It goes by many names, they're all the same thing. As the OP,
Ops_Room_Junkie said "
Emergency Turn, EOSID are all differing names for the same process", add to that SRP (Specific Runway Procedure).
Ops_Room_Junkie brought up an important question in the original post (thus far un-answered) that being "
..... such a thing as 'generic' EOSID procedures?"
Absolutely
NOT, it may be possible in simpler OEISIDs such as an over-water Takeoff, but throw in the normal scattering of obstacles at the normal scattering of distances, and the generic procedure is going to turn to junk.
There are three (3) factors which make SPECIFIC OEISIDs necessary / desirable, to wit -
(1) Operating Speed of the Aircraft,
(2) Time limit for Takeoff Thrust for the Aircraft, and
(3) The number of engines for the aircraft.
Operating Speed of the Aircraft - Even for aircraft in the same category, there's a wide range of operating speeds, for example an A319 has a very much lower V2 and final Clean (4th segment) speed than for another 2 engined aircraft such as the B777-300ER. Different speeds means different turn radii, upon which the flight path and the splay required to avoid obstacles laterally will differ greatly. For each aircraft the Maximum and the Minimum possible V2 (for example) will be used to compute the outer and the inner limits of the splay. For the example, let's say that the smaller aircraft has a V2 max of 140 Kt, and the larger has a 190 Kt max V2. The outer limits of a turn (with it's splay) based upon 140 Kt may completely avoid a significant obstacle, and is of no concern. At the higher 190 Kt V2 with it's attendant MUCH higher turn radius, the critical obstacle is now 'slap bang' in the area covered by the splay, and a steeper 2nd segment climb is required. Do you want to impose this penalty on the slower aircraft? I think not, it's not required, and would incur a significant unnecessary payload on the aircraft if we used generic OEISIDs.
One solution to this problem if we're creating generic OEISIDs might be to bring back the turning point closer to the airport, both aircraft are now happy with that 'outer' obstacle, but what of the INNER splay? The inner splay is based upon the minimum V2 for the aircraft, the 'slow' aircraft with it's smaller turn radius may now encounter new, previously unconsidered critical obstacles on the inner side of the splay, which need not be considered for the faster aircraft with it's larger turn radius at it's minimum V2. Both aircraft are penalised by the use of the 'revised' generic OEISID
So far - Thumbs down #1 to generic OEISIDs. (
J_T, I was thinking of Hobart 30 as I wrote this).
.2.
Time limit for Takeoff Thrust for the Aircraft - Typically we operate to a 5 minute or 10 minute limit to Takeoff thrust. As a generalised approximate, I've found that a 3rd Segment altitude of 1300 ft is OK for the 5 minute limited aircraft. So what happens if the obstacles require a 1700 ft 3rd Segment altitude? For the 10 minute limited aircraft, no problem, keep on truckin' straight ahead, but for the 5 minute aircraft, a turn will be required generating a whole new OEISID before the critical (further out) obstacles are encountered. This turn is not required for the '10 minute' aircraft, but if we're producing generic procedures, now the '10 minute' aircraft is going to suffer.
So far - Thumbs down #2 to generic OEISIDs. (
J_T, I was thinking of Albury 07 as I wrote this).
(3)
The number of engines for the aircraft - The 2, 3, and 4 engined aircraft require to achieve a minimum Net 2nd Segment gradient of 1.6%, 1.8%, and 2.0% respectively. Now let's put an obstacle in the 2nd segment requiring a gradient of 1.9%. No problem for the 4 engined aircraft, it's not a critical obstacle - keep on truckin'. For the 2 and 3 engined aircraft one option is to continue straight-ahead accepting the now critical obstacle, but suffering a payload restriction due to the increased climb gradient required, an obstacle climb limit. The 2 and 3 engined aircraft suffer. A solution is to build a OEISID for them with a turn before the critical obstacle, and over 'non-critical' terrain. So now the 4 engined aircraft, if we built generic procedures, is stuck with an unnecessary emergency turn. (For shortening, 1st segment gradient differences haven't been considered at all, but they're lurking out there).
So far - Thumbs down #3 to generic OEISIDs. (
J_T, I was thinking of Tulla 34 as I wrote this).
Generic OEISIDs, of necessity, try to be, and have to be, all things to all people. The old truism of "You can't please all of the people all of the time" was never so relevant. The problem is that inevitably, someone is going to suffer. Having said that, creation of generic OEISIDs with everyone suffering performance penaltys, is better than no OEISIDs at all.
Even more so, having a generic OEISID available, warts and all, is infinitely preferrable to flight with those
MORONIC BLOODY IDIOTS who would follow the normal SID following engine failure. That's another subject.
There's a lot more to it than the major points expressed here, but please, please don't ever use OEISIDs developed for another aircraft type for your own operations..... please!
Regards,
Old Smokey