New-build aircraft would need take-off performance monitoring systems from 2033 under a draft European regulation that EASA expects to enter force late this year or in early 2027.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has issued a formal opinion on the mandate after inviting comments on the proposal last year. The six-year grace period between entry into force and the 2033 implementation date reflects difficulties some manufacturers have encountered in implementing runway-overrun awareness systems.

Take-off performance monitoring has long been sought as a means of mitigating the risk of incorrect data — such as the wrong weight or runway distance — being used for take-off speed and thrust calculations.

What would the system do?

EASA envisions up to three functions to detect problems and alert the crew:

• F1 checks entry of performance parameters
• F2 alerts to errors in aircraft position before take-off
• F3, the most complex, monitors the take-off in real time

F1 and F2 would be required on new large aircraft designs. F3 would be mandated on some large models, but not on regional turboprops or small business jets.

Why did EASA not wait for industry standards?

During consultation, several manufacturers and other organisations stressed that no industry standard — such as minimum operational performance requirements — exists for such a system.

"This creates a risk for industry when beginning to develop a system that may not meet the future standard once it becomes available," EASA acknowledges.

The agency agrees a standard "could be beneficial" and says it is co-operating with relevant working groups. But it points out that a draft standard drawn up is "not fully aligned" with its expectations, and that a previous attempt to develop one "was unsuccessful."

"While continuing the co-operation [with the working groups], EASA decided not to delay the rulemaking process," it says, noting that a take-off performance monitoring system can still be certified without minimum standards.

Who is building the functions?

EASA says Airbus, Boeing and Embraer, as well as avionics suppliers, have been "positive" about the inclusion of the three functions during workshops.

"Airbus has already begun developing and certifying these functions," it states. "Boeing and Embraer are developing such functions with the intention of introducing them on newly produced [aircraft]."

Other manufacturers, among them ATR and De Havilland, argue their models are less exposed to certain take-off errors — notably insufficient thrust — owing to limited or no options for selecting derated power.

Retrofit is not supported, EASA says, owing to technical constraints and prohibitive cost. The mandate therefore applies to new-build aircraft only, leaving the in-service fleet without the protection.

Which objections did EASA reject?

Some manufacturers objected to considering the possibility of engine failure in the system design, concerned about nuisance alerts. EASA disagrees: the system should protect not only all-engine take-off distances but also accelerate-stop and one-engine-inoperative distances.

"Not protecting [these] distances means not protecting everything that can and should be protected," its opinion states.

EASA also rejected a Dassault Aviation proposal to exempt from real-time performance monitoring business jets within a certain take-off weight range that had been converted to cargo or combo configurations. And it dismissed a General Aviation Manufacturers Association recommendation to exempt business jets fully from any mandate for in-production aircraft, on the basis that insufficient occurrences existed to justify their inclusion.

With the grace period running to 2033, Airbus's certification work and the parallel standardisation effort will determine whether the industry meets the deadline or repeats the delays seen with runway-overrun awareness systems.