Dehavillanddriver,
First of all it’s just a discussion and not a firm statement.
You are right the aircraft is supposed to be cleaned up within 10 min.
Well, there are couple of problems:
1. ATC doesn’t have a copy of your EOSID and as I described before its required by JAR OPS and should be coordinated with local authorities. Could be a problem.
2. We have about 70 destinations for about 40 different countries. DO you really think its all been coordinated?
However, I have been drawn the attention on that while I was in the SIM with the technical chief pilot and actually been told that the only reason why we have EOSID for each and every airport and RWY is to enhance the commercial load. SO it’s a bit different from the usual concept, like to have EOSID incorporated for the airdromes, where it’s really needed. Like, I told you, home base departure RWY 34, DEP A 34 takes you over the sea and there are no obstacles at all, but there is still an EOSID, which will be needed if you comply with D34 DEP, which does take you over the obstacle and requires 4% climb gradient up to 900 ft.
There is a big performance difference if you perform take off with 180 000 kg TOW or 220 000 kg TOW as well if you depart in ISA conditions or ISA +25. The performance isn’t the same. Finally why do we have to evaluate whether to follow the EOSID or published go around for EO approach and actually decide on the basis of the given sheet (as mentioned above) whether to follow EOSID or the published missed? In other words if you will meet the required missed climb 2,5% performance you DON’T follow the EOSID during the go around. It appears a bit controversy to me.
However we don’t have the table allowing one the evaluation of the take off performance for the given weight and prevailing conditions, so in doubt follow the EOSID.
Cheers.