7th Oct 2008, 12:50
As pilots, we have specific company engine-out and emergency turn procedures - the former are optional (our discretion) in my company whereas the latter are mandatory. These procedures can be unique to each company and, as far as I know, ATC are largely unaware of the procedures laid down by operators.
This seems odd to me - I can't understand why our company performance guys don't work with an airport's ATC service to come up with some standard procedures for each type of aircraft. That way, everybody's more aware/in the loop about what's likely to happen if it all starts to get very exciting, very quickly.
Am I overseeing something?
7th Oct 2008, 16:24
As a controller I know that operators have emergency turn procedures - you're right, I don't know what those procedures are. And to be fair, coming from the UK I haven't worked in some of the terrain challenged environments that exist elsewhere. Similarly, I know that procedures that will be followed OEI or worse may not be as published.
I don't want to have to learn different procedures for different types - even if the operators could get their acts together and agree a procedure that suits all SOPs - because although the pilot may only have to worry about one type, I'll deal with a huge variety of different types on a daily basis. And that's before having to worry about whether it's a -300 or -700 because they do different things!
And then, as you've pointed out some procedures are optional anyway so then I'll have to worry about whether or not the aircraft is starting to do the optional bit but the crew haven't had time to tell me or is it doing the normal thing.
And there will inevitably be situations where the agreed procedure has to be deviated from.
The reality is that if an aircraft/crew have a problem I'll do whatever I can to help. One of those things is to stop you hitting any other aircraft and, if you keep heading for high gound but not climbing, I'll tell you. Then I'll offer whatever information etc. that might help given what I know about the situation and how it's developing.
It's what I'm trained for and paid for.
8th Oct 2008, 20:51
Fair points, thanks for your post.
I think what made me think of posting was that the optional engine-out procedures can often take you to navaids/areas that look like they'd cause all sorts of issues for ATC or into busy arrival/departure areas etc.
Like you say, every situation can be different!
9th Oct 2008, 04:52
some standard procedures for each type of aircraft.
What a 757 can do single engine might be different from what an A321 can do with a similar load. Also different venders (if applicable to your airline) approach performance data in different ways, often achieving terrain sep in differing manners.
I try to make myself aware of how the SE procedure will affect arrival and departure traffic to runways besides the one I'm using as part of my dept briefing. Should the worst happen, one of the first things I'll do as the emergency allows is to advise ATC.
standard procedures for each type of aircraft
You are not taking into consideration that there is 'more than one way to skin a cat' when it comes to designing EOSID.
Each company will have their own operating culture. The culture will have an impact on how the Performance Engineer goes about creating the escape procedure.
Will a straight ahead departure be preferred for simplicity?
Will a curved departure and FMS EOSIDs be preferred to maximise payloads?
Will the EOSID only meet the Regulator's performance requirements, or will it transition to a lowest safe altitude/MORA?
Good luck getting agreement across all B737/A320/insert type here operators on those items!
In the meantime, what is wrong with a PAN call followed by "engine failure indications, require runway heading to 3.5 dme, then a right turn track 270, standby for details."?