current Airbus aircraft, Airbus decided to provide performance information compliant with this standard. The Required Landing Distance remains based on runway contaminant type.

这项新的认证标准将适用于未来的空客飞机。尽管 CS-25.1592 不适用于当前的空客飞机，但空客决定提供符合该标准的性能信息。RLD 仍基于跑道污染类型。

5. TR 81500177 原文及翻译

Q1

In the webinar Global Reporting Format – Takeoff consideration in July, 06, 2023, Airbus mentioned that for the Flysmart takeoff performance calculation, if the dual-input function is activated, the RWYCC must be set to "None" under non-degraded conditions. This same requirement was also repeatedly mentioned in the Q&A documents.

In the 10th question of the Q&A, someone inquired:
"You stated that if a RWYCC is entered that agrees with the Contaminant Type/Depth in the RCAM (Runway Condition Assessment Matrix), the result will still encounter penalties. Can the software be changed to ignore RWYCC entries if they match the RCAM value?"

Airbus replied:
"The objective of the function is to take the RWYCC input into consideration. In addition, some operators may want to consider the reasons why the RWYCC applies a conservative method. Therefore, according to the design of the code, it is not possible to ignore the RWYCC entry, even if it corresponds to the runway contaminant type and depth."

I don't think this Q&A explanation is clear enough. Because it is quite simple to ignore the RWYCC if there is no degradation. Just compare:
1. The selected runway contaminant, and
2. The contaminant list corresponding to the selected RWYCC in the RCAM.
If item 1 falls within the scope of item 2, it means there is no degradation, and then the selected RWYCC can be ignored. I think this can be achieved with just a few judgment conditions in the software code, without any technical difficulties.

On the other hand, it can also be corroborated that in question 11, Airbus clearly stated that the software will not upgrade according to a better RWYCC. Since it is possible to judge and ignore a higher RWYCC when it comes to upgrading, it indicates that degradation should also be judged.

Currently, the flight crew still needs to first judge by themselves whether there is degradation. Only if there is degradation can they go ahead to select the RWYCC. This is just one step more convenient than looking up the "FCOM PER-TOF-30-30 B PERFORMANCE CALCULATION - EQUIVALENCES" in the FCOM, providing little help to the flight crew. It is the way that conforms to the user logic to let the software judge by itself whether there is degradation.

A1

Thankyou for your feedback concerning the dual Runway Condition & RWYCC calculation in the Airbus performance software.

As underlined in the Airbus presentation of this new feature, the dual computation for takeoff must only be used for a downgrade, although nothing prevents the user from entering an RWYCC that corresponds to an upgrade, its use is invalid in such cases as no regulatory basis exists.

It is specifically for the donwgrade condition that the function was designed.
It was not the intention that the feature be used for runway condition/ RWYCC equivalence and is the reason why the feature was not designed to recognize an equivalence but to provide conservative results.

The value in the use of the feature has over use of the FCOM equivalences is the possibility to downgrade to and from fluid contaminants.
Ultimately we do not recommend use of the feature unless operators regulatory encounter downgrades in their operations.

正如空客在介绍这一新功能时所强调的，起飞的双跑道状况计算功能仅应用于跑道状况降级的情况。尽管软件并没有阻止用户输入对应于跑道状况升级的跑道状况代码，但在这种情况下该功能的使用是无效的，因为不存在相关的规范依据。

该功能是专门针对跑道状况降级的情况而设计的。
设计这一功能的本意并非是将其用于跑道状况与跑道状况代码的等效换算，这也是为何该功能未被设计成能够识别等效换算情况，而是为了提供较为保守的结果。

与使用飞行机组操作手册（FCOM）中的等效换算方法相比，使用该功能的价值在于能够针对跑道上的液态污染物进行跑道状况的升级及降级处理。
最终，我们不建议使用该功能，除非运营方在其运营过程中遇到了跑道状况降级的情况。

Q2

I agree that this function is designed for the situation of downgrade. However, if it is designed to be able to judge by itself whether there is a downgrade, there will be at least three advantages:

1. From the perspective of program complexity, it is completely achievable technically.
2. From the regulatory level, ignoring RWYCC when there is no downgrade poses no regulatory risks.
3. From the user's point of view, there will be no doubts or incorrect operations.

Since there are only advantages and no disadvantages, why not design it this way?

我同意这个功能是为了降级的情况儿设计的。但如果设计为可以自行判断是否降级，会有至少三个好处：

1. 从程序难度上看，技术上完全可以实现
2. 从法规层面，没有降级时忽略 RWYCC，没有法规风险
3. 从用户使用角度，不存在任何疑问和误操作

既然只有好处而没有坏处，为什么不这样设计？

A2

The Airbus position is that the current design of the RWYCC takeoff downgrade function is in line with industry recommendation and meets the needs of Operators who encounter downgrades on a regular basis. Airbus consider the current fuctioning to be in line with the design intent.

For the moment no change to the current design is anticipated.

空中客车公司的立场是，跑道条件变化（RWYCC）起飞降级功能的当前设计符合行业建议，并且能满足那些经常遇到降级情况的运营商的需求。空中客车公司认为当前的功能与设计意图相符。

目前预计不会对当前设计进行更改。