Originally Posted by
Zeffy
Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per
AC 120-91 or equivalent) that limited the Bombardier Global 6000 to rwy 32L.
Unfortunately - and for many decades - a majority of the bizjet schoolhouses and training centers have been teaching takeoff performance planning incorrectly... often advocating the application of OEI climb data to (all-engines) SIDs, DVAs and ODPs. Those calculation methods are seriously flawed.
FAA reference:
FAA InFO 18014
Additional FAA resources:
Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning
So it's quite possible -- I'd even go as far as to say "likely" -- that this unfortunate incident began due to faulty performance assumptions/calculations.
With the aid of a professionally provided runway analysis, they could have simply departed from 14R with IFR clearance and been on their merry way.
Thank you for posting reference to InFO 18014. As industry co-chair of the working group that assisted the FAA in drafting this InFO, we are heartened to see that it is getting more visibility. There should never be a case where OEI data is used to show compliance with an IFR climb gradient, whether it is based on TERPS or PANS-OPS criteria, or with regard to where in the world that procedure is published. The InFO is specifically targeted at this misinformation in the field and at the training centers on this subject. If all-engines-operating climb performance data is not available, the InFO provides clear guidance from FAA on what is expected of the crew to comply with an IFR climb gradient on an ODP, SID, DVA, or missed approach procedure.
Regardless of whether performance planning played a role in the event, thank you for raising awareness of this InFO. Just FYI, additional guidance on training and approval for use runway analysis products for part 135 operators will be coming from FAA soon.
Thanks,
Richard Boll
Wichita KS