EO SID Acceleration

[eagle21]

If the EO SID is: Passing 1800ft right to "XXX" VOR. And the engine out acceleartion is 1300ft.
Would fly on RWY HDG, level off at 1300ft, clean up and then continue climbing and when passing 1800ft turn right?

Or would you climb to 1800 turn right and then accelerate?

I very much appreciate your answers.

[BOAC]

Ask your performance department -if they have done their job properly (sometimes, sadly as I know, a big IF) you follow the words iaw your published procedures.

[eagle21]

BOAC, thanks for your reply. If I understand correctly the level off and acceleration should have been considered when designing the EO SID.

This question is in fact for a simulator assesment, so I will have to ask them before going in.

[BOAC]

In MY opinion, if it were to be different, the OEI SID should say (eg) "do not accelerate until turn at 1800' complete" or similar.

[john_tullamarine]

If the EO SID includes the 1300 ft height requirement it probably infers that there are no obstacles of note subsequent to the third segment.

Generally, however, if there are distant obstacles, one does not want to run the acceleration prior to a turn due to the difficulty in pinpointing the turn point.

BOAC's comment re asking the ops engineering folk is quite pertinent.

[john_tullamarine]

they tend to be very accurate

Accuracy in the calculation process is the easy bit .. we can all be accurate.

However, what sets the sheep apart from the goats is the work (and accuracy) which does, or does not, go into

(a) obstacle definition

(b) operational commonsense

In all cases, the operator's procedure (or general operating procedures) should define just what is done when. Otherwise it all smacks of Keystone Cops.

[john_tullamarine]

but you can't specify an exact when and where for every situation ... nor should you want to.

I wouldn't like to try that argument at the Royal Commission or Coronial ...

a close in turn increases the risk.

why is that ?

is it not better in these situations to have sensible terrain assessed engine out procedures that are uniform so easily applied and remembered

indeed and that is the purpose of general operating procedures in the absence of a specific EO SID. The very existence of a special procedure indicates that the runway is not a "standard departure" exercise.

Please keep in mind that every decision you take as commander is open to subsequent legal scrutiny in court .. whether you like it or not.

[MD83FO]

you should be able to climb all the way to the maximum level of altitude limited by T take off thrust, for us 5min. we have a table for that( although EO accel is extrated from LPC which is 1500agl in most cases for us also). if you won't exceed this time you should be able to maintain your V2 to this altitude (close to 5000'agl for A320 mid weights) while maneuvering. eg. emergency turn after 1500'agl. this table is actually used to determine if the a/c will comply with the published missed app engine out. and should allow you as a captain to increase your own EO accel alt. why not climb to the MSA thrust/time limit permiting.
Lateral navigation compliyng with the EOSID of course.

let it rain please.

[john_tullamarine]

should allow you as a captain to increase your own EO accel alt. why not climb to the MSA thrust/time limit permiting.

Lateral navigation compliyng with the EOSID of course.

Often the two considerations will be mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the turning bits depend on presumed radius which depends on bank angle and speed. You might well have obstacles on the inner and/or outer splays.

Please, please, treat published OEI procedures to be flown AS they are written - you wing it on your own risk - most pilots do not have the information as to what is critical for the procedure and it's all a bit late to contemplate your error ... when the window is full of rock just before you die.

[latetonite]

In our company we do not accelerate until final track, so referring to your example we would stay at V2 +..until turning on that heading (Bank angle 15). Then we would accelerate.
I think there is also some common sense in this.

[groundfloor]

Why do you accelerate as soon as safely possible? Less drag perhaps? VMCL/VMCL2 - want to be close to it? Want to accelerate close to departure where the obstacles are surveyed and included in EO SID or away from the departure?...Waiting might not be such a good idea...

KISS - fly the EO SID, especially if it was necessary to have a designed SID.

[Microburst2002]

In the airlines I have flown, both with paper airport analisys and laptop computed performance, acceleration altitude is not an precise altitude, but a band between a minimum altitude (do not accelerate before reaching because of obstacles) and a maximum altitude (accelerate before reaching due to engine time limitation at TOGA thrust).
So in the case described, I guess you could just wait till 1,800 ft and turn while acceleratin. So you start the turn earlier and with a shorter radius of turn. If the procedure specifies a unique acceleration altitude, I guess you should follow it, although I can't see why accelerate at 1,300 and then turn at 1,800.
Anyway, it is not good to have a doubt in a sim assessment. Ask the examiner and do it the way he tells you (right or wrong)

[fdr]

Hi,

good answers all round. Watched a crew in a simulator conduct the same departure 5 times in a session, following the Co EOSID procedure. The SID required a turn at Rwy head/50' through approximately 210 degrees. The clean up altitude was 800'. Crew on each effort reached 800' and commenced cleanup, having rigorously set bank angle limit to 15 degrees. All occasions resulted in the sim flying over high terrain with a Mode IV warning followed by Mode II hard warnings, on top of EGPWS advisories. Sim was ngt VFR conditions, great view of the antennas on top of the hills passing by about 30' below the sim.

Procedure took about 2 years to change to ensure clean up was not accomplished until turn complete, (and above 800').

On the majority of engines, if the customer will pay for it, the manufacturer will change the limit time from 5 minutes to 10 minutes. There may be exceptions....

A further EOSID had the crews using a DME that was not the one used for the SID, not uncommon. The EOSID used to be briefed routinely on the wrong DME which was also tuned, and would have the crews flying straight into a fairly substantial (and non frangible) mountain range, rather than turning to avoid it.

Oddly, on occasions, the problem is greater with low weights and improved performance, as the early acceleration may occur before a safe heading has been achieved. YBCS used to be like that off Rwy 15.

If in doubt, or the procedure appears odd, I strongly suggest you ask, the life you save may be your own.... Do note that unless you are operating under JAR/EU OPS, there is no requirement to liase with the authorities at any airport about your EOSID procedures, and so the procedure that runs you straight through the middle of an adjacent airport may be a bit of a surprise to all. (JAR/EU OPS requires a response from each NAA you operate to/from to accept the procedure you have employed. Haven't found any other NAA that does).

stay safe.

FDR

[FullWings]

I'm a bit worried by statements like: "I'll just keep going for 5/10mins and use a higher AA". If you weren't the designer of the EO procedure, how do you know what effect this will have on your flightpath?

On many aircraft the difference between TOGA and CON thrust is quite small but the performance difference between T/O config. and clean is substantial, especially higher up. The significant extra drag vs. the small increase in power could take you close to or below obstacle clearance altitudes...

I can see the point in using the standard AA and keeping the revs up for the full 5-10mins but as soon as you move the AA higher, you're going into uncharted territory, especially when close to limiting weights.

[Right Way Up]

Eagle,

My take on this subject. Your scenario sounds like the first option.

1) Standard EOSID you should be able to do either. (or even at same time if you want). The 1300' accel alt is a minimum.

2) Non-Standard EOSID you must turn at stated waypoints. However you can accelerate (if you want) above the min accel alt as long as there is no V2/speed restriction.

3) Non-Standard EOSID with V2 restriction. You must turn at stated waypoints and maintain speed as directed. Can accelerate once applicable turns complete and above acceleration alt.

[eagle21]

Thanks everyone

[fdr]

IIRC, it is in the JAA-OPST Ch 4 JIP, Part 2, Appendix 7A, para 1; and is a procedure that the EU NAA is supposed to ensure when assessing an JAA/EU AOC. My reference is about 18 months old. This requirement covers alterations to IFR procedures, reinforcing JAA/EU-OPS 1.230(c) which an EOSID "arguably" is. (A VFR procedure would not be an issue....).

I don't necessarily agree with this practice, but there is some benefit if the local ATC services are aware of the operators proposed EOSID, they may have some local information that could be beneficial.

(The procedure would affect the NAA's ISM Ch 4, 5, 6 & 9 implementation, if applied in practice).

Cheers,

FDR

[john_tullamarine]

but from my experience these are the ones where we all struggle the most because we are usually simply overloaded.

The more interesting EO SIDs need to be looked at routinely in the sim as part of recurrent training and checking

Just because a Pilot should be able to turn tight in at V2 with flap out while on fire using raw data and manual thrust does NOT mean any of us can or would do a good job

The first point is quite pertinent. The latter is quite worrying. Refer point #1.

there is some benefit if the local ATC services are aware of the operators proposed EOSID,

Utter madness not to involve/advise ATC with any overtly out of the ordinary tracking OEI procedure. One doesn't need to complicate an already heavy workload with the additional sweat associated with worrying about conflicting traffic when both the traffic and ATC don't have the slightest idea what you are doing ... It really doesn't take much effort to include ATC for the relevant airports on the distribution list. For the more complicated escapes, we always briefed ATC ahead of putting the procedure in the manual.

[9.G]

reference gents:
QCAR - OPS 1.230 - Instrument departure and approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument departure and approach procedures
established by the State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, a commander may accept an ATC
clearance to deviate from a published departure or arrival route, provided
obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full account is taken of the
operating conditions. The final approach must be flown visually or in
accordance with the established instrument approach procedure.
(c) Different procedures to those required to be used in accordance with
subparagraph (a) above may only be implemented by an operator provided
they have been approved by the State in which the aerodrome is located, if
required, and accepted by the Authority.:ok:

[9.G]

wo ping, well true and not so. All that reference says is if one wants to use different procedures they must be approved. Agree, there's space for interpretation as well as calling MAYDAY means the sky is yours. I'm not sure if the rest of your post refers to me as well? I also recall Airbus brochure elaborating on this matter and AI spoke about approval by CAA as well. Reality is it's still very unharmonized area. I believe some US aerodromes do have published obstacles escape departures, not sure if they're called this way. :ok:

[john_tullamarine]

how you would plan to cover all the sporty EOSIDs from all the runways at my airlines 500+ routes

all your departures are innovative and complex ? Without knowing the structure I can only speculate. However, I suspect that you will have a small set of "difficult" departures and, from these, one should be able to extract a cyclic recurrent training program to maintain a reasonable level of competence. It is a lemma that one only wants to review the more complicated and difficult EOI departures.

your lofty point two is somewhat unrealistic or possibly idealistic

At the enquiry you (PIC and operator) WILL be quizzed on competence, training, checking etc. I don't think I was being lofty .. only pragmatic .. but, then again, I've been on the receiving end of a barrister's venom in court on more than one occasion so perhaps my view is a little jaundiced ? My conservative approach to life lets me sleep quite well and I certainly don't wish to expose myself to the sort of harassment in court to which some of my colleagues have been subject ...

point blank refused to sign off several EOSID that were 'legal' but totally un-flyable in real life

then full marks to you, good sir. The inference is that the ops engineers had little operational experience ?

unrealistic expectation is as much a threat to safety as the engine failure. we've progresses since the 70's.- well i hope we have

My apologies. I was brought up in an environment where one was required to be able to do the pushing and pulling and make the aircraft fly to the requirement. The expectation is simple - if the pilot can't handle the heat then he/she has NO business being in the kitchen.

If you HAVE to fly a complicated EOSID as the only safe means of escape then it must be so.

Having developed numerous escape procedures over the years, I am of the view that a complicated procedure should only be the exception. I concur totally with your observation that one should achieve the procedure

there is NO reason to add complexity

we are in heated agreement. The reality of workload is that every increase in complexity ramps up the risk of an unsuccessful outcome

some US aerodromes do have published obstacles escape departures,

an uncommon outcome (in Australia, we have a small number of prescribed procedures) but such still requires a Type specific ops engineering evaluation to determine an RTOW table ..

[9.G]

Just found the airbus brochure this is the excerpt from it:
What is an EOSID?
• An EOSID is a departure procedure diverging from SID published by the local authorities, to be flown in case of engine failure.
• The EOSID is produced by the operator and proposed for approval to the local authorities.
• Due to their complexity in some cases, the EOSID approval requires special pilot briefing and sometimes, simulator training.
• In some rare cases the local authorities propose themselves the EOSID in a particular airport (Ex: Innsbruck)

Well, that's what airbus published in it's operational liaison meeting 2004.
Title SID/EOSID how to ensure the performance is achieved. :ok: