EOSID when to follow?

[popay]

Hi guys,
Here some search regarding the issue.

JAR-OPS 1.230 Instrument departure and
approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument
departure and approach procedures established by the
State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) An operator shall ensure that operations are
conducted in accordance with any restriction on the
routes or the areas of operation, imposed by the
Authority.
(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) above, a
commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate
from a published departure or arrival route, provided
obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full
account is taken of the operating conditions. The
final approach must be flown visually or in
accordance with the established instrument approach
procedure.
(c) Different procedures to those required to be
used in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above
may only be implemented by an operator provided
they have been approved by the State in which the
aerodrome is located, if required, and accepted by the
Authority.
JAR–OPS 1.570 Take-off Obstacle
Clearance
(a) An operator shall ensure that the take-off
flight path with one engine inoperative clears all
obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft plus
0•01 x D, or by a horizontal distance of at least
90 m plus 0•125 x D, where D is the horizontal
distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of
[the take-off distance available. For aeroplanes with
a wingspan of less than 60 m a horizontal obstacle
clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m,
plus 0.125 x D may be used.]
(b) The take-off flight path must begin at a
height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the
take-off distance required by JAR–OPS 1.565(b) or
(c) as applicable, and end at a height of 1 500 ft
above the surface.
(c) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, an operator must take account
of the following:
(1) The mass of the aeroplane at the
commencement of the take-off run;
(2) The pressure altitude at the
aerodrome;
(3) The ambient temperature at the
aerodrome; and
(4) Not more than 50% of the reported
head-wind component or not less than 150% of
the reported tail-wind component.
(d) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, track changes shall not be
allowed up to that point of the take-off flight path
where a height of 50 ft above the surface has been
achieved. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is
assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more
than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater
than 15°, but not more than 25° may be scheduled.
Adequate allowance must be made for the effect of
bank angle on operating speeds and flight path
including the distance increments resulting from
increased operating speeds.
(e) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do not
require track changes of more than 15°, an operator
need not consider those obstacles which have a
lateral distance greater than:
(1) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 600 m, for flights under all other
conditions.
(f) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do require
track changes of more than 15°, an operator need
not consider those obstacles which have a lateral
distance greater than:
(1) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 900 m for flights under all other
conditions.
(g) An operator shall establish contingency
procedures to satisfy the requirements of JAR–OPS
1.570 and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles,
to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the enroute
requirements of JAR–OPS 1.570, or land at
either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off
alternate aerodrome
Here is the extraction from performance manual
2.9.3 Engine failure in VMC Conditions
Provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are
adequate, the pilot may:
o Accept radar vectoring by ATC
o Follow the departure route
o Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield
If unable to assure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be
adopted.

2.2.3 Take-off Flight Path – Engine failure at V1
Regulations demand that the actual take-off mass must permit minimum regulatory climb
gradients to be complied with to reach 1500 AAL, or higher for obstacle clearance. The
different phases of this take-off flight path are called segments.
The regulatory take-off flight path, in case of an engine failure extends:
o From the point the aircraft passes through the screen height.
o Up to 1500 feet above the take-off surface or higher for obstacle clearance.

Well, taking all this in to consideration there are two options for EO in IMC:
1. Follow standard or special EOSID regardless of prevailing conditions or possible conflicting traffic and confusions caused to ATC. As an example see chart FRA 25R, the EOSID takes you left to CHARLI VOR and you will cross active flight path of RWY25L and RWY18 and the ATC will be very surprised to hear what you do.
2. Follow the SID provided the performance of the aircraft allows the PIC to reach MSA based on TOGA for not more than 10 min with the climb gradient required (standard SID 3,3% or as defined) for given conditions. In other words, if PIC can reach MSA with remaining engine on TOGA for not more than 10 min, maintaining at least 1000 ft (5% for average 200 kt), PIC can remain on the SID initially levelling off at MSA and after coordination with ATC accept further instructions afterwards.
The best example for that is the procedure for decision making whether to follow the EOSID on the published missed approach.
The following table presents the maximum altitude that can be reached during a single engine
missed approach at maximum landing mass. It accounts for maintaining at least 2.5% climb
gradient to a level-off altitude; acceleration and configuration clean up within the 10-minute
TOGA limitation at that altitude.
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (182,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude
specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.
The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria are not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircrafts climb performance.
• In Kathmandu.
When following the published missed approach, the engine out acceleration altitude is
the level-off altitude or MSA, which ever is lower.
There you look for a max landing mass of 182000 kg for conf 3&2 and elevation of 0 ft for ISA+25 C you can reach 5300 ft. SO all you do is just to have a look what is your landing mass, the atmospheric conditions and Level off or MSA. So let’s say your LW is 180000 and you land at airport elevation of 0 ft and the T is 40 C. The level off altitude is 2000 ft, MSA is 1800 ft, and consequently you follow the standard missed levelling off at 1800 ft.
However we don’t have a similar table for take off performance, giving one the idea of performance of the aircraft for specific weight, airdrome conditions and configuration. That’s why I reverted to the rate of climb; because that’s the only criteria you have available.
Sorry it’s got a bit too long and boring to read and hopefully somehow you could bring up my idea a bit closer.
P.S.
cavelino rampante,
as an example DEP A 34 takes you over the water and there are clearly no obstacles at all, consequently following the SID and levelling off at 1600 ft (EOSID ACC ALT) cleaning up and coming back will not jeopardize the safety in any way and you will stay clear of obstacles. On the other hand the EOSID says at 4 DME RT HDG 010 climb to 1600 ft RT to the VOR and must be followed even in VMC on the hot day with OAT about 41 C and take off weight of more than 200 tonnes, because you wont meet the required climb gradient of 4% up to 900 ft if you loose an engine. Whether you turn away visually or follow the EOSID you still aim the same goal, avoiding the obstacle on the RWY course.

john_tullamarine, I asked my self the same question. How do I ensure I will meet the performance? Well, how about to use your FMS and see what your climb performance will be like, it takes all the data into consideration except the wind on take off. Lets say you will see 5000 ft after 10 NM, that means 8% climb gradient so if one engine fails you will only have half 4%. Than you decide is that enough?
I understand its all a bit theoretical and if any doubts just follow the EOSID, however it might bring you in bigger troubles in certain places.
Cheers.