G/A below minima

[fdr]

FE Hop

"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".
Mark Twain (1835-1910)

JAR/EU:
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] :

Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].

FAA:
AC120-91:
MISSED APPROACH VS REJECTED LANDING: A One-Engine-Inoperative Missed Approach Can Frequently Be Flown Following The Published Missed Approach Procedure. Rejected Landing May Require Some Other Procedure

FAA reqt for OEI procedures on Departure:
Sections*121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, And 135.398
"The Takeoff Flightpath Must Meet The Specified Obstacle Clearance Requirements In The Event Of An Engine Failure. CFR Part 97 Applies To Standard Instrument Approach Procedures"


AC120-91 preamble exclusions (Page 1):

The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are neither mandatory nor the only acceptable methods for ensuring compliance with the regulatory sections. Operators may use other methods if those methods are shown to provide the necessary level of safety and are acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This AC need not serve as the sole basis for determining whether an obstacle analysis program meets the intent of the regulations. However, the methods and guidelines described in this AC have been derived from extensive FAA and industry experience and are considered acceptable to the FAA when appropriately used. Mandatory words such as “shall” or “must” apply only to those who seek to demonstrate compliance to a specific rule by use of a method set out in this AC without deviation.

AC120-91 Page 15/20:


17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.

a. General.

(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.

(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.

NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.

(3) A distinction needs to be made between a missed approach and a rejected landing. A one-engine-inoperative missed approach from the minimum descent altitude (height) (MDA (H)), decision altitude (height) (DA (H)), or above can frequently be flown following the published missed approach procedure. A rejected landing from a lower altitude may require some other procedure (e.g., following the same one-engine-inoperative procedure as used for takeoff). In any case, the pilot should be advised of the appropriate course of action when the published missed approach procedure cannot be safely executed.

b. Assessment Considerations.

(1) Operators may accomplish such assessments generically for a particular runway, procedure, aircraft type, and expected performance, and need not perform this assessment for each specific flight. Operators may use simplifying assumptions to account for the transition, reconfiguration, and acceleration distances following go-around (e.g., use expected landing weights, anticipated landing flap settings).

(2) The operator should use the best available information or methods from applicable AFMs or supplementary information from aircraft or engine manufacturers. If performance or flightpath data are not otherwise available to support the necessary analysis from the above sources, the operator may develop, compute, demonstrate, or determine such information to the extent necessary to provide for safe obstacle clearance.

(3) The operational considerations should include:
(a) Go-around configuration transitions from approach to missed approach configuration, including expected flap settings and flap retraction procedures.
(b) Expected speed changes.
(c) Appropriate engine failure and shutdown (feathering if applicable) provisions, if the approach was assumed to be initiated with all engines operative.
(d) Any lateral differences of the missed approach flightpath from the corresponding takeoff flightpath.
(e) Suitable balked landing obstacle clearance until reaching instrument approach, missed approach, or en route procedurally protected airspace.
(f) Any performance or gradient loss during turning flight.
(g) Methods used for takeoff analysis (such as improved climb), one-engine-inoperative maximum angle climb, or other such techniques may be used.
(h) Operators may make obstacle clearance assumptions similar to those applied to corresponding takeoff flightpaths in the determination of net vertical flightpath clearance or lateral track obstacle clearance.

c. Assessment Conditions for Balked Landing.

(1) A “balked landing” starts at the end of the touchdown zone (TDZ). A TDZ typically is considered to be the first one-third of the available landing distance or 3,000 feet, whichever is less. When appropriate for the purposes of this provision, operators may propose to use a different designation for a TDZ. For example, alternate consideration of a TDZ may be appropriate for runways:
(a) That are less than 6,000 feet in length and which do not have standard TDZ markings;
(b) That are short and require special aircraft performance information or procedures for landing;
(c) That are for Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft; or
(d) Where markings or lighting dictate that a different TDZ designation would be more appropriate.

(2) An engine failure occurs at the initiation of the balked landing from an all-engines-operating configuration.

(3) Balked landing initiation speed > VREF or VGA (as applicable).

(4) Balked landing initiation height is equal to the specified elevation of the TDZ.

(5) Balked landing initiation configuration is normal landing flaps and gear down.

(6) At the initiation of the maneuver, all engines are at least in a spooled configuration.

d. “One-Way” Airports or Other Special Situations.

(1) Where obstacle clearance is determined by the operator to be critical, such as for:
(a) Airports in mountainous terrain that have runways that are used predominantly for landing in one direction and takeoff in the opposite direction (“one way in” and “opposite way out”); or
(b) Runways at which the planned landing weight is greater than the allowed takeoff weight.

(2) The operator should provide the following guidance to the flightcrew:
(a) The flightpath that provides the best ground track for obstacle clearance, and
(b) The maximum weight(s) at which a missed approach or rejected landing can safely be accomplished under various conditions of temperature, wind, and aircraft configuration.

18. ALTERNATE MEANS.

The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are not the only acceptable methods. An operator who desires to use an alternate means should submit an application to the CHDO. The application should describe the alternate assumptions, methods, and criteria to be used along with any other supporting documentation. The CHDO will forward the application through the FSDO (CMO/certificate management unit (CMU)) to the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, for review and approval, if appropriate.

ORIGINAL SIGNED by

Carol Giles for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service




suggest you contact:

FAA AFS-400, [email protected], or alternatively call:
[phone]
AFS-400 responsibilities:
Policies, Criteria, And Standards For Establishing And Maintaining Terminal And En Route Flight Procedures
Final Authority To Issue, Amend And Appeal Standard Instrument Approach Procedures Under 14 CFR Part 97.
“Special” Instrument Approach Procedures
Requests For Waivers Of Standards.

FAA types of procedures:
Public IAPs: CFR Part 97 (Regulatory), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-1
Special IAP’s: Order 8260.19C (Enabled), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-400
SIDs, STARs: TERPS, Flight Checked> National FLIGHT Data Digest (NFDD)
Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFPs): NFDD
Engine Out Procedures (EOPs): Developed By Operator, Accepted By POI

Cheers

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again". Andre Gide (1869-1951)



regards,

FDR