Engine out terrain clearance

[JammedStab]

In regards to a takeoff, it seems most places, the engine out procedure is to fly runway heading(track) as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

If someone decided to take a really long time with all their procedures and continue straight out, they could go quite far. There are some locations with distant mountains as we all know.

[flyboyike]

As they're going quite far and taking all that time with all their procedures, the aircraft is still climbing, correct?

[de facto]

As they're going quite far and taking all that time with all their procedures, the aircraft is still climbing, correct?



Good one:p

Seriously the obstacles depicted on the departure charts,MSA in the 25 NM,would be sufficient info for the initial runway heading.
If your crews continue on tbe heading for more than 25 NM,it is that they are indeed rather slow and most importantly forgetting
to navigate,lost situational awareness...
...unless they do have supplementary obstacles charts and their heading is in the direction of their intended destination:E

[bubbers44]

Airports with obstacles after initial takeoff and clean up have special procedures. TGU you would die for sure if you flew RH either north or south until clean up because of terrain. Engine out takeoffs can be quite interesting in RNO and TVL orbiting a hill on instruments. Never just fly runway heading unless you are in FLA or MN where there is no terrain thinking you are safe longer then you have to.

Bogota has the most complex engine failure procedure depending on when you lose the engine I just tell the FO we will just return and land VFR. Unless you are based there it is unlikely a briefing would help anyway because of all the changes depending on when it happens. Yes, if it is IFR you have to do it but with unlimited visibility a waste of time.

[de facto]

Bogota has the most complex engine failure procedure depending on when you lose the engine ....Unless you are based there it is unlikely a briefing would help anyway because of all the changes depending on when it happens.
.

Quite surprising from an experienced pilot..
Id love to see how you manage an engine failure,could be an interesting example of how CRM collapses due to lack of preparation/briefing.
I hope for your pax that you never get an engine failure there,may it be vfr or ifr.

[bubbers44]

If the procedure is for flying an engine out takeoff in the clouds and you can see for 10 miles just clean up, turn downwind and land like you would at MIA. That is what I briefed. Why make it complicated and you will have much better results than doing a complex departure away from the airport for no reason. That is what we get paid for, to make good judgement decisions and not just read a profile that we won't do. The dumbest pilot wouldn't do those procedures in visual conditions hopefully.

I guess you would but I don't know you.

[john_tullamarine]

It seems most places, the procedure is to fly runway heading as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

Do they, now ?

Things will vary according to jurisdiction but, as a general thought, consider -

(a) Type A charts will go out a reasonable distance (but no where near what is required for a critical straight ahead departure. They tell you a story about the rocky bits but have ZERO interest in whether your particular aeroplane might/might not be able to miss them ..

(b) if terrain is critical, the pilot has NO WAY of doing the sums on the fly. Either the operator has it done appropriately or you are sailing close to the wind each and every takeoff

Generally the approach adopted by reasonable operators is to divide the runway database into at least three paddocks -

(a) easy - there will be some SOP recovery procedure

(b) not so easy with one of two awkward obstacles - there will be a specific, sort of standardised procedure - eg, climb to X ft, turn to the Y aid and climb in the pattery for the let down

(c) nasty - a full blown escape procedure.

However, if your operator hasn't given you a specific and credible procedure for a difficult runway, oh dear ...

As to how far out a straight procedure might go ? .. for a critical twin, how about 50 nm or so ?

[bubbers44]

John, I think that is when a captain has to be a captain as we all should to make a safe departure. We need to operate safely no matter what our company ops are.

Sometimes pilots can do things better using their judgement than reading an ops manual at the end of the runway. We need to heed it but we also need to use common sense and what is happening at the moment. We are paid to take care of things and given a manual to assist us but not handicap us.

25 yrs of doing this with no violations, write ups by anybody and no scraped metal worked for me.

[bubbers44]

Remember our DC10 at ORD that followed our AA procedure and slowed to V2? We changed our AA procedures after that and I never would have done it because if you are climbing fine ,why slow down? They were required to and everybody died.

[JammedStab]

The last two operators I have flown with had a procedure to fly runway track in the event of an engine failure at or soon after V1(which easily applies to most runways in my experience) unless there is an engine out special procedure.

I am just assuming that this is the case for other companies but I don't know.

My question is simply, how far out past the end of the runway are obstacles required to be assessed, if there is a requirement.

How about for the USA and EU if it varies by jurisdiction.

[john_tullamarine]

when a captain has to be a captain

I would suggest that is all the time.

However, NO-ONE can eyeball a limiting OEI departure in a critical terrain environment - the subtended angles are too shallow for reasonable human perceptual considerations (I may be on suspect strict physiological/psychological ground there ? perhaps some of the relevant techo specialists can advise if the research literature indicates that the typical human can discriminate to that sort of minimal angular displacement ?) ergo, either one has had the takeoff analysed or one is on dangerous ground - and, potentially, literally.

and slowed to V2

every now and then an event written in blood results in great Industry systems change. The 10 was one .. AF another. Just goes to show that we don't have all the bases covered at the start.

The last two operators I have flown with had a procedure to fly runway track in the event of an engine failure at or soon after V1(which easily applies to most runways in my experience) unless there is an engine out special procedure.

Sounds pretty reasonable on the face of it.

My question is simply, how far out past the end of the runway are obstacles required to be assessed, if there is a requirement.

The usual rules are

(a) for the entire flight

(b) specifically, for the takeoff, until either the takeoff is completed (nominal 1500ft) or until the en-route rules can take care of the problems .. which may be further downtrack.

[de facto]

The dumbest pilot wouldn't do those procedures in visual conditions hopefully.

Again,professional pilots wouldnt put all their faith in visual cues,it could end up just an illusion,visual cues may not guaranty performance at such airports.
If Bogota(never flew there but flew INN) does have so many missed approaches,there must be a reason...
INN for example,a speed in excess of 156 kts would end up busting the turn radius and getting closer to firma granita and a visual at higher speed and bit of tailwind may well end your day and your pax.
I wonder how many bells and whisltes came on while you were flying...but again this is probably acceptable to your view of thinking.


However, NO-ONE can eyeball a limiting OEI departure in a critical terrain environment - the subtended angles are too shallow for reasonable human perceptual considerations (I may be on suspect strict physiological/psychological ground there ?

Exactly what i meant.

[BOAC]

Jammed - in my experience the 'climb straight ahead' (ie no specific OEI track specified) ceases, as JT says, at 1500 AAL/clean. There is a requirement in the regs for operators to establish terrain clearance routes on departure until en-route or return MSA can be achieved but again in my experience very few operators do this.

Again it is down to 'airmanship'. A few of your options are to remain above Circling minima with the circling area (NB 'Old' TERPS!!! - ie pretty well impossible), climb to the 25 nm MSA as per de F. (within 30nm!!) or climb to en-route MSA on the en-route track. For options 2 and 3 you are, of course, without sufficient terrain information outside the assumed 1500' point UNLESS you have studied a map or adequate chart. It is as well to know!

I had a giggle on a line check in my last airline at a Canadian airfield a few years back with a disagreement with a well-known 'Ozzie' TC who insisted I was wrong and that I could manoeuvre with 4.2nm of the runway at or above Cat C Circ. Minima.....until I gently pointed out this was a TERPS airfield.....................:uhoh:

[de facto]

John, I think that is when a captain has to be a captain as we all should to make a safe departure. We need to operate safely no matter what our company ops are.

Have you notified your airline about the idea of flying visually if in VMC?
Probably not.

Sometimes pilots can do things better using their judgement than reading an ops manual at the end of the runway. We need to heed it but we also need to use common sense and what is happening at the moment. We are paid to take care of things and given a manual to assist us but not handicap us.

SOPs,EOI are written in a comfortable office by professionals who most probably have a better clue than you think you do.
This is reason why they are writing these SOP manuals and designing these procedures in the first place.

25 yrs of doing this with no violations, write ups by anybody and no scraped metal worked for me

Typical.
However a good CRM topic for recruitment of first officers..

[Annex14]

Your ´question is answered in ICAO Annex 4, Chap. 3.8.1.
Citing from memory, it´s an upward slope of 1,2 % extending normally for 10 km or roughly 5,5 NM. In some cases that surface is extended to 12,5 Km or 6,75 NM.
I´ve done consulting work for an Airport where on one rwy the Aerodrome Obstacle Chart - Type A chart extends for 15,5 km before the sloped surface get clear of the hills.
Jo

[john_tullamarine]

Jo,

However, the problem is that the Type A and all the other topo data one can lay one's hands on ... aren't at all interested in whether your particular aeroplane can better the rocky bits.

That remains the operator's responsibility to sort out (realistically, the average pilot doesn't have the tools and information to do the work). Note that I don't suggest that the pilot is not capable of doing so - there is nothing overly difficult there and it just takes good attention to detail and very rigorous housekeeping.

[Annex14]

John
fully agree with you. This stuff is all more or less bloody theory when it comes to safe your - as a pilot - and your pax´s skin. Therefore I fullhearted underwrite what was stated here by bubbers44 and others. Nothing substitute situational awareness and a good load of common horse sense. I have, as a TWR controller once watched the finally successful attempt of a light twin pilot that had a full load of pax on board and lost one engine right after take off, by flying through a valley lower than the hills. Though we lost visual contact temporarily we still had radio contact and thus could render assisstance as much as was possible.
Jo

[flyboyike]

SOPs,EOI are written in a comfortable office by professionals who most probably have a better clue than you think you do.
This is reason why they are writing these SOP manuals and designing these procedures in the first place.


That one gave me a much-needed chuckle. Maybe where you work the manuals are error-free and perfect...

[FullWings]

However, NO-ONE can eyeball a limiting OEI departure in a critical terrain environment - the subtended angles are too shallow for reasonable human perceptual considerations (I may be on suspect strict physiological/psychological ground there ? perhaps some of the relevant techo specialists can advise if the research literature indicates that the typical human can discriminate to that sort of minimal angular displacement ?) ergo, either one has had the takeoff analysed or one is on dangerous ground - and, potentially, literally.
Having done a lot of flying in areas of significant terrain, I'd really have to agree with that. I did a mountain flying course some years ago and in the ground school, one of the instructors circulated a research paper detailing human limitations when assessing angles, horizon references and the like. It was an interesting read and from memory somewhere around 20:1 was the cutoff beyond which it became complete guesswork and that was with no slopes confusing the issue.

I'd also agree with following the OEI procedure, even if CAVOK. In airline ops, we generally aren't given enough information to be able to second guess the reason(s) why an ET or just maintaining the published SID is necessary. What segment(s) are the obstacle(s) in? Is there something like a mast which you won't see until you're nearly on it? If you are below the top of the local terrain it is very difficult to make an accurate judgement on whether you're going to clear it or not. Add in the complications of dealing with an emergency at the same time and I think I'll put my trust in the procedure designers.

If it became obvious that the failure was a complex one outside the normal parameters (flap/slat damage, bird strikes on multiple engines, gear not retracting, etc.), then yes, I'd be prepared to throw away the procedure and wing it. Up to that point I feel I have a duty of care to follow a pre-calculated safe path and not experiment with something that may have unforeseen consequences, even though done with the best of intentions...

[BARKINGMAD]

""SOPs,EOI are written in a comfortable office by professionals who most probably have a better clue than you think you do.
This is reason why they are writing these SOP manuals and designing these procedures in the first place.""

That's the reason my lot have just last winter SOP'd that ALL 3 altimeters will be changed to Standard setting at the same time on departure.

Makes for interesting Noise Abatement altitudes and SA regarding Safety Altitude don't you think, when the SID calls for an early FL level-off?

Queried to fleet management and answer came there none...................:ugh:

[Skyjob]

For the purpose of take-off performance analysis, the end of take-off flight path is considered to be when airplane reaches at least one of:
* A Fix and minimum altitude from which an approach may be initiated back to the departure airport or from which it is possible to proceed to departure alternate
* MSA
* Minimum en-route altitude for a route to departure alternate
* Minimum Radar Vectoring Altitude

An engine out take-off flight path and obstacle analysis method is based on AFM Net flight path, which clears all obstacles by 35 ft vertically and OPS 1 obstacle assessment area, centered on the intended flight track, within which all obstacles must be cleared vertically.

Development of contingency procedures, required to cover the case of engine failure or an emergency in flight which occurs after V1, is the responsibility of the operator, in accordance with Annex 6. Where terrain and obstacles permit, these procedures should follow the normal departure route.

When it is necessary to develop a turning procedure to avoid an obstacle which would have become limiting, then the procedure should be described in detail in the appropriate operator's manual. The point for start of turn in this procedure must be readily identifiable by the pilot when flying under instrument conditions.

The minimum obstacle clearance equals zero at the departure end of runway (DER). From that point, it increased by 0.8 per cent of the horizontal distance in the direction of flight assuming a maximum turn of 15°. In the turn initiation area and turn area, a minimum obstacle clearance of 90 m (295 ft) is provided. Where precipitous and mountainous terrain exist, consideration is given to increasing the minimum obstacle clearance.

The procedure design gradient (PDG) is intended as an aid to adjust the route with the intention of minimizing the PDG consistent with other constraints. Unless otherwise published, a PDG of 3.3 per cent is assumed. The PDG is not intended as an operational limitation for those operators who assess departure obstacles in relation to aircraft performance, taking into account the availability of appropriate ground/airborne equipment.

The PDG is based on:
a. an obstacle identification surface (OIS) having a 2.5 per cent gradient or a gradient determined by the most critical obstacle penetrating the surface, whichever is the higher; and
b. an additional margin of 0.8 per cent.

Published gradients are specified to an altitude/height after which the minimum gradient of 3.3 per cent is considered to prevail. The final PDG continues until obstacle clearance is ensured for the next phase of flight (i.e. en-route, holding or approach). At this point, the departure procedure ends and is marked by a significant point.

Whenever a suitably located DME exists, additional specific height/distance information intended for obstacle avoidance may be published. RNAV waypoint or other suitable fixes may be used to provide a means of monitoring climb performance.

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/documents/eText/1334/etext/AWM/Air%20Traffic%20Control/Regulatory/graphics/gif/day/at_i_3_1_2.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/documents/eText/1334/etext/AWM/Air%20Traffic%20Control/Regulatory/graphics/gif/day/at_i_3_2_2.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/documents/eText/1334/etext/AWM/Air%20Traffic%20Control/Regulatory/graphics/gif/day/at_i_3_3_1_klein.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/documents/eText/1334/etext/AWM/Air%20Traffic%20Control/Regulatory/graphics/gif/day/at_i_3_2_1.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/documents/eText/1334/etext/AWM/Air%20Traffic%20Control/Regulatory/graphics/gif/day/at_i_2_1_2.gif

[de facto]

That one gave me a much-needed chuckle. Maybe where you work the manuals are error-free and perfect

I havent read them in such details to know,but obviously the more mature the airline the more chance mistakes have been spotted and corrected.

In general and for large operators,as i mentionned,those manuals have been through some obvious thoughts and checked by the relevant authorities.

Now,what i meant was that blatently deviating from layed down and accepted SOP (especially perf calculated)is asking for troubles in the scenario bubbers described initially.
As written above,in a controlled emergency,i would not deviate from layed down engine out procedures just for the reason of guestimating that flying in cavok weather is sufficient to deviate from such escape routes.
BARKINGMAD,
Concerning your std setting of altimeter,yes there are times when some non standard actions are needed as the sops cant be written for every scenario possible but in your case,i doubt the noise abatement should take over the setting of your altimeter ...but you did the right thing to request clarification and thats how manuals evolve or get too fat:p
Im curious as what is your transition altitude/preferred noise (A/B/1/2) and SID level off FL?

[flyboyike]

I havent read them in such details to know,but obviously the more mature the airline the more chance mistakes have been spotted and corrected.

In general and for large operators,as i mentionned,those manuals have been through some obvious thoughts and checked by the relevant authorities.


That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that the more mature the airline, the more opportunity there is for a bunch of decrepit fossils who haven't even seen a simulator, let alone an actual aircraft, in decades and decades to write pages upon pages of unadulterated nonsense, which their similarly decrepit buddies at the "relevant authorities" will gladly sign off.

True story.

[JammedStab]

Thanks for the replies.

This scene is what made me ask the question. The mountains are farther away than appears but there is a runway pointed at them.

Google Image Result for http://people.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/home/Calgary%20skyline%202012.jpg (http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://people.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/home/Calgary%2520skyline%25202012.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/&h=716&w=1200&sz=485&tbnid=Cpcfgt04EGnZRM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__KOlbf6rKM6dFTadCuXj-_bpvlL8=&docid=W50EuMn_Az2U5M&sa=X&ei=gbRBUqvDPKvpiwKAgoGQDA&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAg)

So I would wonder, how close do they have to be to require a special departure procedure or how far away to not require a special departure procedure.

[BOAC]

I think from memo the cumulo-granitus is a bit more than 25nm, so achieving Calgary 25nm MSA would be a start. Also an impossible question to answer - the runway may point at the Rockies but the route may go the other way, so presumably once you are clean - and armed with rudimentary terrain knowledge - you would be looking at heading east in that case or achieving en-route MSA if heading west before you make a dent in them thar hills. It is not much different to departing a northern Italian airport towards the Alps.

[FullWings]

Mountains like you have at Calgary, Denver, Milan and the like, although spectacular, aren't that much of a problem as they are some distance from the airfields in question and are "obvious".

The nasty places, IMHO, have low hills close in which don't look that forbidding until you lose a donk. MSAs may not be particularly high compared with the airfield altitude but you still have to get there. ZRH comes to mind as somewhere that has seen more than its fair share of accidents, both on departure and approach.

[FE Hoppy]

ZRH comes to mind as somewhere that has seen more than its fair share of accidents, both on departure and approach.

And the locals have now a very thorough engine out SOP including a standard procedure for those rwys where it fits and non standard procedures where it doesn't. They also have procedures for engine failures occurring when already on the normal SID.

I'm quite certain they are not the only airline who does this. But I know from experience that there are some airlines who don't.

[Basil]

Yes, Bogota. Long time since I've been there but ISTR that, on one runway, the procedure turned you into approaching traffic (or was that the GA?).
Anyway, it seemed to me that, if VMC, it would be best to head off down the valley :ok:

[aterpster]

Best ever tutorial on performance:


FAA Workshop on Transport Airplane Performance Planning | Aircraft Climb Performance Videos | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association (http://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/climb-performance/videos/faa-workshop-on-transport-airplane-performance-planning.php)

[bubbers44]

Defacto, You seem to believe every thing told you so must be young. Yes I went to our chief pilot and told him our new sop into TGU would mean we couldn't land 90% of the time because we needed to exceed 1000 fpm to land unless we had at least a 15knot headwind. He agreed and just said just keep doing it the way we have always done it so sop is a guideline, not a law. In the future don't be so negative about us old guys. We survived a career with no scratches. Hope you do too.

[de facto]

Defacto, You seem to believe every thing told you so must be young
It'd think you would know what my screen name means...but obviously not:E

Yes I went to our chief pilot and told him our new sop into TGU would mean we couldn't land 90% of the time because we needed to exceed 1000 fpm to land unless we had at least a 15knot headwind

Are you talking about sink rate issue at low altitude?well in that case it is not forbidden if briefed prior...your chief pilot should have had this included in your sops or training for this particular airport.

He agreed and just said just keep doing it the way we have always done it so sop is a guideline, not a law. In the future don't be so negative about us old guys. We survived a career with no scratches. Hope you do too.

I aint negative at all about old folks,i am negative about people who bull:mad: their crews about doing some non standard maneuver unbriefed,unapproved based on some personal assumptions...
I do know the difference between guidelines and law,however most guidelines come from the law...and disregarding sops in general treating them as mere guidelines is a state of mind that i deplore.

Many accidents result from loss of situational awareness,and following sops,especially in an emergency is a very important tool to maintain this awareness.

The nasty places, IMHO, have low hills close in which don't look that forbidding until you lose a donk. MSAs may not be particularly high compared with the airfield altitude but you still have to get there. ZRH comes to mind as somewhere that has seen more than its fair share of accidents, both on departure and approach.

Innsbruck was a 'fun' place to go...

[BARKINGMAD]

"Concerning your std setting of altimeter,yes there are times when some non standard actions are needed as the sops cant be written for every scenario possible but in your case,i doubt the noise abatement should take over the setting of your altimeter ...but you did the right thing to request clarification and thats how manuals evolve or get too fathttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Im curious as what is your transition altitude/preferred noise (A/B/1/2) and SID level off FL?"

1) NA procedure will not take precedent over stop alt/FL, too much grief and paperwork after-I'll argue over the fine!

2) TA varies with the places I fly, SOP is to change asap if low level off FL.

3) Noise procedues are variable depending on dep airport, not permitted a preference.

4) As per the original query, I find it difficult to believe a professional pilot and their peers could write this into the manual!

My old brain begins to creak as I get airborne with MFRA, power cutback, acceleration/cleanup initiation, transition altitude, safety altitude and stop alt/FL all whirring around inside. 2 of these are displayed, MFRA on the PFD and stop alt/FL on the MCP, but the rest are on a piece of paper on control column/chart clip.

Is this really a sensible way to run a railway?

[underfire]

skyjob, all,

Sky, while you included all kinds of illustrations, they are for all engine analysis. EO procedures are classed as emergency, and there is NO criteria for engine out missed or departure design.

Typically, the EO procedure will follow the straight segment to an altitude, but that is simply to standardize the EO procedure with the all engine, assuming that you go EO at minima, and to get you to the same point as the missed to clear, and for ATC to react and provide some assistance.

The EO procedures, beginning with the EO missed approach, are very complex in nature. Analysis begins with the aircraft climb perf, assuming the worst case variables for the climb. This is MLW, all bleeds on, and max temp at the airport.
There are many airports, terrain rich, or high altitude where an EO procedure is not possible. If you are EO enroute, you are diverting to an alternate, because you cannot go missed on approach.

With a coded procedure, EO missed is taken into account with the DA. Many people wonder why the standard approach has a 250 HAT, while the coded approach has a 1200 DA, and EO missed may be the reason.

As an example, at a certain airport in China, the EO missed is over 400nm long to get to the alternate. Terrain/obstacles were analyzed for the entire procedure.
Cuzco EO missed RW28?
http://i44.tinypic.com/11cfbkm.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/bhn4hz.jpg

EDIT, Terpster..the video you posted was very interesting, especially at around 11 mins and the FAA explanation of the EO procedure on the Jepp plate. I had no idea that the EO procedure, even though shown on the plate, was not FAA approved, that the individual airline had to engineer and approve itself to use this.

[underfire]

terpster, I would highly recommend the video. The guy from Boeing, beginning at about 1 hr:55 mins. It was always difficult to explain this issue to the pilots especially that the performance charts do not include any winds whatsoever.

[FullWings]

I aint negative at all about old folks, i am negative about people who bull their crews about doing some non standard maneuver unbriefed, unapproved based on some personal assumptions...

I do know the difference between guidelines and law,however most guidelines come from the law...and disregarding sops in general treating them as mere guidelines is a state of mind that i deplore.

Many accidents result from loss of situational awareness,and following sops,especially in an emergency is a very important tool to maintain this awareness.
:D

Well said Sir.

I'm all for free thought, suggestions, doing it differently, etc. but you'd better have a lead-lined, copper-bottomed mother-****** of a good reason to roll your own ET on the spur of the moment.

It's interesting listening to a briefing where someone gaily says something like "In the event of blah blah, we'll do a visual circuit or turnback onto RWY XXX". Fine in a PA28 but if you're down to one engine and one hundred tonnes over MLW, just how are you going to do that? It is well outside most people's experience, I would suggest, so it's going to be a real voyage of discovery as new facts about bank angle, turning radii, monster Vrefs and bugger! I can't slow down! are all found out about on the fly. Also, one of the major possibilities when you're gunning for a rapid return is that there is uncontrollable smoke on board. Now we're doing it all with Aliens on our faces!

Much as de facto says, there's a big breakdown in CRM and SA when non-standard emergency procedures are initiated for no really good reason apart from "because I can". That's not to say that on very rare occasions some thinking and action outside the box might be required but that should be obvious to all on board. Our FCOM begins with (paraphrased) "These are the rules, break them if you must to stay safe."

[underfire]

FW, your reasons are exactly why there should be a coded EO procedure in the box. While the crew is sorting out the issues, at least there is some knowledge that the aircraft is on a path that has some protection.
While I think that following the SID might work for EO Missed, I would never assume that following the SID for EO DEP would provide protection, especially if there are turns.

[Skyjob]

Underfire, the illustrations were provided to allow fellow pilot to e what they may not have seen before when considering how departure procedures are defined.

You are correct that an EO does no take these into account, merely terrain clearance requirements. For best vertical gains straight out departures are usually considered to best as the aircraft does not limb as well during a turn, in case of EO may no even limb at all in a turn.

EO procedures clear obstacles and terrain by minimum requirements underneath the considered flight path, whilst attempting simplicity or pilots as their workload is already high enough at these times.

Coded Eo procedures are commonly not possible as the FMC data is refreshed and loaded each 28 days, in line with AIRINC cycles, but EO procedures are type/operator specific and can only be loaded inoto FMC using Supplementary database, something that needs creating/monitoring/updating/installing/maintaining etc, some operators do not or can not spend resources on that. Granted, coded EO procedures would be better provided the aircraft can fly them (limiting bank angels, re-executing a new FMC selection of route, etc etc)

[aterpster]

skyjob:

You are correct that an EO does no take these into account, merely terrain clearance requirements. For best vertical gains straight out departures are usually considered to best as the aircraft does not limb as well during a turn, in case of EO may no even limb at all in a turn.

At many locations turns are required in OEI procedure. Track design is predicated on any turn being made at a 15 degree angle of bank, which results in very little loss of lift.

[underfire]

skyjob:

Any coded procedure is on the cycle. If it isnt updated, it cannot be used. All coded procedures go through the navdatabase provider, they are not sent to the individual airline for upload. The code has identifiers per aircraft, and will not load to a different aircraft

The EO procedures are coded as part of the procedure, ie the EO missed is coded with the Approach procedure, just the same as the missed, it is not separate.
The EO DEP are the same, coded with the DEP.

All procedures are monitored daily for NOTAM, additional obstacles, and error checked each cycle before sent out by the provider. This is a costly struggle to maintain the integrity on the cycle, and there are many differences between the numerous navdatabases to account for.

As terpster stated, there are virtually always turns with an EO procedure, with bank altitude and bank angle limits to account for the degradation in a turn. In the video linked by Terpster, it was rather interesting to note the EO procedure at Slat Lake City. I find it very difficult to believe that a twin could make that turn EO.

[Skyjob]

Unfortunately not all aircraft are capable of selecting a new departure procedure easily, I'm thinking if eg 737 which doesn't have a capable fmc for route 2 options at this time yet.

Regarding coding it in fmc through nav data provider, you are correct this is the chosen method of distribution.

Let's get this right, I'm not attacking anyone, but I think the capabilities vary and need to be taken into account.

The question wa about EO, that was and should be answered, nog about how it can or can't be achieved in a specific aircraft type or not.

[latetonite]

And then we still have the complexibility of which engine failed. There is a big difference in flying 15 degrees away from the failed engine, and into the failed engine.

[HazelNuts39]

There is no difference in flying 15 degrees away from the failed engine, and into the failed engine.

[latetonite]

Hazelnuts, there is.
Your straight ahead path is calculated with a max 5 degree bank into the live engine. This 5 degrees is used to calculate the rudder size.

15 degrees in the turn away from the live engine, banks you 20 degrees away from the V2 to VmcA protection.

[HazelNuts39]

latetonite,

Max 5 degrees of bank is used for determination of Vmca. OEI climb performance is determined with wings level, except that a small amount of bank is permitted (less than 2 degrees) if rudder capacity is insufficient to maintain heading at V2 (which is not less than 1.1 Vmca).

[john_tullamarine]

An observation or two ...

These are the rules, break them if you must to stay safe

(a) but just make sure you have a damned good story for the enquiry in case it turns to custard in the execution ... ie know what you are doing .. one needs to understand the why of the rules before throwing them away, regardless of the circumstances. And, yes, the (performance) rules apply while the circumstances are constrained to approximate the presumptions inherent. The further the circumstances wander, the more the Commander gets to apply his/her knowledge base and earn his/her paycheck.

(b) or, as a fine checkie once observed to me in the debrief .. "Young John, the Ops Manual has an invisible comment on the front page which says ... To be read with a modicum of commonsense "


bank angle limits to account for the degradation in a turn

Not quite right ...

(a) bank is limited to 15 degrees to put a fence around the performance loss.

(b) there is nothing to prevent a procedure specifying a lesser bank angle .. generally to accommodate a turn radius problem.

(c) the climb degradation is accounted for by routine calculations. For in service application, the AFM will specify a minimum climb gradient penalty to be applied for the particular aircraft, generally around 0.6 - 0.8 or so gradient reduction.

(d) in practice, the ops engineer addresses the penalty artificially by increasing the calculated height of down stream obstacles to provide the same result but permitting the calculation to be performed as a quasi straight ahead climb for calculation convenience.

in case of EO may no even limb at all in a turn

I have never seen a case where a competent ops engineer has not maintained the WAT limit during a turn, having applied the decrement. Not saying it doesn't happen but such would defeat the philosophy of having a WAT limit.

EO procedures clear obstacles and terrain by minimum requirements

That applies to the NFP. As the aircraft gets further away from the end of the TOD, the expected real height progressively increases above the calculated NFP

Hazelnuts, there is.

I know who HN39 is, I suspect you don't. He is quite right on this point (and an acknowledged expert in aircraft performance matters generally). I suggest that his observations and comments ought not to be disregarded lightly.

Your straight ahead path is calculated with a max 5 degree bank into the live engine

Not necessarily .. depends on the speed for the turn.

The 5 degree consideration is at, or close to, Vmc. As the margin increases, the use of a banked climb for Vmc considerations is discarded. Indeed, on some aircraft, due to systems limitations, it is impracticable to maintain a shallow bank angle and the OEI climb is done wings level.

Although some operators do impose such a requirement, it is more a stylistic encumbrance than a necessary requirement. I well recall having to do that exercise to get the tick in the box on AN F27s in a much earlier life ..

On the other hand, if systems permit and you are after the last bit of climb performance, the optimum OEI climb will be achieved somewhere around 2-3 degrees. Generally not worth the effort and we go for wings level.

[latetonite]

Please do not take this as an offence, but have a look at this document:

http://www.avioconsult.com/downloads/Analysis%20B737-200%20FCTM%20Algeria%20accident.pdf

It is not the climb gradient I worry about. it is the controlability.

[HazelNuts39]

From FAA Advisory Circular no. 25-7C "Flight Test Guide For Certification Of Transport Category Airplanes":
17. Climb: One-Engine-Inoperative - § 25.121.
a.(...).
b. Procedures.
(1)(a) (...) These climbs are flown with the wings nominally level. (...)
(2) If full rudder with wings level cannot maintain constant heading, small bank angles of up to 2 to 3 degrees into the operating engine(s), with full rudder, should be used to maintain constant heading. (...).
From the paper linked in #46:
According to the accident investigation report, the airplane lost speed progressively, stalled and crashed, (...)Without consulting the accident report, it would seem that the accident was probably due to failure to maintain correct pitch attitude and airspeed rather than loss of lateral control, use of rudder or bank angle.

[john_tullamarine]

I will have a looksee at the cited URL shortly.

Indeed, we should all be critically concerned with control around Vmca .. while keeping in mind that civil pilots generally have no reason to be operating at that limit and ought to keep some margin about the real Vmca for the conditions.

Military folks have a fascination with Vmca for reasons which elude me - most likely associated with the military need to be able to exploit the envelope boundaries for sensible military purposes (which makes perfectly good sense for combat vehicles but not so much for transport) - however, that is not a concern here.

In general we are far more concerned with performance and this, of course, requires that folk make very sure that they don't permit the speed to decrease below OEI targets.

Certainly no offence involved but, at this stage, I am not following the reason for latetonite's post ?

[latetonite]

The reason for posting was that, as operators themselves are responsible for the One Engine Out Procedure for their fleet, I seriously wonder if they take the controllability problem into account.
Many procedures require an immediate turn left or right, at a now standard 15 degrees of bank.
Taken all factors in to the limit, a pilot flying at calculated V2 might run out of rudder while banking, or find himself with a sink rate while increasing the speed to control the aircraft, as VmcA at this bank angle is substantionaly increased.

The referred document explains this very well.

[HazelNuts39]

latetonite,

the scheduled speeds provide adequate controllability.

I'll refrain from commenting on the opinions expressed in the referred paper. Boeing's response is entirely appropriate.

IIRC jet transport gradient reduction for 15 degrees of bank is typically of the order of 0.1 - 0.15 % gradient (0.001 to 0.0015 radians).

[JammedStab]

Thanks for your help John T. One final question as you seem to know about this stuff. If you were to do an analysis for a runway at an airport with flat terrain all around except for the extremely high wall of mountains off in the distance that rise up like the Rockies seem to do(and you could never get over)....

How far away would they have to be for you to not have a special procedure requiring a turn.

[latetonite]

To HazelNuts39:

Well, that solves that issue then..

[john_tullamarine]

How far away would they have to be for you to not have a special procedure requiring a turn.

I presume you are considering the case of flying straight ahead and then clearing the obstacles ? or else running a turning escape

Your question can't be answered simply as it doesn't define the Type and situation geometry.

What we would do is run an analysis for the case and see if we clear the obstruction at the weight for the conditions. If so, OK, if not, then the choice is either to reduce the weight until it is OK .. or turn to make the problem go away.

The minimum distance from the runway head to the obstacle will depend on the V2 which determines turn radius. Run the takeoff to a minimum 50ft NFP clearance and then one can commence the turn. The relevant obstacle consideration splays will then determine how far away the obstacles have to be .. ie the position in the turn where the splay edge sits at a NFP clearance of 50ft is the critical consideration. Simple geometry then gives you your required answer. For an early start turn, the distance to the obstacle is not overly great ..

The process may sound a tad complicated but it really is very straightforward ...

[BOAC]

Jammed stab - refer to post #25. Those constructing terrain clearance paths rely on a little commonsense and awareness of area MORA/MSA whatever you wish to call it. If you are entering an area with an MORA/MSA higher than what you have, don't (IMC) and only with extreme caution VMC. I have no idea how far out an obstacle would be included in the study and JT's post has missed your query.

As guesswork I would suggest that obstacles with a 30nm radius of the field would be looked at, but I cannot see anyone warning crews about the Rockies out of Calgary in the case you cited.

[john_tullamarine]

I would expect any reputable ops engineer to consider whatever obstacles at whatever distance may be necessary to cover the entire flight. One doesn't run to 1500ft, for instance, and then just leave the pilot with the problem (OK, I know some operators do, but that's not a nice thing to do).

Routinely one might well be looking in excess of 50nm for a critical twin just to get the basic takeoff done .. then it becomes a matter of making sure that the enroute path is OK.

MORA is a very restrictive sledgehammer way of getting around the problem ... but very useful to the Commander if his/her operator doesn't do the work at the ops engineer level ...

[BOAC]

JT - in all my time I have never seen any company analyse obstructions at any distance - the only note I have EVER seen is 'ensure en-route MSA achieved' which is pretty logical, really.

It may be a 'very restrictive sledgehammer' but in the absence of anything else to hit it with how are we supposed not to 'hit it'?

As an aside, I once flew with a Captain who INSISTED I refuse the initial clearance to FL60 out of Venice (UK bound) as it was 'not high enough for the Alps'. VCE ATC were slightly surprised and I persuaded him to accept it rather than return to stand.:)

[john_tullamarine]

I have never seen any company analyse obstructions at any distance - the only note I have EVER seen is 'ensure en-route MSA achieved' which is pretty logical, really.

On my watch we made sure that the flight was covered for the entire sector so that I slept comfortably at night. When I flew for AN, their ops eng section were similarly conservative .. TN was much the same.

Clearly, we are all aware of those operators which choose to cut corners .. Centaurus used to fly for one which just didn't bother to worry about some difficult obstacles ...

If a runway is clearly not critical, a general SOP protocol is fine .. but, if that is not the case, then it is appropriate for the operator to do the sums to make it OK.

It may be a 'very restrictive sledgehammer' but in the absence of anything else to hit it with how are we supposed not to 'hit it'?

As per the previous comment

As an aside, I once flew with a Captain who INSISTED I refuse the initial clearance to FL60 out of Venice (UK bound) as it was 'not high enough for the Alps'. VCE ATC were slightly surprised and I persuaded him to accept it rather than return to stand

We have all had our modest burdens to bear ...

[HazelNuts39]

According to Wikipedia, Calgary is situated " in an area of foothills and prairie, approximately 80 km (50 mi) east of the front ranges of the Canadian Rockies" (i.e. 43 nm).

And also: "The Canadian Rockies have numerous high peaks and ranges, such as Mount Robson (3,954 m (12,972 ft)) and Mount Columbia (3,747 m (12,293 ft))."

If your planned route is over the Rockies, won't you be 'looking at' those in preflight planning?

[mutt]

Jammedstab, it will depend on the airline / aircraft and airport. Most paper AFM charts have a maximum distance for distant obstacles of 72,000 feet, and as someone else has pointed out the Type A chart may go out to about 10 miles. So the airline back engineering guys will look at the airport, decide if 10 miles is enough, if not they will take the obstacles out to the maximum that they can by obtaining topographical maps for the airport and surrounding area. If in the event that the obstacles are further than 72,000 feet, they will be scaled down so that they can be used in the AFM chart.

Ideally, all engine failure procedures should have a finish point, some say this should be the MSA, but unfortunately for most aircraft the software doesn't exist to calculate this, so its best to take the aircraft to a fixed point and hold.

The newer digital AFM's allow for further distances to be calculated and with the advances in Google Earth and the fact that collecting terrain data has become a lot easier. the results should be better procedures.

The process isnt always perfect, there was a positing on here a few years ago where someone wrote about an engine failure procedure from a Greek island, the procedure turned out over the sea, but they completely forgot about the next island!

Mutt

[BOAC]

Ferzackerly, HN39.

JT - JS asked up to how far out you would prescribe an emergency procedure. EG. West bound from Calgary? In AN? If you were to do an analysis for a runway at an airport with flat terrain all around except for the extremely high wall of mountains off in the distance that rise up like the Rockies seem to do(and you could never get over)....
How far away would they have to be for you to not have a special procedure requiring a turn. - I would be interested to know. I prefer my sledgehammer (aka HN39's 'preflight planning').

[john_tullamarine]

Then we agree to disagree.

Unless the sector is terrain benign, if I am wearing an ops eng hat I'll run the entire sector through the number crunching.

My previous comments were philosophically generic. What folks might do specifically with Calgary is not for me to say ...

My comments remain the same .. without the specific aircraft data and the geometry, there is no rational specific answer available.

[BOAC]

There you go, Jammed Stab, if you are still 'on frequency' - there is no real answer - best

a) Be aware of terrain yourself
b) Ask your ops dep how they do iot
c) Hope JT is your ops eng guy

[flyboyike]

He knows there's no real answer, that's why he asked the question in the first place.

[JammedStab]

There you go, Jammed Stab, if you are still 'on frequency' - there is no real answer - best

a) Be aware of terrain yourself
b) Ask your ops dep how they do iot
c) Hope JT is your ops eng guy

Correct, there has been no answer given(and it is quite obvious that I could never get a correct one from Flyboyike). It would appear that perhaps there is no regulation.

Please don't get hung up on Calgary as I was only using the picture as an example of relatively flat followed by a wall of rock and stated that in that case the wall is quite far so forget the city name and use the picture as a reference.

No doubt, there is somewhere similar where the wall of rock is not nearly as far but isn't really close. If it is 72000 feet only or 10 miles or less for a turn to be required, there is an extremely high chance that someone will plow into it.

Think dark night/IMC at an unfamiliar airport with no radar and frequently, there is no radar in mountainous remote mountains.

[flyboyike]

Correct, there has been no answer given(and it is quite obvious that I could never get a correct one from Flyboyike).

That's obviuous indeed, correct answers come from smart people, I'm just a pilot.

What's not terribly obvious is what your actual point is. How far out do you want operators to look? The "not nearly as far, but not really close" bit is one of those statements that sounds akin to "a double cheesburger is not nearly as deadly as a triple one, but not really good for you as a single".

[aterpster]

flyboyike:

What's not terribly obvious is what your actual point is. How far out do you want operators to look? The "not nearly as far, but not really close" bit is one of those statements that sounds akin to "a double cheesburger is not nearly as deadly as a triple one, but not really good for you as a single".

I want him to look out to the point where I am in level flight at the minimum en route altitude 5 miles each side of centerline as per FAR Part 121.189, et al.

[aterpster]

j.t.

Unless the sector is terrain benign, if I am wearing an ops eng hat I'll run the entire sector through the number crunching.

And, I hope you will be applying FAA Advisory Circular 120-91 or its equivalent.


Advisory Circulars (http://tinyurl.com/n6zxbty)

What I find so frustrating about the for-hire performance and engineering companies is that they still do not offer a OEI rnav flight path option.

That, of course, begs the question of when or how the OEI rnav path gets loaded. I don't want the F/O heads down doing that at KMMH (Runway 27) for example, after an engine fails at rotation.

But, those smarter FMSes that have a second flight plan option, it can be pre-loaded where appropriate.

[underfire]

What I find so frustrating about the for-hire performance and engineering companies is that they still do not offer a OEI rnav flight path option.

What do you mean? There are plenty of these procedures available, but given the expense, most airlines just go with RNP designs.

[latetonite]

With some fiddling on the fix and legs page before departure, you can paint your EO routing on your PFD, if you fly a Boeing.

[aterpster]

underfire:

What do you mean? There are plenty of these procedures available, but given the expense, most airlines just go with RNP designs.

Apparently you've never used the services of the two principal performance groups that non-carrier operators use (if they use any engineered data at all).

And, what RNP procedures are you referring to?

[JammedStab]

I am just curious How Far Do they Look?

[underfire]

Terpster,

Go back, are you are saying that there arent any RNAV OEI coded procedures available?

[aterpster]

Underfire:

Go back, are you are saying that there arent any RNAV OEI coded procedures available?

No, I did not say that.

I asked you about RNP OEI coded procedures.

I know that Naverus designed one for China Airlines at the airport in Tibet. But, that is a giant exception to the norm.

And, outside of the big 121 operators, RNAV OE tracks are simply not done by the public purveyors of performance data.

[john_tullamarine]

I hope you will be applying FAA Advisory Circular 120-91 or its equivalent.

.. and a bit of fat in addition should I consider it appropriate. I make no apologies for being a conservative engineer and have not the slightest concern when it upsets the bean counters. Being conservative has seen me comfortably out of potential legal hot water following a few fatals in aircraft with my mods embodied ... the mods might not be relevant but the good legal folk have a tendency to use a scatter gun approach to litigation.

With some fiddling on the fix and legs page before departure, you can paint your EO routing on your PFD, if you fly a Boeing.

One needs to be cognizant of accuracy available and accuracy required before one trusts one's life to JB technology ... while the line might be useful for orientation routinely the ops eng folk will have figured the escape with respect to achieveable flight path accuracy and that needs to be achieved .. no point following the line into the rocky bit believing it to be God's gift to pilots. My limited understanding of religion suggests that God doesn't necessarily see any pertinent need to protect folk intent on joining the Darwin Award group.

One problem which concerns me greatly in many areas is the observation gained over the past, say, 30 years wherein the up and coming folk are developing/have developed a blind faith in gizmo technology. As a long ago aerodynamics boss of mine observed some years ago after presenting a bunch of awards at a graduation event .. "pity none of them have a clue about ROM calculations and guarding against GIGO". Blindly following the magenta line without engaging the brain is a good recipe for surprises.

if they use any engineered data at all

.. and that's been a big worry for many decades now

[Skyjob]

latetonite: on the fix and legs page before departure, you can paint your EO routing on your PFD, if you fly a Boeing.


Correct. Provided you factor in potential map shift, and many more possibilities.
Make you fixed named adequately so you can remember them in raw data, eg use a good naming convention.

[FullWings]

I make no apologies for being a conservative engineer
I was amazed to find that there were companies operating similar aircraft to mine who didn't have ETs or did very limited analysis along the "dump at 1,500" line.

I suppose I'm lucky that we still appear to have a stock of conservative engineers. Flying NW out of Islamabad, we'd get initial and subsequent ETs but also restrictions on AEO achieved altitudes, maybe requiring en-route holding, plus a critical point and precise instructions on how to fly the driftdown or emergency descent. I was gobsmacked to find not everybody had this...

Regarding OEI FMS departures:

Correct. Provided you factor in potential map shift, and many more possibilities.

Those possibilities apply to all RNAV procedures, not just OEI ones - it's perfectly possible to hit a mountain on a normal RNAV SID/STAR/APP but one would hope an ANP alert would have gone off long before the GPWS.

We used to have coded ETs for some airports but they all appear to have gone to make room for the plethora of RNAV arrivals and departures required.

[latetonite]

To Skyjob: My picture on the ND was not meant to be a stand-alone way of getting your engine out procedure correct, merely a reminder to get you in the right direction. The details of the exact routing have to be remembered.
Map shift? With modern aircraft with GPS updating, it would be a strange incident together with an engine failure. Anyway, it would be advertised in front of you. Would you not set it in the ND, cause you could have a map shift? Then also forget any normal departure, without engine failure. Or stay in bed. It is safer.

[underfire]

terpster,

OEI missed approach is SOP for both Quovadis and Naverus.

There are very few coded DEP, let alone EO DEP.

Every RNP procedure I have seen from Quovadis and Naverus include EO missed approach. I have seen them as typical in Canada, Australia, and China.

This plate is one in China, but not an exception:

http://i40.tinypic.com/14mys7k.jpg

[FullWings]

Wow! Can't see those ones being anything else but RNAV!

(At 1.2nm left track 243degs, after 0.7nm track 247degs, after 1.1nm track 230degs, speed < 180kts, after 0.6nm track...)

It would be quite "interesting" to watch this unroll on a CAVOK day, let alone with any weather. Some years ago I remember watching a D-reg Seneca take off from LSZS (SMV, Samedan in Switzerland, 5600'ASL) in light snow, OVC<100'. He'd strapped a GPS-90 (remember those?) to the control column and programmed in a series of user waypoints that took him down the Inn valley between the peaks. The official departure reads something like "maintain VMC to 14,000'"...

[reynoldsno1]

NZ also has OEI missed approaches for RNP(AR) approaches. AFAIK only the US, Australia and NZ have developed criteria for OEI RNP(AR) departures (not yet developed by ICAO). The obstacle clearance assessment extends to the end of the emergency departure procedure, which may be a long way. The actual obstacle clearance is, err, meagre ...:oh:

[underfire]

All OEI and DEP are custom criteria, which is approved by exceptions by the host Country.

While these procedures are in use in many Countries, even some in S America, Africa, and Russia, there is no individual Country which has developed the public criteria in these regards.

There is also no criteria for an RNP-AR missed approach, AE or OE.

If you look at the coding for the procedures, there is the code for APP, which goes to the runway endpoint. Then the coding goes to MISS.
In the FMS, on appraoch, the missed is armed. Because of the coding, only one missed is available.

When you see the chart, there is a common segment, then the OEI continues.
Therefore, when OEI is shown, the entire missed is designed for OEI.

[Teldorserious]

Pulling out my crystal ball....900 posts later...this thread will terminate with...'so who plans out their whole trip using single engine performance limitations, as you should?'

My assumption is that paid dispatchers at the airlines, give you this information based on weight, fuel, ect....

Right...?

[flyboyike]

FlyboyIke...I very much believe the main intent of the first sentence of your last post as a review of your posts shows that they add nothing useful to this thread. I am not here to tell how far I want operators to "to look". I am asking and have been asking from the beginning the question of How Far Do they Look? Quite a simple question for most to understand.


Well, when you went to whoever does performance calculations at your airline, what did they tell you?

[JammedStab]

It appears that I have discovered that there may be no regulation covering this subject.

[HazelNuts39]

there may be no regulation covering this subject

This is the regulation:
Sec. 25.111

Takeoff path.

(a) The takeoff path extends from a standing start to a point in the takeoff at which the airplane is 1,500 feet above the takeoff surface, or at which the transition from the takeoff to the en route configuration is completed and VFTO is reached, whichever point is higher. In addition--

Sec. 121.189

Airplanes: Turbine engine powered: Takeoff limitations.

(d) No person operating a turbine engine powered transport category airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual--
(1) In the case of an airplane certificated after August 26, 1957, but before October 1, 1958 (SR422), that allows a takeoff path that clears all obstacles either by at least (35+0.01D) feet vertically (D is the distance along the intended flight path from the end of the runway in feet), or by at least 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after passing the boundaries; or
(2) In the case of an airplane certificated after September 30, 1958 (SR 422A, 422B), that allows a net takeoff flight path that clears all obstacles either by a height of at least 35 feet vertically, or by at least 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after passing the boundaries.Then there is Advisory Circular 120-91:
1. PURPOSE.
This advisory circular (AC) describes acceptable methods and guidelines for developing takeoff and initial climb-out airport obstacle analyses and in-flight procedures to comply with the intent of the regulatory requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (...) relating to turbine engine
powered airplanes operated under parts 121 and 135. The methods and guide lines presented in this AC are neither mandatory nor the only acceptable methods for ensuring compliance with the regulatory sections. Operators may use other methods if those methods are shown to provide the necessary level of safety and are acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (...).

9. TERMINATION OF TAKEOFF SEGMENT.
a. For the purpose of the takeoff obstacle clearance analysis, the end of the takeoff flightpath is considered to occur when:
(1) The airplane has reached the minimum crossing altitude (MCA) at a fix or the minimum en route altitude (MEA) for a route to the intended destination;
(2) The airplane is able to comply with en route obstacle clearance requirements (§§ 121.191, 121.193, 135.381, and 135.383); or
(3) The airplane has reached the minimum vectoring altitude, or a fix and altitude from which an approach may be initiated, if the operator’s emergency procedure calls for an immediate return to the departure airport or a diversion to the departure alternate in the event of an engine failure during takeoff.

b. When determining the limiting takeoff weight, the obstacle analysis should be carried out to the end of the takeoff segment as defined in paragraph 9a above. Operators should note that the end of the takeoff segment is determined by the airplane’s gross flightpath, but the obstacle analyses must use the net flightpath data.

c. In the event that the airplane cannot return to and land at the departure airport, the takeoff flightpath should join a suitable en route path to the planned destination or to another suitable airport. It may be necessary to address extended times and alternate fuel requirements when climbing in a holding pattern with reduced climb gradients associated with one-engine-inoperative turns.

[flyboyike]

Once again, a totally useless post that adds nothing to the thread similar to what a quick search shows for virtually all your posts.

I asked on this thread because there are some very knowledgeable people on this forum who I would think would know the answer, and speak English as a first language clearly as compared to engineering people where I work.

It appears that I have discovered that there may be no regulation covering this subject.

Useful replies appreciated.



I guess I'm not entirely clear what good a regulation would do you, if it doesn't apply to where you work, which apparently is in non-English-speaking land.

Similarly, if there's no regulation, where do you go from here? Do you stop flying or at least stop flying out of anywhere there's any granite or what?

[JammedStab]

Hazelnuts has added some very useful info. Concerning an engine out turn, it appears that it is not a set distance to always analyze off the end of the runway but varies from runway to runway and depends on terrain and I suppose climb capability of the aircraft on that particular flight.

So nice to have useful information provided,

Thanks

[PPRuNeUser0190]

I guess it depends on the company. In our company they look at the obstacles within the MSA-sector.

If our EO procedures says straight ahead, it means you will always reach MSA before the end of the MSA sector (25NM).

If the above is not possible, our engine out procedure will include turns to remain within the MSA-sector and ends in a holding where we can climb to the MSA.

There are exceptions to deal with airports like INN but this requires training prior to operating in those airports.

I like this procedure as it is always the same:
Do the Engine failure procedure
climb to MSA

[john_tullamarine]

I like this procedure as it is always the same

Having flown for an operator with a similar philosophy, I concur regarding the usefulness of the standardisation -

(a) super simple runways - a standard simple recovery according to the operator's preferences - SOP preflight review and easily flown from memory

(b) modest terrain/airspace problems without any significant problems - relatively simple standard recovery - simple preflight review and flown without any problem

(c) nasty places - detailed escape - detailed preflight review and one (or both pilots) has the procedure document to hand for the departure.

[BOAC]

If our EO procedures says straight ahead, it means you will always reach MSA before the end of the MSA sector (25NM).

If the above is not possible, our engine out procedure will include turns to remain within the MSA-sector and ends in a holding where we can climb to the MSA. - yes, ideal. BUT the problem we face is that I would suggest airlines that do this are in the minority, hence the OP's question - many, I suggest blithely 'leave' you at 1500' to 'sort yourself out'. I assume this should be 'policed' by the regulatory authority but........................

[underfire]

BOAC,

Unfortunately, just the opposite is true. The agencies usually prevent publication of EO tracks other than straight ahead until 1500 because of the outcry from the general public.

Think the public complains about noise, just wait until you show a track over their home where an engine has failed....

(one a side note, there are some missed procedures that are straight ahead, but if you are EO, you begin a turn at 400' before the end of the runway)

[flyboyike]

As usual the expected useless post from someone who appears to incapable of adding anything useful to this forum. Try the Jetblast forum.

Hazelnuts has added some very useful info. Concerning an engine out turn, it appears that it is not a set distance to always analyze off the end of the runway but varies from runway to runway and depends on terrain and I suppose climb capability of the aircraft on that particular flight.

So nice to have useful information provided,

Thanks



Indeed, I too like Hazelnut's post, because essentially it establishes that the answer to your question is "depends", doesn't it? Not that I needed Hazelnut to tell me that, but it appears you did, so evidently this is useful to you, and that is well.

[underfire]

On a note of curiousity, when you are EO, how do you adjust your DA/MDA to account?

I am sure that all of you realize that if you go EO at the DA/MAP, you had better just suck it up and land...

[flyboyike]

That's a good question, underfire. At my airline there is one aircraft type (Q400) that goes into Eagle County Airport (EGE). Their 10-7 pages specifically instruct them that should they lose an engine anywhere outside of the MAP they are to go elsewhere, unless they have a time-critical failure (uncontrollable engine fire). Of course, how one is to decide, say 2 mi outside of the MAP if something is time-critical or not is not immediately clear. Furthermore, the MDA is 8330'. The missed approach procedure is to turn right, join the SXW 001 radial and track it 24nm to JESIE intersection. Now, the terrain along that radial in the vicinity of the airport is 8,000-10,000', so even EO they would likely clear the terrain, but would not be within legal requirements. I suppose that would be where emergency authority of the PIC would come into play. Do what you have to do, 14 CFR Part 121 be damned, if the situation is dire enough.

[flyboyike]

I used the Q400 and EGE as one example, I'm sure there are others.

[JammedStab]

Flyboyike....much improved.

Underfire....the question was actually referring specifically for takeoff procedures.

Consideration for EO on a missed approach would be covered by reducing weight if the requirements can't be met.

As well, I find it difficult to believe that a takeoff EO procedure would not be made somewhere due to noise issues as the routing in reality, never gets used. Maybe once every few years if that frequently.

[Skyjob]

The tread was initially indeed about takeoff terrain clearance.

An EO for an approach requires a different set of performance criteria, notable the Missed Approach Climb Gradient requirement and the Approach Climb Gradient requirement. Both are described in subsequent areas of legislation (JAA/FAA) regarding aircraft performance and can be found/quoted here if needed by others.

In simple terms, an airport may instruct aircraft outside a MAP to execute the missed approach procedure if from the MAP any aircraft requires the minimum legal gradients required to fly the defined missed approach procedure, as these are defined and each aircraft is certified to be able to achieve them, this would be safest option in general.

Think of the alternative, an aircraft proceeds beyond the MAP and then executes a missed approach for whichever reason and cannot achieve terrain clearance due to being incapable to achieve the required climb gradients...

Pilots are to ensure that missed approach climb gradients and approach climb gradients can be met before proceeding on an approach.

Some airport define different minima based on an aircraft's achievable climb gradient, always measured from the MAP, thus achieving the use of lower operational minima if you can achieve e.g. 4.0% instead of 2.5%, raising your chances of completing a successful approach, especially in non CAVOK conditions.

This can be a very useful feature if the aircraft on the actual flight is light enough and thus be able to use lower operational minima.

[underfire]

jammed, sky...

It seems most places, the engine out procedure is to fly runway heading(track) as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

Not sure how the original question was specific to takeoff....

[john_tullamarine]

the engine out procedure is to fly runway heading

I think that the various previous posts have indicated that the original statement is not quite right -

(a) Type As and the like (generally, but not invariably) are straight out but they meet airport requirements, not operational performance

(b) Such charts provide some terrain information in a specific area but not information regarding the match of a specific Type to that terrain - that's a matter for the operator to figure out


as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clear

Generally, this statement is not reasonable


Not sure how the original question was specific to takeoff

Most of us had presumed that to be the case. However, it really doesn't matter - the ground will kill you every bit as dead during the takeoff or the missed approach so there is merit in considering both. Logically, the takeoff is the more pertinent as every flight involves one whereas the miss involves much reduced frequency.


An EO for an approach requires a different set of performance criteria

Not quite. Approach and Landing Climb requirements are WAT matters and have naught to do, necessarily, with terrain clearance. Any specified missed approach gradient requirements generally are regulatory and related to procedures design rather than EO escape.

More particularly, none generally has any interest in the clean up phase.

Rationally, the only practical way to address the missed approach terrain clearance is by adopting an implementation of the takeoff data. While this presents some interesting bits, it is generally not a major difficulty, especially with the more reliable tracking information the black boxes can now provide.

[JammedStab]

Original post modified to make clear it is about takeoffs.

Runway track is what is done for most runways after an engine failure at my company. Heading Select and compensate for wind.

[flyboyike]

Runway track is what is done for most runways after an engine failure at my company. Heading Select and compensate for wind.


Interesting...

[8thommo]

Just to make sure I'm on the right line
Let’s say you had a climbing CAS of 90kts with a 15kt headwind, where your pressure height is 4,000’ and temperature is 12C, how many feet per minute (FPM) do you have to achieve to ensure obstacle clearance using 6% gradient?
Using a flight computer, enter PH 4,000, Temp 12 and CAS 90.
TAS = 86kts
Now deduct the headwind:
86 - 15 = 71kts ground speed (GS)
Using the rule of thumb GS / FPM = Climb gradient (in %)
6 x 71 = 426FPM
To check the answer is correct (assuming slight error in rule of thumb), let’s work it the long way.
71kts = 71 x 6076 (feet in NM) / 60 (minutes is hour) = 7190 FPM (horizontally)
7190 x 0.06 (gradient) = 431FPM
Copy copy?

[JammedStab]

In regards to a takeoff, it seems most places, the engine out procedure is to fly runway heading(track) as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

If someone decided to take a really long time with all their procedures and continue straight out, they could go quite far. There are some locations with distant mountains as we all know.

While the published departure procedure doesn't necessarily meet engine-inoperative criteria, I have found some info about normal departures....

What criteria is used to provide obstruction clearance during departure?

The 40:1 obstacle identification surface (OIS) begins at the departure end of runway (DER) and slopes upward at 152 FPNM until reaching the minimum IFR altitude or entering the en route structure. This assessment area is limited to 25 NM from the airport in non-mountainous areas and 46 NM in designated mountainous areas. Beyond this distance, the pilot is responsible for obstacle clearance if not operating on a published route, if below (having not reached) the MEA or MOCA of a published route, or an ATC assigned altitude.

http://tfmlearning.fly.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap5/aim0502.html

I wonder what it is for engine out procedures?

[galaxy flyer]

Most charted perf data ends at 30nm. Here’s the FAA AC, but it doesn’t specify a limiting distance.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf

[john_tullamarine]

Thread unlocked at OP's request.

[JammedStab]

Here is a document with page highlighted explaining how far there is an analysis for terrain after which point, there could be a tall mountain...like Calgary or Denver don't go straight out forever. Look at Fig. 5-2-1

https://books.google.ca/books?id=x8jMDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT3382&lpg=PT3382&dq=faa+ocs+25/46+miles&source=bl&ots=iIhRVLZgUS&sig=JeJC1eDgWjbuxzmzFImrAhDkjMo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjotvVxsPYAhVM6oMKHYzqBqYQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=faa%20ocs%2025%2F46%20miles&f=false

or google faa ocs 25/46 miles to get to the exact page on the appropriate link provided.


(Note: The AIM can be linked somewhat more easily at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf The book reference is at page 5.2.7 - JT)

[Judd]

Just read Post No. 8

We are paid to take care of things and given a manual to assist us but not handicap us.

25 yrs of doing this with no violations, write ups by anybody and no scraped metal worked for me

Surely you are not serious:ugh: Presumably you have never had the pleasure of a real engine failure at or after V1 on an obstacle limited/second segment climb limited weight weight at night or IMC where the obstacles are there but you cannot see and avoid. You and your passengers are then totally reliant on some Performance Engineer knowing his job such that you will clear terrain/obstacles by the regulatory margin only if you fly the profile exactly as per the runway analysis instructions.

25 years of trouble free operations means SFA. It means you have just had good fortune where your doubtless superior airmanship was not needed:ok:

[aterpster]

Here is a document with page highlighted explaining how far there is an analysis for terrain after which point, there could be a tall mountain...like Calgary or Denver don't go straight out forever.

or google faa ocs 25/46 miles to get to the exact page on the appropriate link provided.

U.S. TERPS is only for all engines operating. In non-mountainous areas the IFR obstacle departure procedure (ODP) is assessed out to 25 miles. In regulatory Designated Mountainous Areas (DMAs) the assessment is to 46 miles. If a 40:1 performance surface cannot be maintained in all directions, then a route ODP must be developed for publication.

The assumption: with all engines operating you will be level at a legal IFR altitude within those distances.

With OEI it becomes the operator's responsibility to assess the takeoff and en route-climb flight path. At a places such as Calgary or Denver the operator's performance department needs to design OEI routes that don't go straight-out into high terrain..

[JammedStab]

Thanks, but at what distance should they become concerned and make a turn? Sounds like there is no written rule.

[john_tullamarine]

at what distance should they become concerned and make a turn?

Depends on the rocky bits and pieces.

Can't reasonably be done on the fly (unless the local terrain be quite benign) but, rather, needs to be done back in the office.

Hence the usual deal that the operator gets the work done and schedules any requirements for crew use.

[JammedStab]

I guess the final answer to the original question will be....it varies by airline.

[underfire]

This is entirely correct...

U.S. TERPS is only for all engines operating. In non-mountainous areas the IFR obstacle departure procedure (ODP) is assessed out to 25 miles. In regulatory Designated Mountainous Areas (DMAs) the assessment is to 46 miles. If a 40:1 performance surface cannot be maintained in all directions, then a route ODP must be developed for publication.

The assumption: with all engines operating you will be level at a legal IFR altitude within those distances.

With OEI it becomes the operator's responsibility to assess the takeoff and en route-climb flight path. At a places such as Calgary or Denver the operator's performance department needs to design OEI routes that don't go straight-out into high terrain..

There is NO criteria for EO. NONE. Procedures that have an OEI track, rely on the engineering dept to load the ac accordingly.

The ONLY answer is that is varies very specifically by aircraft. Performance in a turn OEI is usually far less that anyone anticipates, especially when it is warm.

[john_tullamarine]

There is NO criteria for EO. NONE.

Not absolutely correct. The normal take off weight limits cover WAT requirements for climb OEI.

However, when it comes to terrain clearance, you are correct .. it's up to the operator/pilot to make sure that the data has been acquired and the sums done to establish a suitable maximum weight for the day to ensure that, at the very least, the minimum terrain clearances for the net flight path are met.

The ONLY answer is that is varies very specifically by aircraft.

To some extent, the numbers will have some similarity for twins, triples, and quads as the WAT requirements vary with the number of engines.

[galaxy flyer]

Here’s what the FAA puts out:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf

Under fire. Not entirely true, this AC referenced above is not regulatory ( I believe) but is the guidance used by most operators or perf engineers.