EO procedures are not cheap to design.
The SID OIS surface begins at the end of the runway, goes out for 10,200 feet at a 40:1 slope, with ICAO being the same 2.5% for 2nm. This is the limit of the area surveyed for obstacles. Remember, this is the OIS, NOT the re'd min climb gradient of 3.3% If there is an obstacle in the OIS, then the required climb gradient is raised from the min 3.3%
The aircraft performance is a significant issue in the procedure design and configuration. There are usually many iterations of the procedure, especially if there are turns, as those factor heavily in the EO climb.
Once the desktop SIM has been run, using terrain and available obstacles, an obstacle field assessment must be done. This will be done along the flightpath and as wide as the procedure containment area. All obstacles found are loaded into the procedure, and it is run again, and more often than not, there is a new controlling obstacle.
After all of this has been approved, a flight validation is required with the same aircraft type as the procedure is designed for. This brings up another expensive issue, EO procedures are per aircraft type and even aircraft/engine type. (unless you want to limit the entire class, such as 737NG to the lowest common (worst case) scenario. This is why there are no public EO procedures.
Most Countries do not even maintain obstacle databases, the obstacle standards vary, as does the foundation of the datum. AIP information is hit/miss. New airports seldom have any data. (especially in China)
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 8th May 2013 at 17:59.