Landing Climb vs Approach Climb missed approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Climb vs Approach Climb missed approach
Hi everyone!
Ive read alot of threads around, but havn't been able to find a 100% ligit answer. Everyone seems to have their own point of view!
1. Standard missed approach according to Pans Ops Doc 8168, is that based on 1 or 2 engines?
2. Approach Climb limiting masses as calculated for specific airports from eg. APG or Flygprestanda: do they take into account obstacle clearance as described in doc 8168? Eg: 164ft final missed approach segment.
3. If answer to question 2 is no, what is the obstacle clearance single Engine missed approach?
4. If the answer to question 2 is yes, do they take into account a level OFF segment for acceleration? (Minimum 400 AAL)
I am aware that operators construct one Engine inop procedures for departures, wouldn't it then be prudent to use this procedure from example minima. incase of missed approach single engine?
Thanks!
Ive read alot of threads around, but havn't been able to find a 100% ligit answer. Everyone seems to have their own point of view!
1. Standard missed approach according to Pans Ops Doc 8168, is that based on 1 or 2 engines?
2. Approach Climb limiting masses as calculated for specific airports from eg. APG or Flygprestanda: do they take into account obstacle clearance as described in doc 8168? Eg: 164ft final missed approach segment.
3. If answer to question 2 is no, what is the obstacle clearance single Engine missed approach?
4. If the answer to question 2 is yes, do they take into account a level OFF segment for acceleration? (Minimum 400 AAL)
I am aware that operators construct one Engine inop procedures for departures, wouldn't it then be prudent to use this procedure from example minima. incase of missed approach single engine?
Thanks!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
1. Standard Missed Approach is exactly that...standard, and therefore based on two engines.
2. Yes, they take into account obstacle clearance, hence the reason APG data is far more limiting than the AFM. I'm surprised you didn't just send a quick email to APG to ask this? Therefore you have a definitive answer to refer back to.
so to answer 4, ask APG! The acceleration altitude varies according to A/C type, so may not always be relevant, depending on the weight/performance combination.
Best of luck ;-)
1. Standard Missed Approach is exactly that...standard, and therefore based on two engines.
2. Yes, they take into account obstacle clearance, hence the reason APG data is far more limiting than the AFM. I'm surprised you didn't just send a quick email to APG to ask this? Therefore you have a definitive answer to refer back to.
so to answer 4, ask APG! The acceleration altitude varies according to A/C type, so may not always be relevant, depending on the weight/performance combination.
Best of luck ;-)
