vcsandstorm

First of all, I was trained in Airbus for Advanced Aircraft Performance Course. I personally know how important of EOSID .

I just want to know how many airlines really practice EOSID. Because for my "company" though they send me to the course and I learnt about EOSID but they never practice . The cheif pilot simply told me that they will fly straight-out and everything will be fine .

So as my manager... So why people go and learn to design EOSID?
The best part even the regulations said "It is the responsibility of the operator to ensure they meet the obstacle clearance requirement" IMHO is like saying... "you can do anything you like but don't get caught"

EOSID really important? Or just like what my chief pilot told me that just fly-straight and asked for radar vector?!

Thanks.

SMOC

Our Perf dept examines all airfield departures and runs the calculations for EO, if the standard SID obstacle requirements can't be met then they design an EOSID which is included in our FMS package and a briefing sheet is included with the Jepp book explaining when it applies.

I hope ATC don't have a bad day when you do.

What do you do if you have a comm failure, bit hard for ATC to vector you?

Which Airline please?

vcsandstorm

For apparent reason I can't tell you my airline. But is in Asia.

I personally felt sad especially after I had learnt from Airbus in France and my ops dept told me that "EOSID is not so important" .

My old-school senior told me that during their days (B742), EOSID is not important . What they would apply live in-flight if OEI, is to fly straight and climb to EO Acc Alt and clean-up and Climb to MSA.

Ya... I asked how about when you are doing your SID and you got OEI? He told me that ATC Radar will Vector.... They trust ATC more than me... ...

Before I took up this job, I was ATCO in the Air Force. As ATCO, we will try our best to vector you, but we don't really know your aircraft performance. i.e. can you keep-up the climb rate, your rate of turn and so on.

My reason writing this thread is beacuse I want to find out, how many airlines really apply straight-out departure when they have OEI?

And what is the point of having performance engineer and asking them to produce RTOW charts based on only ICAO type-A chart?

Is ICAO Type-A chart sufficient?

I am angry!

I heard from Jepp that they can produce 2 kind-of obstacles data.
1. Straight-out departure obstacles
2. Throughout SIDs study

mutt

It depends on your route structure and aircraft type, we will use straight out departures for airports where the available takeoff weight is sufficient for the required mission/aircraft type.

For other airports we will do Engine Failure Procedures, these are designed to maximize the available takeoff weight, crews are then presented with details of the flight path to be flown if an engine fails.

Your boss has an extremely myopic view of things if he really thinks that he can ask ATC for immediate vectors, has he considered that some airports don't have radar coverage, language difficulties with various ATC units or even the fact that by the time you ask them, you have passed the only possible turning point? You should discuss these issues with him once you have reviewed an airport where you envisage problems.

As for the 747-200........ we routinely saw people flying 30 nms in a straight line following an engine failure, look at Manila and see what happens if you fly 30 nms inland We developed an engine failure procedure for that airport just to avoid terrain that is over 20 nms away.

Is the Type A chart sufficient, yes for the majority of airports, but for others, you should really visit the airport.

Mutt
Mutt

vcsandstorm

Thanks Mutt.

Thanks SMOC: I have a department too. But only handful staff. I asked them to study all SIDs but they said I know nothing and no experience.

So in general when I do a new airport study.
1. Key-in the Type A chart obstacles is suffice
2. Run Winpep TLO, and if it returns MTOW my airport study is done.
3. If it returns less than MTOW then I will design an EOSID or not even an EOSID but just a turn will do.
4. NO NEED to study the SID (obstacles along SID) as it is not necessary, according to my senior
5. From my point of view, I think the chances of designing a turn or EOSID is very remote unless the airport is surround by terrain.
6. I think anyone can do my job. Basically is data entry and as long as you are computer literate you can be Performance Engineer. (No wonder my salary is low)
7. No need to go for Airbus Performance Engineer Course because no one use their theory.
8. The Aviation authority don't check your RTOW charts. Till one day when something happen.....


Hmm... Seems that my job is easy

Piltdown Man

With a Chief Pilot like this, just make sure that your name is not on any documents that could be found in the smoking hole. Like most of the guys who post here, I work for a company where following an engine failure you'd be expected to follow the non-std. N-1 SID. We haven't paid for our machines to do it automatically, but we'd do our very best to follow the bugger. Flying straight ahead is not always an option.

PM

mutt

vcsandstorm......

If your bosses and colleagues want to iive in a fantasy world that doesn't have to limit you.
Take a look at Shiraz Airport in Iran (OISS), how would you get out of there without an Engine Failure Procedure, this is also interesting as it has an extremely limiting Missed Approach Gradient as well. When you have the data, ask your boss how he would do it!

Yep, with the available software, just about anyone can produce "numbers"...... but do they make sense?

Ha ha ha..... there has to be some perks to the job

Mutt