LANDING PERFORMANCE CONNECTS THE APPROACH TO THE FULL STOP
Dispatch landing preparation and the arrival assessment answer different questions. Before landing, update the calculation for the actual aircraft mass, runway state, wind, intended configuration and relevant failures. Establish what the displayed distance represents and what margin is already included. The supplied FCTM distinguishes demonstrated actual distance from the additional considerations used in an operational assessment. Do not add or omit a factor by habit, or combine an unfactored reference with a result that already incorporates it. Check the method and the assumptions together. [21, PDF pp. 209–213] [21, PDF pp. 149–158]
Airbus explains that contamination can change between reports and vary along the runway. A friction measurement or an earlier dispatch assumption is therefore not a complete description of the arrival. Its contaminated-runway discussion calls for an in-flight reassessment and explains why a nominal margin can be consumed by worse surface conditions, delayed deceleration or a longer touchdown. Preserve uncertainty as part of the decision rather than treating the most optimistic available description as established fact. [131, Runway-condition uncertainty and in-flight landing-performance reassessment]
A system failure can change landing configuration, approach speed, stopping devices and go-around capability together. Apply the appropriate current failure-performance method and compare its result with the available runway. The old QRH-derived tables discussed by the FCTM are teaching references for their stated aircraft standard; their factors are not reprinted here as universal Fenix corrections. If the EFB's support for the particular abnormal configuration has not been established, do not assume that its normal landing page has accounted for the failure merely because it still produces a plausible result. [21, PDF pp. 209–213] [21, PDF pp. 245–249]
The planned approach must deliver the configuration, speed and touchdown condition assumed by the stopping assessment. A late or fast touchdown spends distance before the deceleration devices have their opportunity to work. Monitor actual spoiler deployment, reverse and braking, retaining directional control and selecting a suitable exit. The source's crosswind-skid recovery illustration describes a particular recovery condition, not a routine invitation to release brakes on every landing. Similarly, a DECEL light reports a criterion of achieved deceleration and is not a complete system-health verdict. [21, PDF pp. 185–193]
Prepare the go-around before the approach and initiate it when the applicable conditions require it. Follow its thrust, guidance, configuration and routing sequence while checking the achieved flight path. Keep the thrust-reduction and acceleration stages distinct. Once reverse is selected, the cited normal procedure commits the aircraft to the full-stop landing. The decision boundaries therefore evolve through the approach and rollout; a previously available airborne option cannot simply be carried into a later ground state. Brief those boundaries and review them alongside the calculated landing and missed-approach performance. [21, PDF pp. 197–200] [23, PDF p. 1153]