can we expect to maintain that gradient, or will it degrade as we climb through an increment of, say, 2000'?
Actual steady climb gradient tapers off as height increases.
A similar concern has existed for years in respect of takeoff segment gradient capability... and some AFMs are a bit better than others when it comes to working out what is what. On occasion the user has to be very careful and check at what level the chart data applies. Consider the case of an extended second segment when the AFM probably is based on a minimum climb profile .. one needs to do some iteration to match capability with requirement.
When I was starting out in the aviation sandpit, this was a hot topic in Australian ops engineering circles and there was much arm waving about performance at 35 ft and 400 ft etc., largely for the F27 and the general view was that one should meet the requirement throughout the second segment and not just at the commencement.
At the end of the day, what the rules might actually require/mean is determined by the Judge at the enquiry after the event ...
for those of us who have a Company imposed Accn Alt below the MAP,
I don't claim to be a procedures expert so the detail is best addressed by OzEx. However, the operator/pilot ought to be concerned that the actual obstacle profile is matched to the aircraft capability, including any profile/configuration changes during the miss.
"Is it a LEGAL requirement ?"
Unfortunately, that argument provides little comfort during the damages actions after the enquiry/BOI/etc. A more rational approach for an operator to adopt is to look at this in that same way as anything else .. and run a normal corporate risk assessment to determine how many dollars are reasonable to throw at getting a better answer .. considering the potential penalties associated with just winging it.
All will become clear when Oz_Expat emerges from his cave
I hope the raskols haven't caught up with him ...
Santa Claus that is, to whom the gentleman referred to has acquired a remarkable resemblance
I haven't seen Ian for a while but, if I read your comments correctly, we probably are acquiring a similar profile ... except I'm better looking, of course ... just my opinion, naturally .. he might opine to the contrary.
But we don't have provision For a 'landing climb' OEI
Nor will you; the airworthiness design standards (FAR 25 etc) require certification to address an OEI miss in the approach, and AEO in the landing configuration .. hence the ops engineering concern with transitioning from the landing configuration to the miss and the potential for the elapsed distance to impact on obstacle clearance in the case of critical runways. For the ops folk to mandate a landing configuration OEI capability would put them right out on the proverbial limb ...
surely your TO OEI procedures could be used provided you don't extend spoilers or use the reversers ..."OEI touch and GO?"
If you end up on the runway during the miss (ie Cat III type situation) things are a bit easier as the aircraft is physically located in space and the main problem is matching the actual liftoff point to the normal takeoff ie initial tracking fidelity is the concern. If the miss is all airborne, then initial tracking becomes a critical concern, not to mention height profiles during the reconfiguration period.
This is a lot easier with the fancy tracking gadgetry on later aircraft .. but consider the olden days case where we pitched up from a non-precision approach with not a whole lot of confidence as to just where we might have been over the ground (in terms of missing the hard bit two or three miles away ..) There was a lot to be said for being conservative in respect of what minimum level was used for the approach ... considering the extent to which the overshoot traversed tiger country.
An aicraft is CERTIFIED for airworthiness [23/25/29] and then CERTIFCATED for Comercial operations [121/125/135,
The terminology depends on one's view of life, death, and the Universe. Quite some years ago in Oz, Ian Mc was in the chair and he put together some very useful booklets on certification. His view was that, for a process resulting in a (Type) Certificate's being issued, the appropriate term was "certificated" for the airworthiness side of things ... of course, it doesn't really matter .. we all have a basic understanding of what the gameplan is.
Then again, I am reminded of my father's many career years in the mental health game wherein "certified" applied to those folk who went through the legal system, were so deemed, and ended up in various institutions of restricted independence .. hence I tend to use "certificated" across the board for aviation work.