Originally Posted by
thorn bird
The conquest may be a rocket ship, but cock it up and it becomes a missile.
Its a FAR23 aircraft treat it as such.
Quite so! And escape velocity is circa 25,000 kts, gravity and Newton therefore always wins.
My Conquest and Citation manuals are in a box somewhere in the garage, perhaps Leafblower could provide the OEI Climb rate for a MTOW and maybe lighter weights say half fuel for a C441 at Renmark.
From memory it might be from around 200fpm to higher when lighter but it won't be a startled gazelle and is only interesting unless you apply the actual climb gradient against the ERSA Runway Distance Supplement. This is a Requirement for Part 25 ops but not Part 23. Again my cranky memory suggests that the radio mast some miles to the West of Essendon R26 and the city skyscrapers off a take off to the South were real considerations. R21 at Perth has you busting through the Jandakot Airport circuit area at low level. Prove me incorrect if you wish. But remember the calls assume what could possibly go wrong.
I am surprised we are still having this discussion at this professional level. I gaurantee that for many of you a formal assessment of the EFATO runway and climb gradient performance against your regular destinations will bring a surprise. Regardless of whether it is a Part 23 piston or turboprop.
The reliability of these types is OK with the maintenance up to date but that doesn't protect you from a failure. A simulated EFATO, exercise if it must be performed, requires a very comprehensive plan and formal brief and the same detailed performance calculation as above as for normal ops and any eventualities.
QF's DeCrepignys experience in the very latest technology, what can possibly go wrong A380 even, is salutary and should be required reading.
Cessna also publish accelerate stop and go distances in the Manual, which properly interpreted can give you a means of applying a Claytons Part 25 profile alongside the calculated EFATO gradient.
It will of course be weight (not much) and or runway length (usually not enough) limited.
Unlike Part 25 equipment with the installed thrust and certification to meet day to day ops, Part 23 ops, which were never intended for fare paying pax in the first place, an EFATO is very serious high risk ****, more often than not mishandled, persistence simply takes you to the scene of the accident. The manufacturer says continued flight is the least attractive option and the least worst option directly in front of you is the best.
The regulator finally worked it out now requiring sims for the smaller turboprops and jets and the enlightened operators, like Leafblower, having protocols that recognise and mitigate the high risk. Yes sims cost if you have to travel but there is another even greater price.
40 year old complex airframe engine combinations are ripe with risk and failure potential. I used to sell these types new and operated them over many thousands of hours in charter when they were youngsters so I have a good handle on their potential weaknesses.
Let's see what the investigation produces but notwithstanding the experience and professional backgrounds involved I do hope we get a surprise.