HazelNuts39
I am new here but not in the business.
Almost 43 years of experience and not behind a desk. Really "aviating" every day.
I am not Skky but always in the sky trying to earn my money in the most professional way.
My post is just "another" "different" way to look to this issue.
This is a matter of the legislation that you are in. And you are talking, and discussing, about the "certification rules" (one engine inoperative). But we are not certifying the aircraft when we are flying it. We are "operating it".
My point is that now, operating it, we have to apply different legislation/rules.
And for the Missed Approach, AIPs applies ICAO Doc 1868 and the gradients expressed there are for ALL ENGINES operative. In the same document ICAO states that "operators have to create a CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE in case of an engine out condition".
You might establish your "contingency" flying the same route/track as the Miss App Procedure contemplates, but in this case you are committed to the
"lower gradient", if possible, which permits "higher weight" with HIGH Temperatures and in OEI (One Eng Inoperative). Otherwise your company is loosing money because you are not carrying the contracted payload (i.e. PAX/Bags).
But looking into another set of rules/legislation, the JAR/EU-OPS-1, in it's ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE AND INTERPRETATIVE/ EXPLANATORY MATERIAL (AMC & IEM), sates this, for example:
(Quote)
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
See JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. 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] [ ].
[Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
(Unquote)
What do you take from this statement? Is my point of view a "trollish nonsense" as you mention?
I am not nuts; and I am not a fool. I am just THINKING WITH MY HEAD with an OPEN MIND.
Best regards