DFC:
“why would you fly to a destination with one engine out”
I read over my original message and it certainly wasn’t very clear – a few too many libations before I wrote it.
No – I was referring to commencing an approach where you are considering the possibility of an engine failure during the go-around and you have to meet Approach Climb gradients with an engine failure. Although there are certainly a considerably larger number of OEI takeoff procedures, there are a few OEI miss procedures where at, weights which would allow a reasonable payload, you wouldn’t make the Approach Climb Gradient.
The water gets distinctly muddier when – under FAR rules, though there is a requirement to consider obstacles clearances, (as opposed to simple gradients) there is no specific regulatory requirement for each individual flight for a missed approach. There is guideline FAA material that suggests it’s a damned good Idea – and I’m not at all arguing that – I think it is a good idea.
So – if due to obstacles in the missed path for the published procedure and a requirement to maintain a higher than normal gradient, operators will establish a OEI lateral path for the miss meeting similar obstacle clearances that are legally prescribed for the takeoff OEI procedures.
There is a suggestion of a higher minimum – but at times this can become very restrictive.
My question is – this is done in the US (FARs) - is there similar allowances for the Operator to design a OEI escape maneuver for such cases under JAROPS?
Appreciate your comments, sorry for the confusing first post. Appreciate any information that you can provide.
Regards,
Loke