EOSID
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: spain
EOSID
Can somebody give an explanation of an EOSID ? Does ATC know the fact that you are following an EOSID ? or you have to inform them ? Are EOSID desingned by airplane categories or are the same for all types and who disign the EOSID ?
Your information would be appreciated. ThankYou
Your information would be appreciated. ThankYou
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
EOSID are company specific and aircraft type specific and even aircraft type and build specific. Nothing to do with categories - either TERPs or ICAO. Better hope your company is using a specialist who designs these things for a living!
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: sunny side up
From ICAO Doc. 8168
" Chapter 1- General Criteria for Departure Procedures
1.1.1.2 - These procedures assume that all engines are operating...
1.2 - Operators Responsibility
1.2.1 - Contingency Procedures
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 " ....
Take a look at this previous thread:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/18827...ml#post2067653
Hope this helps,
" Chapter 1- General Criteria for Departure Procedures
1.1.1.2 - These procedures assume that all engines are operating...
1.2 - Operators Responsibility
1.2.1 - Contingency Procedures
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 " ....
Take a look at this previous thread:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/18827...ml#post2067653
Hope this helps,
Last edited by CortaVento; 12th November 2008 at 00:04.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: N33 24.7 E36 30.8 E 36 30.8
Hi
google and download the following document...it's very comprehensive and should give you a very good idea about the subject
CAAP 235-4(0)
Guidelines for the construction and design of engine out SID(EOSID) and engine out missed approach procedures
regards
bf
google and download the following document...it's very comprehensive and should give you a very good idea about the subject
CAAP 235-4(0)
Guidelines for the construction and design of engine out SID(EOSID) and engine out missed approach procedures
regards
bf
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 967
Likes: 43
From: 30 West
Most companies seem to be using these now to give protection within the 25 mile radius. No, they don't discuss with ATC, yes, they usually involve a 180 turn back to the overhead, yes it would be interesting on the day 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
From: Australia
BIRIMBAO,
EOISIDs are Lateral and Vertical Navigation procedures designed to ensure Obstacle Clearance following failure of 1 engine at the most critical point during Takeoff until the aircraft has achieved a safe altitude (usually MSA)
EOISIDs are -
(1) Created by the operator, who will use the services of their own Performance Engineering staff (or a sub contractor),
(2) NOT known to ATC, unless the operator is a "good" operator and advised ATC of the company's OEISIDs,
(3) NOT all encompassing for all aircraft types, they are type specific,
(4) Usually contained within 25 nm for the purposes of utilising MSA, but not necessarily so.
To repeat that which has been said hundreds of times on other forums, following the "Normal" PANS-OPS or TERPS SID DOES NOT guarantee obstacle clearance following engine failure. Normal SIDs are designed for All Engines operation, and would typically only be achievable following engine failure for an aircraft at very low weights.
OzExpat, is there a good reason why EOISIDs for 2, 3, and 4 engined aircraft can't be designed as "Government Issue" by the Regulatory Authority for each runway? I always wanted to ask that, and it would standardise things very much, and add immeasurably to safety for those "lousy" operators who don't give a damn about such things. (It would also save a lot of work for people like me who have to design them
)
Regards,
Old Smokey
EOISIDs are Lateral and Vertical Navigation procedures designed to ensure Obstacle Clearance following failure of 1 engine at the most critical point during Takeoff until the aircraft has achieved a safe altitude (usually MSA)
EOISIDs are -
(1) Created by the operator, who will use the services of their own Performance Engineering staff (or a sub contractor),
(2) NOT known to ATC, unless the operator is a "good" operator and advised ATC of the company's OEISIDs,
(3) NOT all encompassing for all aircraft types, they are type specific,
(4) Usually contained within 25 nm for the purposes of utilising MSA, but not necessarily so.
To repeat that which has been said hundreds of times on other forums, following the "Normal" PANS-OPS or TERPS SID DOES NOT guarantee obstacle clearance following engine failure. Normal SIDs are designed for All Engines operation, and would typically only be achievable following engine failure for an aircraft at very low weights.
OzExpat, is there a good reason why EOISIDs for 2, 3, and 4 engined aircraft can't be designed as "Government Issue" by the Regulatory Authority for each runway? I always wanted to ask that, and it would standardise things very much, and add immeasurably to safety for those "lousy" operators who don't give a damn about such things. (It would also save a lot of work for people like me who have to design them
)Regards,
Old Smokey
Joined: Apr 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 2,647
Likes: 307
From: In front of a computer
BIRIMBAO
You would need to clearly inform ATC - a MAYDAY call would do it - that you were deviating from your clearance or SID. Many Emergency turn procedures are in the opposite direction to the standard departure thus you might need to ensure seperation from other traffic during your emergency.
Does ATC know the fact that you are following an EOSID ? or you have to inform them
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
G'day Smokey, sorry to be so slow replying but me time ain't me own all that much these days. To answer your question, blood-oath there's a good reason why the NRA (National Regulatory Authority) won't get involved in this sort of thing is the same as for any other type of EOSID... disregarding the fact that Pans Ops leaves us in "no man's land", the plethora of aircraft types that have different performance factors would be much too hard for us to contemplate.
Besides... what would blokes like you and j_t do for an income if we got into that line of work?
The real problem is that most NRA employ very few people to undertake procedure design and, in the case of those NRA who outsource procedure design, the rules in the delegation will be in words to the effect that designs must continue to meet TERPs/PANS OPS criteria, as applicable.
We really aren't performance engineers and, for those of us who've been around long enough to have a fair idea about actual performance, we know enough to not stick our necks out. It only takes one claim against the NRA for the crap to run downhill to the poor old/young procedure designer.
And, after that, where do we draw the line? Do we then provide procedures for 2 engines inop? 3 engines inop? Having seen a LOT of "bush lawyers" during my career, I feel absolutely certain that if we produced a 1-engine inop procedure, we'd be accused of contributing to something other than a level playing field that advantages the 1-engine-inop case over the 2 or more engine inop case.
The legal and practical problems are truly massive.
Besides... what would blokes like you and j_t do for an income if we got into that line of work?
The real problem is that most NRA employ very few people to undertake procedure design and, in the case of those NRA who outsource procedure design, the rules in the delegation will be in words to the effect that designs must continue to meet TERPs/PANS OPS criteria, as applicable.We really aren't performance engineers and, for those of us who've been around long enough to have a fair idea about actual performance, we know enough to not stick our necks out. It only takes one claim against the NRA for the crap to run downhill to the poor old/young procedure designer.
And, after that, where do we draw the line? Do we then provide procedures for 2 engines inop? 3 engines inop? Having seen a LOT of "bush lawyers" during my career, I feel absolutely certain that if we produced a 1-engine inop procedure, we'd be accused of contributing to something other than a level playing field that advantages the 1-engine-inop case over the 2 or more engine inop case.
The legal and practical problems are truly massive.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
From: Australia
G'day to you too OzExpat, well, I said I always wanted to ask, and I think that your bottom line, i.e. "The legal and practical problems are truly massive" IS the bottom line.
What would J_T and I do if we didn't have to design these? Well, I can't speak for his venerableness, but I, for one, WOULD GO FLYING!
Still, it does keep the brain cells alive, and does require a new glasses prescription after crawling over every 100,000 or so contour lines.
Keep on keeping us safe OE, and go have a Greenie for me, it's been a long time, or are you into Brownies?
Regards,
Old Smokey
What would J_T and I do if we didn't have to design these? Well, I can't speak for his venerableness, but I, for one, WOULD GO FLYING!
Still, it does keep the brain cells alive, and does require a new glasses prescription after crawling over every 100,000 or so contour lines.
Keep on keeping us safe OE, and go have a Greenie for me, it's been a long time, or are you into Brownies?
Regards,
Old Smokey
