Bank Angle maximum 15° till 1500 AGL
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused and am not ashamed to say so...
Is our thread starter asking about AFM/Company Limits or regulatory limitations. I have seen both at work in the area of bank angle and OEI recommendations, but am not sure which we are all talking about here.
Aterpster: You are our plate/procedure/NAV publication Guru, or so I thought. What are your thoughts on the original question?
Aterpster: You are our plate/procedure/NAV publication Guru, or so I thought. What are your thoughts on the original question?
Moderator
Leave the plate work to aterpster .. he knows all about that heavy stuff.
However, AFM/regulatory OEI limit generally is 15 degrees due to climb degradation. Company procedures may reduce this for specific escapes generally to constrain turn radius for threading one's way around the rocky bits.
For OEI - until one has a goodly speed margin and terrain is no longer a concern - more than 15 degrees is, in this ops engineer's view .. a tad silly.
However, AFM/regulatory OEI limit generally is 15 degrees due to climb degradation. Company procedures may reduce this for specific escapes generally to constrain turn radius for threading one's way around the rocky bits.
For OEI - until one has a goodly speed margin and terrain is no longer a concern - more than 15 degrees is, in this ops engineer's view .. a tad silly.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John,
It depends. I would agree if the aircraft was flying below the min maneuver speed for the configuration. However some places such as Ajaccio (LFKJ/AJA) departing RWY 02 require a bank angle of 20° and a maximum speed of 158 kts during the early Left turn - and terrain is definitely a concern.
For OEI - until one has a goodly speed margin and terrain is no longer a concern - more than 15 degrees is, in this ops engineer's view .. a tad silly.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is up to the individual airline to calc EO Dep, and not all of them do it the same way, especially when it comes to adding a turn into the mix. Each aircaft has its own quirks and limitations.
I have seen calcs to max bank angle that did not take into account any course correction while in the turn...and of course, the real voodoo in the mix, the winds.
There is no public criteria that defines how to do this, nor sets any parameters for each of the variables. It is blind, basically, it states, when you ask for DEP clearance, you are telling me that your aircraft meets the min requirements on the chart or the standard climb gradient. I am not going to tell you how to get there, you told me you could do it.
If there is a turn, there is a containment area associated with that, bank limiting and turn radius keep you in the containment area.
EO is an emergency, and is treated as such in the criteria. Just becuase there is an EO SID, doesnt mean you can use it.
From FAA:
http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/..._-_4-17-12.pdf
One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Description
• Air Carriers are required to clear obstacles in one-engine out departure situation
• Each carrier maintains their own chart of critical obstacle height & locations
• Each carrier computes a 35 ft. obstacle clearance based on specific aircraft load and
performance – given reduced climb gradient
•FAA historically only protected for instrument approach procedures
• There are known impacts to departure payload due to obstacles in departure area
I have seen calcs to max bank angle that did not take into account any course correction while in the turn...and of course, the real voodoo in the mix, the winds.
There is no public criteria that defines how to do this, nor sets any parameters for each of the variables. It is blind, basically, it states, when you ask for DEP clearance, you are telling me that your aircraft meets the min requirements on the chart or the standard climb gradient. I am not going to tell you how to get there, you told me you could do it.
If there is a turn, there is a containment area associated with that, bank limiting and turn radius keep you in the containment area.
EO is an emergency, and is treated as such in the criteria. Just becuase there is an EO SID, doesnt mean you can use it.
From FAA:
http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/..._-_4-17-12.pdf
One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Description
• Air Carriers are required to clear obstacles in one-engine out departure situation
• Each carrier maintains their own chart of critical obstacle height & locations
• Each carrier computes a 35 ft. obstacle clearance based on specific aircraft load and
performance – given reduced climb gradient
•FAA historically only protected for instrument approach procedures
• There are known impacts to departure payload due to obstacles in departure area
Moderator
I would agree if the aircraft was flying below the min maneuver speed for the configuration.
If we are looking at the takeoff, we are looking at whatever AFM V2 schedules are available. Min manoeuvre is not relevant for the initial terrain consideration in the event that OEI actually prevails ? No reason why the OEM can't schedule more than minimal data but someone has to pony up the ante to obtain it ..
some places .. require a bank angle of 20° and a maximum speed of 158 kts during the early Left turn - and terrain is definitely a concern.
Providing the regulatory approval is obtainable and the weight penalty can be tolerated, that's fine. If turn radius is critical one sometimes is constrained with available options.
.. not all of them do it the same way, especially when it comes to adding a turn into the mix.
True .. but, for critical runways, generally the options may dictate a very similar strategy.
Each aircaft has its own quirks and limitations.
Waffle. The numbers will vary a little but a twin is a twin and goes like a twin at commercial weights .. triples and quads in a similar vein.
.. the real voodoo in the mix, the winds.
If one fails to take account of boundary consideration winds for the escape ... turns or no turns ... one is foolish
There is no public criteria that defines how to do this, nor sets any parameters for each of the variables.
Nonsense. The AFM provides plenty of guidance in the way of examples or other OEM data is available to achieve the same end. In any case, even the most bog rat of ops engineers can do the basics just fine.
I am not going to tell you how to get there, you told me you could do it.
The operator should have scheduled appropriate data in the way of RTOW charts or similar. If a SID is not achievable OEI then the operator should have scheduled an alternative procedure. There ought to be nothing in the way of hit and miss with weights and tracking intentions.
If there is a turn, there is a containment area associated with that, bank limiting and turn radius keep you in the containment area.
Cart before the horse. The terrain analysis defines the required track details. That defines turn details. Required radius defines speed and, to a small extent, bank angle variation.
EO is an emergency, and is treated as such in the criteria.
Nonsense. EVERY takeoff is predicated on OEI for a heavy aircraft. The fact that the great majority of departures don't see a failure is a benefit to the crew's sweat index .. but the bean counters don't get any credit for that fact in regard to RTOW.
Just becuase there is an EO SID, doesnt mean you can use it.
Depends on what the operator has scheduled ..
[The ACI link doesn't appear to function .. perhaps you can revisit ?]
There are known impacts to departure payload due to obstacles in departure area
That's quite profound ..
If we are looking at the takeoff, we are looking at whatever AFM V2 schedules are available. Min manoeuvre is not relevant for the initial terrain consideration in the event that OEI actually prevails ? No reason why the OEM can't schedule more than minimal data but someone has to pony up the ante to obtain it ..
some places .. require a bank angle of 20° and a maximum speed of 158 kts during the early Left turn - and terrain is definitely a concern.
Providing the regulatory approval is obtainable and the weight penalty can be tolerated, that's fine. If turn radius is critical one sometimes is constrained with available options.
.. not all of them do it the same way, especially when it comes to adding a turn into the mix.
True .. but, for critical runways, generally the options may dictate a very similar strategy.
Each aircaft has its own quirks and limitations.
Waffle. The numbers will vary a little but a twin is a twin and goes like a twin at commercial weights .. triples and quads in a similar vein.
.. the real voodoo in the mix, the winds.
If one fails to take account of boundary consideration winds for the escape ... turns or no turns ... one is foolish
There is no public criteria that defines how to do this, nor sets any parameters for each of the variables.
Nonsense. The AFM provides plenty of guidance in the way of examples or other OEM data is available to achieve the same end. In any case, even the most bog rat of ops engineers can do the basics just fine.
I am not going to tell you how to get there, you told me you could do it.
The operator should have scheduled appropriate data in the way of RTOW charts or similar. If a SID is not achievable OEI then the operator should have scheduled an alternative procedure. There ought to be nothing in the way of hit and miss with weights and tracking intentions.
If there is a turn, there is a containment area associated with that, bank limiting and turn radius keep you in the containment area.
Cart before the horse. The terrain analysis defines the required track details. That defines turn details. Required radius defines speed and, to a small extent, bank angle variation.
EO is an emergency, and is treated as such in the criteria.
Nonsense. EVERY takeoff is predicated on OEI for a heavy aircraft. The fact that the great majority of departures don't see a failure is a benefit to the crew's sweat index .. but the bean counters don't get any credit for that fact in regard to RTOW.
Just becuase there is an EO SID, doesnt mean you can use it.
Depends on what the operator has scheduled ..
[The ACI link doesn't appear to function .. perhaps you can revisit ?]
There are known impacts to departure payload due to obstacles in departure area
That's quite profound ..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, AFM/regulatory OEI limit generally is 15 degrees due to climb degradation. Company procedures may reduce this for specific escapes generally to constrain turn radius for threading one's way around the rocky bits.
For OEI - until one has a goodly speed margin and terrain is no longer a concern - more than 15 degrees is, in this ops engineer's view .. a tad silly.
Moderator
there is a track consideration, but not regulatory in nature
Regulations (pertinent to the jurisdiction) come into play and dictate minimum terrain clearance requirements within defined splays which, in execution, involves the hills, valleys and where the aircraft might seek to track .. just how the detail might be achieved, though, lies within the province of the operator's in house or contracted ops engineering folk. Nothing terribly difficult there .. but it does require good housekeeping and attention to detail.
It is worth keeping in mind that regulations are ALWAYS a minimum standard, whether that be design or operations ...
Given that regulations are minimum standards, the more stringent consideration should always be that of corporate governance and risk management. One might like to think that an operator seeks to operate to a standard somewhat higher than the minimum regulated.
At the end of the day, given that getting this stuff very wrong may/will have very public consequences .. simple commercial longevity suggests it ought to be of some importance within the corridors of corporate power ..
Regulations (pertinent to the jurisdiction) come into play and dictate minimum terrain clearance requirements within defined splays which, in execution, involves the hills, valleys and where the aircraft might seek to track .. just how the detail might be achieved, though, lies within the province of the operator's in house or contracted ops engineering folk. Nothing terribly difficult there .. but it does require good housekeeping and attention to detail.
It is worth keeping in mind that regulations are ALWAYS a minimum standard, whether that be design or operations ...
Given that regulations are minimum standards, the more stringent consideration should always be that of corporate governance and risk management. One might like to think that an operator seeks to operate to a standard somewhat higher than the minimum regulated.
At the end of the day, given that getting this stuff very wrong may/will have very public consequences .. simple commercial longevity suggests it ought to be of some importance within the corridors of corporate power ..
Moderator
Several considerations ..
A specific bank angle - not necessarily 15 deg -
(a) stall margins ref IAS and stall speed - configuration
(b) turn radius for obstacle or airspace avoidance - ref speed
and, for OEI, generally a maximum of 15 deg -
(c) degradation of an already shallow climb gradient
A specific bank angle - not necessarily 15 deg -
(a) stall margins ref IAS and stall speed - configuration
(b) turn radius for obstacle or airspace avoidance - ref speed
and, for OEI, generally a maximum of 15 deg -
(c) degradation of an already shallow climb gradient
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks,Bloggs, but I am aware of performance limitations.
While a SID gives me lateral and horizontal restrictions, even noise abatement procedures for that matter, I do not understand why ATC wants to tell me how I steer the airplane in order to comply with their requirements.
While a SID gives me lateral and horizontal restrictions, even noise abatement procedures for that matter, I do not understand why ATC wants to tell me how I steer the airplane in order to comply with their requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge, except on TERPS, where on normal departure you have 0.8% margin on the said departure ( besides ATC constraints or specific airports location); since PAN-OPS 2 and above there is no provisions for OEI departure. SID are just airspace 3D tracks with a minimum performance designed in them.
If an airplane loses an engine, then, the operator has to provide an acceptable alternative option, and this for every take off, every weight, every intersection of every airport intended to be used. This track can well be the opposite of the normal departure ( i.e. GVA Left turn in OEI instead of Right Turn for SID).
As far as eu-ops is concerned, no turn are allowed below 50ft, between 50 ft and 200ft max bank to 15° up to 400ft max bank 20° up to 1500ft max 30° If banking more than 15° obstacle clearance goes to 50 ft vertically. Again some airport designs ( AJA/GRZ/...) might require something different, but it is definitely not something that the PIC choose at the last minute.
In FAA land, the distance increases with distance 48ft/Nm....0,8%....
This is from memory... so..
If an airplane loses an engine, then, the operator has to provide an acceptable alternative option, and this for every take off, every weight, every intersection of every airport intended to be used. This track can well be the opposite of the normal departure ( i.e. GVA Left turn in OEI instead of Right Turn for SID).
As far as eu-ops is concerned, no turn are allowed below 50ft, between 50 ft and 200ft max bank to 15° up to 400ft max bank 20° up to 1500ft max 30° If banking more than 15° obstacle clearance goes to 50 ft vertically. Again some airport designs ( AJA/GRZ/...) might require something different, but it is definitely not something that the PIC choose at the last minute.
In FAA land, the distance increases with distance 48ft/Nm....0,8%....
This is from memory... so..
Moderator
As far as eu-ops is concerned,
I don't claim specific EASA expertise .. I presume your comments relate only to AEO ? For instance, I would expect OEI turn clearance to be 50ft regardless .. ?
I don't claim specific EASA expertise .. I presume your comments relate only to AEO ? For instance, I would expect OEI turn clearance to be 50ft regardless .. ?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OEI.. not AEO..
as per regulation ( the way i read it ) if bank angle is less than 15° then clearance is the standard 35 ft...
This means that on the first 200ft vertically, from 35ft, you can have as little as 35 ft of clearance for Close in obstacle... When you start to breathe again
; ones can start maneuvering and have a beautiful 50 ft. ( as a minimum)
no ?
as per regulation ( the way i read it ) if bank angle is less than 15° then clearance is the standard 35 ft...
This means that on the first 200ft vertically, from 35ft, you can have as little as 35 ft of clearance for Close in obstacle... When you start to breathe again
; ones can start maneuvering and have a beautiful 50 ft. ( as a minimum)no ?
Last edited by CL300; 27th Mar 2014 at 08:16.
Moderator
as per regulation ( the way i read it ) if bank angle is less than 15° then clearance is the standard 35 ft...
Can you cite the specific regulation for us please ?
you can have as little as 35 ft of clearance for Close in obstacle
Not quite the case although it reads nicely ... gross to net margin means that, from the end of the first segment (should that exist) the calculated net clearance may be 35ft .. but the actually expected calculated clearance will continually increase as the takeoff progresses ...
A miss is a good as a mile.
Perhaps .. but as one gets older, the comfort factor kicks in ...
Can you cite the specific regulation for us please ?
you can have as little as 35 ft of clearance for Close in obstacle
Not quite the case although it reads nicely ... gross to net margin means that, from the end of the first segment (should that exist) the calculated net clearance may be 35ft .. but the actually expected calculated clearance will continually increase as the takeoff progresses ...
A miss is a good as a mile.
Perhaps .. but as one gets older, the comfort factor kicks in ...
Summarizing one country's clearly written Part 121 (obviously not Australia!).
Straight flight path: fly V2, clear obstacles by 35 ft
Up to a 15 degree change from runway alignment: as above
Beyond a 15 degree change from runway alignment: turn may commence not below 50 ft above obstacle (which could be the runway surface if there are no obstacles, my comment) - AND provided bank angle does not exceed 15 degrees, no correction to V2 or AFM OEI climb gradient - clear all obstacles by 50 ft while turning
Bank angles in excess of 15 degrees: no turn below 50 ft above obstacle - apply additives to V2 and reductions to AFM OEI climb gradients - clear all obstacles by 50 ft (a simple table of corrections is supplied in the rules)
Not wishing to insult the intelligence of those many Ppruners on this site who are clearly experts in various matters....BUT, none of the above should be confused with SIDS, which assume all engines operating, speeds comfortably above V2 and typical bank angles of 25 degrees. The OEI path could be in quite the opposite direction to that required by the SID. From reading some of the foregoing, I think a few here may be confusing the two.
Straight flight path: fly V2, clear obstacles by 35 ft
Up to a 15 degree change from runway alignment: as above
Beyond a 15 degree change from runway alignment: turn may commence not below 50 ft above obstacle (which could be the runway surface if there are no obstacles, my comment) - AND provided bank angle does not exceed 15 degrees, no correction to V2 or AFM OEI climb gradient - clear all obstacles by 50 ft while turning
Bank angles in excess of 15 degrees: no turn below 50 ft above obstacle - apply additives to V2 and reductions to AFM OEI climb gradients - clear all obstacles by 50 ft (a simple table of corrections is supplied in the rules)
Not wishing to insult the intelligence of those many Ppruners on this site who are clearly experts in various matters....BUT, none of the above should be confused with SIDS, which assume all engines operating, speeds comfortably above V2 and typical bank angles of 25 degrees. The OEI path could be in quite the opposite direction to that required by the SID. From reading some of the foregoing, I think a few here may be confusing the two.