PDA

View Full Version : Special Engine failure departure


md-100
19th Jul 2008, 14:14
DO you operate in aiports that required a different company departure (lateral and vertical) in case of engine failure??

mutt
19th Jul 2008, 16:35
Yes


Mutt

FE Hoppy
19th Jul 2008, 17:04
me too!!

:-)

No_Speed_Restriction
19th Jul 2008, 17:25
ditto....init!

411A
19th Jul 2008, 20:34
Absolutely...and if you don't use it when the time comes for that engine failure...proceed directly to the cemetary, bypassing the hospital altogether.

Fact.

Henry VIII
19th Jul 2008, 21:06
Yep !!

:-0

c100driver
19th Jul 2008, 21:13
too right we do

Rainboe
19th Jul 2008, 21:22
It's usually called an 'Emergency Turn'.

mustafagander
20th Jul 2008, 10:43
md-100

For certain airports there really is no other choice to operate RPT.

Now, do you have a question?

aulglarse
20th Jul 2008, 12:46
same as the majority posted here.

Our company calls them "Escape Procedures".

SNS3Guppy
20th Jul 2008, 19:50
We used turn procedures which are company-specific, received through our regular jepp subscription. We have lateral guidance. Our climb altitude (ititial level off after an engine failure) comes in the performance calculations, which are derived from the OPS (onboard performance system) Teledyne program.

frontlefthamster
20th Jul 2008, 20:28
Yes. This is a bit of a minefield. In my time I've met Emergency Turns, Special Engine Out Procedures, and Engine Out SIDs, all of which apply after takeoff. I've also met Escape Procedures, which apply following go-arounds.

Jimmy Do Little
22nd Jul 2008, 01:29
yep, have done that from time to time.

md-100
22nd Jul 2008, 02:16
ok, but those special procedures are similar to SIDs or some are totally different...?

I guess those procedures are made because the a/c doesnt meet the SID minimum climb gradient with an engine out. Does the aiport know about that special procedure???

SNS3Guppy
22nd Jul 2008, 02:27
The turn procedure is used during an engine out situation when performance is reduced, and is designed to provide terrain clearance by routing around obstacles. It is designed to move the aircraft out of a congested area quickly, and simplifies the departure to give the crew the chance to level, accelerate, and begin handling the problem.

ATC doesn't have our turn procedure. Only we do. We notify ATC as soon as possible what we're doing. "XXX with engine failure, turning left 180, we will get back to you a shortly."

Most places where we have them, meeting climb gradient criteria isn't the issue. It possibly could be, but we're not going to keep climbing. We have a standard level off altitude of 800' above the departure elevation, which is modified by virtue of the program used to calculate our departure performance criteria. While the aircraft could continue to climb, the idea is to get cleaned up and accelerate to a safe airspeed as quickly as possible, enabling better climb performance sooner. The turn procedure is what makes it possible.

When we print up the TOLD card with our departure performance data, one box will tell us if a turn procedure applies. We don't rely just on that, of course (we do look in the book, or on the EFB), but it's all spelled out right on the card, including the 3-engine level off altitude.

john_tullamarine
22nd Jul 2008, 02:53
ATC doesn't have our turn procedure

Generally, for runways which are used routinely by a particular operator, it is not uncommon (probably even a courtesy) to provide a controlled copy issue to ATC for the eventual event ....

meeting climb gradient criteria isn't the issue

Absolutely ... the aims are

(a) make sure we miss the rocky bits

(b) get ourself to somewhere ... from where .... the aircraft can either

(i) depart to the alternate, or

(ii) recover to the departure

aerodrome OEI.

SNS3Guppy
22nd Jul 2008, 03:11
John,

We're specifically counseled to advise ATC on our actions, as they won't know what we're doing, and won't have access to our turn procedure.

When I stated that the climb gradient isn't the issue, my meaning was that we may or may not be able to meet the departure procedure climb gradient...but that's not the reason we're using the turn procedure.

If there's a special turn procedure published for that runway, we're going to use it, regardless of whether our climb performance would enable us to meet the clearance departure procedure, or not.

john_tullamarine
22nd Jul 2008, 05:57
... we are in heated agreement, good sir.

frontlefthamster
22nd Jul 2008, 06:23
John,

I'd be interested to know which airlines tell ATC about their procedures... In my time in ATC (albeit some years ago) at an airport with obstacle difficulties (and therefore where several operators had ETs) we knew of none of them. In my time since, in management at several operators, we have never told ATC about our ETs, EOSIDs, etc.

Guppy, you wrote there's a special turn procedure published . The perceived problem is that it's not 'published', so ATC don't know what you'll do. Hence the 'Pan pan, climbing ahead for two miles, then turning left tracking 150 degrees, stand by' and the like heard so often at the instrutor's panel...

john_tullamarine
22nd Jul 2008, 07:14
Any operator for whom I have done ops engineering has had the special procedures discussed with and filed with the airports concerned. It is still necessary that the pilot calls it at the time .. but it seems silly not to provide the airport with the procedure if it is not going to be able to follow tracking which ATC might expect ...

Philosophically, I don't like the idea of having to tell ATC what is going in when the heat is turned up .. too much chance of the pilot's making a mistake in his story ... similarly for the ATC-er to mishear something ... doesn't seem to be any benefit to anyone in not providing the procedure to ATC in the first place. I am quite sure that many operators don't and that may be a consequence of specialisation .. ie the guy doing the work may not appreciate the problems faced by the other fellow ... at the end of the day, no simple solution to any of these problems.

frontlefthamster
22nd Jul 2008, 07:58
Conversely, how thick will the ATCO's book of emergency turns be?

Given that different fleets within one operator may have different ETs, I'm struggling with the notion of the ATCO, having just received a Pan or Mayday call, having to look up what will happen next in an uncontrolled document, perhaps a very thick one.

However, now that there is a little more meat on the bone, I wonder whether, in fact, you have been passing this information to airport authorities, but it has not then been transmitted to ATCUs..?

It strikes me that emergency turns are a bit like met reports... They should be centrally decided and widely published. Then, for example, all the biz jet operators who do nothing whatsoever about obstacles in the NTOFP would be able to, and ATCOs and airport authorities would know what was going to happen...

error_401
23rd Jul 2008, 11:49
same here.

just we call them EOSID (Engine Out SID).

and we are advised to call ATC and state intentions because they don't know where we are going and there is no time to look it up somewhere.

BYALPHAINDIA
24th Jul 2008, 00:39
ACE - Lanzarote is an interesting one.

Dan Winterland
24th Jul 2008, 01:15
About a third of my compny's destinations are into airfield with terrain as a performance factor. We have EOSIDs for all of these. ATC are usually aware of these, but if I fly one, I will fully expect to have the added comlication of explaining what we are doing.

Two approaches in our network also have EO Go Around procedures. At our home base!

john_tullamarine
24th Jul 2008, 01:58
. but, on the other hand .. it sounds like your mob actually is doing the right thing ....

SIDSTAR
24th Jul 2008, 14:52
Sounds like a great idea to give all your EOSIDs to ATC at every port you operate to. But what will they do with them? Put it in a filing cabinet.

I'm still going to tell ATC what I'm doing and the good guys there will hopefully keep everyone else out of my way while I stagger out along my EOSID.

Anything else is impractical. Even the same type operated by different companies will have different ETPs depending on which company has drawn them up.

Old Smokey
24th Jul 2008, 15:03
We have Engine-Out Standard Instrument Departures (EOSIDS) for EVERY runway at EVERY airport that we operate from. That's every runway without exception:=

I'm sure of that because I'm the person who produces them, and have had written into the AOC "Operations are forbidden from Runways from which there are no published OESIDs". I sleep better that way.

There are numerous runways for which there are no significant obstacles for a straight-ahead track following engine failure, BUT, after acquiring MAA, cleaned up, and reduced to MCT, then what? Turn-back to the departure airport, or diverting to alternate inevitabely means encountering some of John_T's rocky bits, so, all OEISIDs I produce provide lateral tracking and vertical obstacle clearance contained within 25 nm, assuring FAR 25 obstacle clearance until the MSA is reached. Inevitably, as 2nd and 3rd segment distances often exceed 30+ miles, the procedure enters a holding patter for further climb to MSA.

In doing it this way, every pilot using the procedures have a guarantee of obstacle clearance for every runway, all the way thrrough to where MSA is reached, and normal (PANS-OPS) clearance is assured. That's why I sleep better at nights.

To answer another aspect of the questions raised, for each procedure developed, I do not allow it's release until after a personal visit to the local ATC units to provide them with the "this is what we're going to do following engine failure" procedures. Usually, they're fairly surprised by the visit. In this way, neither the pilots, nor ATC are guessing "what next?" after engine failure.

For those who do know me, and know my regular flying job, I don't have the luxury of such complete assurance in my day to day flying. I do the work for one of our subsidiaries (we have 3). (No Mutt, our procedures out of Hong Kong don't require continued flight to the Philippines, but the cr@ppy procedures we're stuck with in THAT operation might imply so:*)

That's the way that one operator does it. :ok:

Best Regards, Nice to be back,

Old Smokey

point8six
24th Jul 2008, 15:27
Welcome back - you've been missed!

SNS3Guppy
24th Jul 2008, 16:32
Ditto. Welcome back!

BOAC
24th Jul 2008, 16:47
Thirded! Missed your wisdom for a while. Hope all is OK.

md-100
25th Jul 2008, 14:54
ok.. now lets take this situation.

Departing from a rocky scenary... the SID take you through some headings, but you know that with e/o could be impossible to accomplish and have to do company E/o procedure.. so.. when you take off in that situation,do you fly the e/o procedure with both engine just in case???

point8six
25th Jul 2008, 15:29
No -fly the all-engines SID as assigned by ATC. Back it up with the Eng. out routeing, howver you can, as a "just in case".

FullWings
25th Jul 2008, 16:24
when you take off in that situation,do you fly the e/o procedure with both engine just in case???
I would say not. The EOSIDs that I've seen normally have a qualifier attached to them, e.g. ¨Engine failure before 5d/2000' turn left to XXX to hold, otherwise continue to MSA.¨

In extreme cases, following the EOSID on all engines might mean you're unable to do anything but return to the airfield or spiral up in a hold. This isn't the most efficient way of starting off towards your destination! If the terrain is very high on your normal SID, the EOSID may take you in the opposite direction: again, not ultra-efficient.

Also, as .86 points out, you are not going to be flavour of the month with ATC if you do this on a regular basis...

mutt
25th Jul 2008, 20:44
Welcome back...... totally missed you....

We try to talk to the ATC at all of our scheduled destinations, generally we ask them what the home base operator does, surprisingly they usually look at us with blank expressions that reveal that no one ever talks to them about EOSIDS, but the problem is, they have no process to accept our procedures so its up to the crew to inform them as soon as they deviate from the normal procedure.

Mutt

javelin
25th Jul 2008, 23:32
At TCX we have 2 types.

One is an engine out procedure, which is usually a basic 1500 agl left or right turn back to the beacon or overhead.

Second is a defined engine out procedure based on terrain.

My problem is, that most ATC units don't have a clue as to what we are going to do - SFB is a classic. I spoke with the senior there and explained what we would do ( 1500 agl, left turn back to the overhead). There was a long silence and the lady then said :-

' Sir, I would suggest that you do not do that at Sanford '.

So, what do we do ?

I guess ATC communication is the best way, coupled with good CRM and a weather eye out for what is practical on the day :ok:

Old Smokey
26th Jul 2008, 02:00
The OESIDs typically created are "idealised" for engine failure from V1 (or Vef to be precise), thus, an early engine failure leaves the pilot in no doubt of immediately cancelling the SID and continuing with the EOSID (Special Procedure). The curve ball out of left field is those SIDs which require early turn, with all engines operating up to the SID turning point, and engine failure ocurring on the next leg of the SID which has not been evaluated for OEI performance. Numerous SIDs require climb gradients far in excess of available OEI performance, and even if you can meet the gradient (e.g. 3.3%), at which altitude do you accelerate?

From the EOSID design point of view in these situations I create 2 EOSIDs for such runways, one idealised for early engine failure, and the other for the worst of the published SIDs. The RTOWs for the SIDs are invariably limited to a lower weight than for the "idealised" OESID. With such data available, at the pre-flight stage the pilot then knows whether or not he/she can meet the SID following engine failure. If the SID is achievable OEI, accept the clearance and go. If not, advise ATC that the SID is unacceptable, and request alternative departure procedures.

I still sleep better at night that way :zzz:

Best Regards,

Old Smokey

john_tullamarine
26th Jul 2008, 02:43
One of the problems we face is that some (not all) airlines address the runway failure case and then leave it to the crew to wing it for subsequent (later) failures ...

I know of some airlines which don't even do that much and base their departure RTOWs on runway lengths only (ie rocky bits are ignored ... that really is a bit naughty)

There is little problem for a straight departure as the OEI runway failure case covers the later failure ... the problem is with SIDs which include turns around/over terrain problems.

The nervous nellies amongst us (and I include me, Mutt, and OS) prefer to have an out planned for a failure anywhere along the departure up to a point where the aircraft's calculated height is comfortably above the close encounters of a rocky kind part of the departure ... For some of the more interesting runways, this can involve a lot of work at the planning stage. As OS observes, the alternative is just to forget the SID and require a preplanned alternative departure which addresses the concerns.

PantLoad
26th Jul 2008, 04:22
And, this includes a go-around from an approach with OEI. The bottom line is, if you can't meet the required minimum climb gradient (assuming this, due to an engine failure), you need to have a 'Plan B'.

At my old airline, our OEI charts read, "In case of engine failure during takeoff or missed approach"

It's interesting to look at the actual track of such a plan...looking at things when the weather is nice...good viz....to see the mountains you miss, the valleys you exploit...Hong Kong is a good example of this....especially RWY 7L.



PantLoad

Capt Snooze
27th Jul 2008, 06:21
Slight (only slight) thread drift.

I recall from a previous life, that the 'special runway procedures' (or whatever other name you use) produced by Jepps, would get you to the MSA, but the straight ahead options were only valid out to a specific surveyed distance, and did not necessarily guarantee survival to the MSA or relevant MEA. That is to say that they did not cover the sort of planning referred to by OS in his reply #27.

Does anyone recall the distance?



Snooze

Old Smokey
27th Jul 2008, 07:10
Jeppesen = 30 miles, after that, you're on your own.

Is that good enough? I think not:*

A classic case in point is Melbourne (Tullamarine) RWY 34. Because Jeps have evaluated the obstacles straight ahead for 30 miles, found them to be OK (with some performance limitations), and published no special procedure (because straight ahead was OK)

What then? For the MAA provided (don't have it with me), a Right turn back will give plenty of "Terrain, Taerains" on the GPWS, but you should survive the day. For a Left turn back, there will be an abundance of "Whoop, whoop, PUll Ups", all of the way to impact. MAA is about 500 feet below terrain for a Left turn back.

Just for clarity, I say again "Is that good enough? I think not:*"

Regards,

Old Smokey

Joe Monsoon
1st Aug 2008, 13:33
The straight ahead options were only valid out to a specific surveyed distance 22nm from Dep R/W Not 30nm

Old Smokey
2nd Aug 2008, 15:42
Are we talking about the same Jeppesen Joe Monsoon?

One of our 4 major divisions use Jep data, and a direct quote from the briefing for their Airport Analysis follows -

"Heights and distances of all obstacles considered along the straight out track or the prescribed special engine failure route up to 30nm are shown at the bottom of the tables"

Unfortunately, yours truly flys for this division (but does the Performance Engineering for other divisions), and am well familiar with possible forays into "no man's land" at the end of the survey limit.

At 22nm, many aircraft at limiting weights will only be partly established in the 3rd segment. In the work that I do (for the other divisions), it is not uncommon to see the 3rd segment end beyond 30nm.

If I have a "rush job" for a new destination, I frequently resort to the use of Jep data to get me to the first 30nm, then my work starts in earnest to evaluate the obstacles beyond that to ensure safe tracking and vertical clearance up to the MSA. I encounter numerous cases where using the Jep data alone would be a recipe for disaster.

Best Regards,

Old Smokey

Double Zero
2nd Aug 2008, 16:02
While I realise it's the main point of discussion here, this all seems to refer to modern airliners with bags of power.

Wasn't it the case not so long ago, with feeble engines, that " to try & turn back was suicide " - land straight ahead-ish, hoping that doesn't involve a church spire, town etc.

I realise military fast jets are a little different, and single engined ones have simpler decisions to make ( though there have been some truly heroic dead-stick landings, such as the late Hugh Mereweather and Peter Twiss ) but on my ride in G-Hawk, an especially valuable instrumented demonstrator, I was still left in doubt at all, " if we lose the engine on takeoff ( birdstrike being the most likely culprit ) we eject "

Having nice flat unpopulated farmland dead ahead was a handy thing, but there was clearly no thought of a dead-stick wheels up landing on grass, if that was within reach.

I suspect the same Test Pilot, if alone in a new model aircraft, may well have tried to belly-land and save it.

Old Smokey
2nd Aug 2008, 17:08
Double Zero,

"this all seems to refer to modern airliners with bags of power"

Not quite, it was well established in the sixties when I first became acquainted with it, aviation historians may be able to shed light on the time when the regulations required obstacle clearance following engine failure at all phases of flight. Of course, the regulations have been refined over the years, but the basic principals remain the same.

If you want to go even further back, to a time when obstacle clearance was not considered, but guaranteed One Engine Inoperative performance was, you'll have to go right back to the DC1 and DC2. It was TWA's specification that the aircraft must have guaranteed engine out performance. Millions of passengers in the 80 or so years since then have a lot to thank Jack Fry for.:ok:

The "modern airliners" from the sixties are, with a few exceptions, now only found in museums. The sixties are, after all, going on to half a century, hardly modern times.

Best Regards,

Old Smokey

Double Zero
2nd Aug 2008, 22:11
Old Smokey,

I appreciate your reply; does that include such things as Herald's, Ambassadors, ( I know out of service now ) Twin Otters, light twins, etc etc -even 737 early models ?

All admittedly basically 1960's a/c, but some are still around today.

On another slant of 'single engine failure' I take it you saw the recent shots of the AA 767 where the starboard engine had an uncontained failure,very fortunately on the ground, with the hot fan spool buzz-sawing through the lower fuselage straight into, and taking out,the port engine + various control surfaces !

Old Smokey
3rd Aug 2008, 00:26
Double Zero,

Not familiar with Herald's, Ambassadors etc., but I strongly suspect that they were. Similar aircraft from that era that I was associated with, F27,Viscount, Electra, early model DC9, B727 and B737 most certainly did have to comply.

Interesting that you note the Twin Otter (FHC6), as a light aircraft (<5700 Kg / 12500 Lb) the regulations did not require them to comply fully with FAR25 type requirements, but as we were operating them RPT within Australia, the regulatory authority (God bless 'em), required us (the airline) to prove that they did meet all of the FAR25 standards (except that they called it CAO 20.7.1B because they were Australian).

The one interesting concession granted to us by the same regulatory authority was that DC3 operations in New Guinea, due to very high airfield elevations and MUCH higher obstacles operated with "special" PK charts, which allowed for "all engines" operation only, treating the aircraft as one would a single engined aircraft. Jack Fry must have rolled over in his grave!

Best Regards,

Old Smokey

galaxy flyer
3rd Aug 2008, 00:36
Referring to "22nm" downrange distance, the only place I have heard that number was in the C-5 where Lockheed only needed to produce the climb gradient charts to that distance. When Jepp OpsData did the computations for special OEI departures having 22nm data restricted them in some cases. They also expressed frustration at the limitations that distance caused. Especially in a plane where 22 nm might only have gotten you through flap retaction :eek:

Jepp considered 30 nm as the standard endpoint for climb gradient data.

GF

john_tullamarine
3rd Aug 2008, 12:32
Like OS, I started out in the 60s (maybe a year or two ahead of his goodself) when much of the heavy performance changes were in the making ... and we both are probably looking more toward fishing rather than aeroplanes in the next few years or so ... unfortunately, we probably don't have the old school Aus regulatory folk, such as IST and JCF in the PPRuNe community .. they would be able to quote chapter and verse of the whole developmental lineage as if it were only yesterday ... (if it sounds like I was in a bit of awe of those folk .. then that would be a fair assessment ..)

The earlier certification standard at the time (CAR4b) was a bit like an upmarket FAR23 package for performance and required a level of OEI capability .. if you really want to be adventurous, have a looksee here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgccab.nsf/0/C7B2E7D52E78A5ED86256F9D005CE447?OpenDocument).

During the mid to late 60s, ICAO put out a PAMC (Provisional Acceptable Means of Compliance) on aircraft performance (looking at some notes tucked away in the computer archives .. I think Circular 58-AN/53/2 ?) .. I have a copy in a filing cabinet somewhere but wouldn't like to have to find it in a hurry ... normal sort of doc .. around the 30-40 page size, as I recall ? .. long time since I've looked at it ...

The F27, if I recall correctly, probably was the first turbine powered aircraft to recertify from the older to the newer standards eventually embodied in FAR25 (which came on the scene in the mid-60s).

The Industry then saw the now "normal" OEI segmented takeoff capabilities evolve into a more general application in the general heavy aircraft sandpit ...

As for the problems associated with getting obstacle data .. while it is getting easier with satellite imagery ... the bulk of the work done Industry wide is geared to the initial takeoff ... with the majority tending to ignore what happens between then and LSA ... folk like Mutt, OS, and me worry about that latter bit a lot as satisfying it takes the most detective effort in finding out just what rocky bits exist for a given departure .. Centaurus, for one, could regale us with tales of operators who tend even not to worry about the early rocky bits .. but that is another tale for another day ...

Generally, if you are still struggling at 25nm, then you are having a bad day .. the real problem, then, is with those aerodromes which have a high MSA.

Massey1Bravo
3rd Aug 2008, 17:53
This one look pretty exciting :yuk: :eek: RNAV only.

http://www.naverus.com/documents/ZUNZ_All_Tracks.pdf

They fly 757s and A319s with high-altitude kits I think.

EDIT: here's a video: YouTube - Naverus RNP approach into Linzhi, China (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHF9rPWFXzw)
Elevation 9670ft

md-100
4th Aug 2008, 15:08
so for Linzhi rwy 23 departure... if you fly the departure track and have and engin failure nz462 and nz466, are you safe?? or you have to fly always the engine out track, just in case, and until you have an enough altitude to proceed to the standard departure???

Hueymeister
24th Jan 2024, 06:44
For an SDP, what is the guaranteed obstacle clearance? I've seen 35ft and 0ft...

Mr Good Cat
24th Jan 2024, 17:57
For an SDP, what is the guaranteed obstacle clearance? I've seen 35ft and 0ft...

If the guaranteed obstacle clearance is 0 ft on a special engine out procedure, please ask for your money back from the person who designed it!