Approach climb limitation, all engines operative

[EK380]

Like to clarify the following...

Is there a legal need to take an engine failure into account for the GA if coming back to your point of departure with all engines operative or diverting into an enroute airport with all engines operative?

1/ For the approach climb limitation (2,1% twin/2,7% quad)
2/ PAN OPS Missed approach limitation 2,5% or higher if charted

Answers preferably for JAROPS or JAROPS compliant companies.

I do realize that common sense & airmanship might dictate differently... Asking only for the legal rules.

What does your airline say? :confused:

[EK380]

Anybody?
Thx

[Empty Cruise]

If you look at the definition of "Approach Climb", you will probably find that it's quite hard to disregard the engine failure case! :}

If you have to take it into consideration... well, if you can convionce your local CAA that the chance of you suffering a single engine failure during an approach is so remote that they are happy for you not to be able to clear the OIS during a missed approach on 1 (or 2 or 3) engines - but able to clear it all engines operating - then you can get away with disregarding it.

Airmanship however might dictate otherwise ;)

[411A]

Sometimes, when things go just slightly wrong (engine fails/shutdown just after departure) and no fuel dumping is desired (IE: accept the overweight landing)...the one engine out approach climb data is the first thing that is asked about.
If you check it and OK, fair enough...if you do not, however...the fleet manager may well want to know...'why not?'

Better have a good answer ready in the latter case.

Been there, done that...and checked before the approach.

[p51guy]

Seems like if you were legal to take off and lose an engine at V1 you would have to be legal to return and land on that same runway. If you took off out of SMF and diverted to RNO then obviously it would have to be checked. I have flown out of airports that the takeoff sometimes requires a downwind takeoff. You could not return and land on the same runway opposite direction because of go around performance. TGU is one of them.

[EK380]

guys,... once again I know what common sense and airmanship dictates. For the question I'm only interested what JAROPS dictates by law!

The question is about inflight no dispatch cases please.

Empty Cruise, yes I do know the definition of approach climb... Do we legally need to fulfill the approach climb limitation in flight with all running?

Please keep the discussion going!

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi EK380,

Will this do? My bold.

From JAR OPS 1
SUBPART G – PERFORMANCE CLASS A

JAR–OPS 1.500 En-route – One Engine
Inoperative
(See AMC OPS 1.500)
(a) An operator shall ensure that the one engine
inoperative en-route net flight path data shown in the
Aeroplane Flight Manual, appropriate to the
meteorological conditions expected for the flight,
complies with either sub-paragraph (b) or (c) at all
points along the route. The net flight path must have
a positive gradient at 1 500 ft above the aerodrome
where the landing is assumed to be made after
engine failure. In meteorological conditions
requiring the operation of ice protection systems, the
effect of their use on the net flight path must be
taken into account.
(b) The gradient of the net flight path must be
positive at at least 1 000 ft above all terrain and
obstructions along the route within 9·3 km (5 nm) on
either side of the intended track.
(c) The net flight path must permit the
aeroplane to continue flight from the cruising
altitude to an aerodrome where a landing can be
made in accordance with JAR–OPS 1.515 or 1.520
as appropriate, the net flight path clearing vertically,
by at least 2 000 ft, all terrain and obstructions along
the route within 9·3 km (5 nm) on either side of the
intended track in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1)
to (4) below:
(1) The engine is assumed to fail at the
most critical point along the route;
(2) Account is taken of the effects of
winds on the flight path;
(3) Fuel jettisoning is permitted to an
extent consistent with reaching the aerodrome
with the required fuel reserves, if a safe procedure
is used; and
(4) The aerodrome where the aeroplane is
assumed to land after engine failure must meet
the following criteria:
(i) The performance requirements
at the expected landing mass are met; and
(ii) Weather reports or forecasts, or
any combination thereof, and field
condition reports indicate that a safe
landing can be accomplished at the
estimated time of landing.

[Wingswinger]

Actually that's out of date. JAR-OPS 1`does not exist any more; it's EU OPS 1 now and here's the relevant bit.


OPS 1.510
Landing — Destination And Alternate Aerodromes
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with OPS 1.475 (a) does not
exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated
time of landing at the destination and alternate aerodrome.
(b) For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2,5 % an operator shall verify that the
expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the
applicable missed approach gradient in the one-engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed (see applicable
requirements on certification of large aeroplanes). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the
Authority.
(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass
of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration
used for go-around of at least 2,5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater (see CS AWO 243).
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority

[EK380]

Wingswinger,

Thanks for your answer... the closest to the question asked so far!
Is the text you quote for dispatch or for in-flight?


Thanks to all for replying

[Wingswinger]

Both I should say. It is incumbent upon "The Operator to ensure etc." which it does through the publication of it's Ops Manual suite under the authority of the AOC holder; it is incumbent upon the individual commander not to attempt an approach when his aircraft's MACG will not equal or exceed 2.5% or the minimum MACG published on the chart for the approach to be attempted. It is useful to note that some runway approaches have a choice of DA which is dependent upon the actual MACG for the AUW at the time of the approach.

Will that do?

[EK380]

Thanks again... Yes, I'm not sure if this legally applies to inflight as well ?!

Nobody has been able to show me it is for sure...

To be cont'd!

[john_tullamarine]

I must be missing something ...

(a) approach climb requirement is a design standard based on OEI, approach flap, gear up

(b) landing climb, likewise, based on AEO, landing flap, gear down.

?

[411A]

I must be missing something ...

(a) approach climb requirement is a design standard based on OEI, approach flap, gear up

(b) landing climb, likewise, based on AEO, landing flap, gear down.



No, not missing something...been this was for many years, since CAR4B, as I recall.
New(er) folks need to look at the specific requirements...the takeoff climb limits do not necessarity apply to the landing climb requirements.

I will repeat...look carefully.
The fleet manager will certainly do so....been there, done that.
In my case, the First Officer was questioned...his question and reply...'did the Captain check...'yes, Sir was his reply.
He was absolutely correct.
Lockheed guys taught us...correctly.

IE: not rocket science, just old fashioned...following the rules.

Not especially difficult.:}