Great to see that this thread has fired up a good deal of interest .. some comments ..
would it be fair to say that the aerodrome operators should be required to be able to supply, quickly, the required detailed surveys that are necessary to generate the procedures?
I suggest not. Depending on the jurisdiction, the owners will provide that which is required (and this costs someone - ultimately the operators - dollars). At present, one might see one or more of Type A (or its diminutives), Type B, Type C (I can't ever recall having seen one of these) and several other sets of OLS data. Given the variety of performance needs for a variety of aircraft Types, unless the surroundings are simple (eg a ridge or big hill and not much more) it would become a tad messy ... Probably better for the operator (or operators in conjunction/service providers) to do the work and contain the costs to the end users.
The
Oz aerodrome MOS is a useful reference document for those who fancy a little light bedtime reading ..
It seems that a lot of this survey detail is just not readily available
For most places, the problems are relatively easy to determine and address. Certainly, one needs to have cultivated a range of suitable contacts for obstacle data and, on occasion, one needs to throw the theodolite over the shoulder and go forth into the hinterland .. at the end of the day it is just a matter of the will to do the work .. and this comes down to corporate risk assessment for the operator.
Do your airlines share their E/O SIDS and procedures with the local ATC's?
I believe that most don't. Some of us will make sure that any unusual escapes are notified to ATC or equivalent. Clearly, if the procedure is compatible with "normal" traffic handling, the need is somewhat less.
the meaning of paras 12.1B and 12.4 is that the planning must go to either MSA if there is no navaid or the enroute OCA (1360'?) in the safety height containment area where there is a navaid.
Oz CAO 20.7.1b has always been an interesting animal. It is similar to the US 23/25-91/121 type of approach where there is a separation of airworthiness and operational standards. In the case of the Australian vehicles (historically) a few gremlins sneaked through the process with the result that we have had some discrepancies over the years.
For the younger folk who don't recall the "old" ANOs etc., the airworthiness bits were in ANO 101.5 and 6 for the heavies with the operational data in ANO 20.7.1B. 101.5/6 largely called up the relevant UK/US standards .. if we go back further to the times of ANOs which had more subordinate identifying numbers than you could poke a stick at, we would find detailed standards. These later became CAOs and, in line with the harmonisation processes, the Australian airworthiness vehicles were dumped without ceremony in the WPB ... This process has had both its good and bad points for the local Industry.
Functionally, how one implements the requirement depends on how much work you want to throw at the problem. In most cases use of declared data, such as MSA saves some time and effort.
I also understand that AIP is only a place to publish
A question for the legal folk to offer comment ...
However, it has always been understood generally that a requirement is mandated via the Act, Regs and Orders with notes and AIP providing expanded information. However, the potential risk is that, if one were to depart from an AIP "requirement", then one would need to be very certain that the requirement wasn't glued to a Reg, etc. The easier process is to adopt the AIP as mandatory .. unless the context clearly indicates an option. Just my opinion.
I was far from convinced that would keep us clear of obstacles! Surely we would have been better off requesting a SID which at least went it the same overall direction as the SE procedure?
Presuming that the operator has done the sums, then the matter should be prescribed in SOP. If SOP is a bit rubbery, then one should enquire of the operator's management what the rubbery bits really mean. At the end of the day one can always decline the SID if the concern is considered significant and reasonable.
I've observed even average pilots tend to fly closer to the "Test Pilot's" Gross gradient than the Net.
I've no problem with that observation. However, and this goes back to earlier steam driven aircraft, the then DCA's Ian C did a study (TAA, as I recall - I have no doubt that the results would have been similar elsewhere) and looked at the set of actual sim OEI tracks following failure. Some of the folk didn't track all that well. Hence my concern being more with how to make the tracking requirements easy for the pilot in anger ...
The way you guys do this stuff; I don't believe is written down in any publication
The requirements are specified (eg NFP has to be ...). The way that the regs are implemented is fairly common with the main difference being how much money an operator is prepared to throw at getting the last kilo out of the analysis.. and that, naturally, is a cost/benefit exercise.
There is no point spending a fortune getting a gold plated escape if the cheapie back of a fag packet version gave you similar RTOW data. For those of us who play with this stuff, a difficult aerodrome can cause us head scratching for several days while we play with this or that (or half a dozen more) different escape tracks ... places like Canberra and Gladstone in Oz fit this class of aerodromes ..
but I would not mind some assistance in aquiring the 'Boeing engineers Book'
Boeing Performance Engineer Training Manual (Doc D6-1420). Provided to students on the Boeing course and usually found in Mech/Aero Eng uni libraries. Excellent undergrad level text.
and so my Company would have me follow the standard MAP and accelerate at 1000agl
I can only observe that a reputable operator will have reviewed the runways and run OEI missed approach analyses similar to the takeoff analyses to get the aircraft up and away from the bumpy bits. Nothing new to this - Ansett and TAA (and, presumably, Qantas) were doing just this in the 60s for critical runways .. and spending considerable effort on the work. I think I still have a copy of one of John Walshe's studies on file somewhere ...
A big concern relates to the distance required to reconfigure to the missed approach configuration and commence the climb ...