View Full Version : S/E Take Off/Approach procedures must be "flight Checked"
FAA denies approach approval because S/E procedure not approved??
The FAA recently denied a request for a special approach into a field where the required gradient for the miss was 8%. A S/E procedure was provided which cleared obstacles by the prescribed .8% required for Take Off. The S/E procedure is an overlay of the S/E procedure for Take off from the same runway.
Part of the problem was that the local FAA Office insisted on including in the application, that they wanted the S/E Procedure “flight checked.” A very experienced and reputable aeronautical engineering firm provided the obstacle analysis using DRAFT AC 120- OBS-1, which would fulfill all regulatory concerns and more.
What alarms me is that the FAA now appears to believe that S/E escape maneuver must now be “flight checked” to be allowed. Obviously this would impact Take Offs to a much greater extent because there is a considerably larger number of them and also there is a very clear regulatory requirement for them – not so evident with missed approaches.
I’d like to emphasis that this missed approach was applied for using all of the most stringent obstacle clearance criteria available.
If this is the FAA’s new policy – stand by – every S/E procedure Take Off & Approach – will need to be flight checked before they can be flown. I leave it to you imagination.
LOKE
john_tullamarine
10th Feb 2005, 08:14
.. with reduced thrust to achieve max RTOW gradients ? ... a good way to see the detail of the countryside.
Last time I did that sort of thing was for a moderate sized 4-engined aircraft proposed to operate into an aerodrome which didn't normally accommodate that size of wee beastie. The level of detail for surrounding obstacle data was such that it was quicker and cheaper to fly the escapes and look rather than do a survey.
Minimum weight and the crew had a ball flying this way and that ... in the jumpseat, I thought it all jolly good fun whilst taking videos and making notes ... the regulatory chap in the other jumpseat kept on shaking his head, muttering ... "I really don't know why we are doing this ..."
.. madness ...
Provided that a full survey has been completed then the only reason why I can think a flight check would be required is to check the signal quality and track guidance provided by the navigation aids used to define the required track (if any).
If this was a standard approach and missed approach procedure doesn't the faa require the aid and the procedure to be flight checked on a regular basis?
Thus the FAA are not requiring any OEI take-off procedure to be checked - these are purely the responsibility of the operator. They are requiring that this new approach procedure and it's associated missed approach be checked in the same way that believe all approach procedures are checked before publication.
The OEI take-off procedure has nothing to do with it.
Regards,
DFC
DFC:
Thanks for your comments.
“Provided that a full survey has been completed then the only reason why I can think a flight check would be required is to check the signal quality and track guidance provided by the navigation aids used to define the required track (if any).”
A full obstacle clearance survey was completed for the OEI . Regarding the nav aids, this would not be a factor.
”If this was a standard approach and missed approach procedure doesn't the faa require the aid and the procedure to be flight checked on a regular basis?”
This is not a standard missed approach – the special missed approach, requires an 8% climb gradient – hence the necessity for the OEI missed procedure.
”Thus the FAA are not requiring any OEI take-off procedure to be checked - these are purely the responsibility of the operator. They are requiring that this new approach procedure and it's associated missed approach be checked in the same way that believe all approach procedures are checked before publication.”
Sorry – only on my second cup of coffee, but I’m having difficulty following the logic of your “thus” statement. This OEI procedure is not routinely checked by the FAA, in the same manner, that no OEI procedures are checked by the FAA for either take off or missed approaches.
”The OEI take-off procedure has nothing to do with it.”
I included the reference to the takeoff OIE for 2 reasons:
1. The requirement for a OEI takeoff when obstacle clearance cannot be maintained in the normal takeoff, path is well founded in the FARs (not sure about JAROPS). Not so for the OEI missed approach. However, most, if not all, reputable operators provide the OEI missed procedure where indicated. Just to be clear, once again, in this particular application a full and complete obstacle clearance analysis was produced applying the same clearance limit standards required for takeoff. My point is that if this new FAA policy is good for the missed approach, it is even more established for the takeoff OEI procedure. Can you imagine the uproar if the FAA declares all of these procedures null and void until they can be flight checked?
2. I also included the reference to the OEI takeoff procedure because, in this particular case, it is an exact overlay of the OEI missed procedure which was proposed. It is very likely that the vertical flight path for the missed approach would exceed that of the OEI takeoff procedure (I have not checked all the #’s) yet the FAA concludes that only the missed OEI must be checked? If this policy change proceeds, the only logical conclusion that I can draw is that takeoff OEI must also be flight checked.
LOKE
Loke,
Is this a new procedure or a change to an existing procedure? or
Are you trying to gain approval to operate to lower minima on an existing procedure that has OCH limited by obstacles in the Missed Approach?
If there is an existing procedure are you simply designing an alternative missed approach for the OEI case?
What type of approach?
How can you say that flight checking of the nav aid is not a factor?
Regards,
DFC
DFC:
”Is this a new procedure or a change to an existing procedure? or
Are you trying to gain approval to operate to lower minima on an existing procedure that has OCH limited by obstacles in the Missed Approach?”
No – this is not a new approach. It was first flown about 10 years ago and has been flown by at least 9 Air Carriers since. It is a “special” approach requiring authorization due to the 8% gradient on the published miss for the approach. In fact I saw the same flight path for the OEI miss, shown on a Western Airlines procedure for this runway, (for takeoff) dated over 30 years ago.
”If there is an existing procedure are you simply designing an alternative missed approach for the OEI case?”
No – this is the same OEI flight path that other carriers have used – not sure of all or them used the exact same procedures – but some did.
”What type of approach?”
ILS
”How can you say that flight checking of the nav aid is not a factor?”
The referenced nav aid is a DME at the field used straight out until less than 5 miles – then headings are flown until passing abeam and very close to another nav aid almost on the field. I can’t see that signal reception would be a factor.
Sincerely,
LOKE
OzExpat
11th Feb 2005, 10:16
Just a quick thought here, that's based on more than a few years of flight checking instrument procedures. Whenever a DME beacon is involved, I'm always checking to ensure that there are no embarrassing DME "unlocks" during a turn that shields the aircraft's DME antenna for more than the briefest amount of time.
Perhaps I've missed something in all of this but wouldn't it be an idea to ask the FAA why they want to flight check this procedure?
OzExPat:
Thanks for the reply.
The DME is referenced to initiate a turn, thereafter it's headings until you're almost over the next NAV.
Again, this same OEI flight path has been in use for over 30 years for the takeoff and over 10 years for this miss. Had they questions about the NAVs obstacle clearances along the path, all they had to do was ask the operator and the obstacle analysis vender. Instead it was simply denied because the OEI had not been "approved."
LOKE