Approach Climb Gradient vs EOSID

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

I am currently designing RNP approaches into Bandga, are you saying I should stick with the AFM climb gradients of 2.5%?.... how 'innovative'

I would say you should stick with FAA Order 8260.52.

Order of priority:

1. First line of minima single-string. Additional lower line of minima up to four total if the criteria increments can be satisfied.

2. Attempt to fit non-RNP missed approach with a climb gradient of 200 feet per mile. If that doesn't work, then next is a non-RNP missed approach with a climb gradient up to 425 feet per mile, if necessary to support lowest possible minimums. If that won't work then an RNP missed approach, and perhaps still with a climb gradient of as much as 425 feet per mile.

Presumably, you are third-party developer. If you are working for a specific operator, presumably they would also want you to develop a OEI procedure. But, if you have had to resort to an RNP missed approach with a climb gradient of 425 feet per mile, or thereabouts, the OEI procedure at such a location could be a tough nut to crack.

Then again, some of the business aircraft that are RNP AR capable can exceed a sustained 425 feet per mile with one engine inoperative at max landing weight, or less. Even though they have to level off to clean up as per the OEI profile, their performance is sufficiently robust that they don't fly into the 425' per mile constant slope. So, it's an easy nut to crack for aircraft like those.

I don't know where Bangda is, but I suspect you may have your hands full satisfying the requisite survey requirements.