EOSID when to follow?

[popay]

Hi there, would like to elaborate on the following issue: when do we have to follow the special EOSID on take off and go around for JAR OPS operators?
We have the RTOW charts indicating for each airdrome the airline operates, associated special EOSID. Automatically people assume that we have to follow it in case of EO, but I have been told that special EOSIDs have been published to enhance commercial load for take off performance obviously at higher take off weights, low, pressure altitudes, airfields. What is the design purpose of the special EOSID, avoiding the obstacles, laterally (deviating from original SID), on the regular SID, which can’t be avoided vertically. Another words, there is a problem with clearing the obstacles during the climb out on the departure if one engine fails. Well to start with, when do I need to follow the normal SID in case of EO?
1: if there is no climb gradient higher than standard (4,2% two & 2,5 % one engine) required and the aircraft will meet one engine standard climb out gradient.
2: if the initial turn on SID has been initiated
3: the aircraft one engine climb out performance will meet the required climb gradient, even if it’s higher than standard (e.g. light take off weight or high pressure altitude airfield).
However the book doesn’t specify when to follow special EOSID, so there are a lot of discussions whether to follow special EOSID or not. For the go around there is a table showing the max. pressure altitude can be reached single engine flaps 3. Following the logic if that pressure
Altitude is above the MSA or SE acceleration alt, than follow the published missed approach. If that PA is below MSA or SE acceleration alt, than followspecial EOSID.
I understand, it might sound a bit complicated, but that’s the way it is.
Appreciate your comments.
Cheers.

[None]

The Ops Specs for my company specifically list "Departure Priorities."

For Engine-Out, the priorities are listed as:

1. Special Pages for engine-out departure
2. IFR departure procedure (Obstacle DP)
3. straight-ahead until flaps retracted or safe maneuvering speed is reached.

In following these priorities, and with an engine failure departing LSZH runway 16 using the WIL 1R, I would advise ATC that I would be following my company's special engine-out departure procedure, which they have a copy of. The procedure abandons the WIL 1R, taking an entirely different route.

The engineering dept has worked up similar procedures for each airport where E/O performance required further analysis. It allows operations at higher weights, and this means more money. Without this info, one would have to determine if aircraft performance would allow an acceptable level of safety at a particular weight.

[john_tullamarine]

Company procedures should specify the when and what.

However, consider that, if the escape is necessary for a V1 cut ... at what point does the standard flightpath become OK to have a failure without compromising the terrain clearance ?

My view is that, in the absence of specific instructions to the contrary, one should follow the escape procedure regardless of whether or when the failure might occur ...

I have had several of my ops eng colleagues opine that their responsibility ends at the V1 case and, for later failures, it's a problem belong pilot ...

[Empty Cruise]

Our GWCs will - where required - split the emergency turn procedure into several segments.

If failure occurs in segment A, continue to limiting DME, then follow procedure A. If past A, but before passing B, continue on the SID to the next limiting DME, then follow procedure B.

If the failure occurs after the limiting DME for procedure B - you are OK, follow the SID. Also, our Part C states that where no notes are made on GWCs, the chart assumes a climb straight ahead to the MSA.

The question then begs - if you have initiated a turn on the SID (no notes on GWC) and then get a failure - what to do? Our perf. department till haven't come up with anything better than "Turn back to intercept the runway QDR". But we all know that this procedure is not adviseable at all airports.

Solution - prohibit GWCs with "No notes" stated (and triple the cost - I know)...

Any ideas?

Brgds fm
Empty

[FlexibleResponse]

Keep It Simple S... (KISS).

EOSIDs are designed to ensure terrain clearance for the case of engine failure and reduced performance on departure.

Therefore, if you have an engine failure on departure and follow the EOSID you will live.

On the other hand, if you have an engine failure on departure and don't follow the EOSID you may die.

Who really gives a rat's .... about anything else?

[CaptainProp]

I have to agree with last post!
IF there is a EOSID published/produced then use it! IF you choose to do otherwise and something goes wrong, then what will you say to the CAA/NTSB when they ask "Why did you NOT follow the approved company procedure??

Any other views??

/CP

[Khaosai]

Why can't we all sing form the same hym sheet. Whichever airport, take most limiting jet, performance wise, and follow the same EOP. Do the same for turbo props. As i see it at the moment with different operators stipulating different EOP's, ATC are slightly out of the loop. For sure we give a mayday, brief mention of problem then ask them to standby. Might then be a few minutes before we can get back to them to actually specify what we are doing routeing wise. I believe that you can also get these EOP's on charts, never actually seen those in the three airlines i have worked for but seems a great idea.

[CaptainProp]

Maight be a good idea,however....Having worked in 4 different countries and four different outfits I would like to say that it would be almost impossible! Very different ways of looking at these broblems in different parts of the world....
Charts are not realy nessecary on the bus, after EO you will get prompt (on our buses anyway) to insert EOP as active flightplan. So activate and manage NAV and off you go!
/ CP

[Khaosai]

Hi prop, is this in the nav database already or do you have to build it manually. Rgds

[Ziggy]

Maybe going slightly off the exact topic here.....

What if there's no EOSID published and you have a V1-cut?
1. Follow the normal SID
2. Climb straight ahead until MSA (off course notifying ATC)

My company says option 2 in all cases!!!

That raises the question: Untill what point is my company's perfomance engineer responsible for terrain clearance?
The answer I get to that one is: Untill the take-off section ends.....at 1500 feet!

So what if the MSA is higher than 1500' (as always)???

Any thoughts on this?

[john_tullamarine]

A few concerns to me in this thread -

(a) in most jurisdictions, the operator and pilot have a joint responsibility to meet whatever the local regulatory requirements are.

(b) generally, in the absence of terrain constraints, the takeoff, as such, is considered to terminate at 1500ft above ARP/runway level.

(c) if the terrain so dictates, the obstacle clearance must be continued until the aircraft is in a position to adopt cruise terrain clearance requirements

(d) one ought not to consider other aircraft Types for establishing an escape profile due to the differences in EACH segment which might compromise such a strategy .. especially the third segment distance in respect of distant obstacles.

(e) if the operator does not schedule an escape, then duty of care would normally require guidance in the manual as to whether the various (or some) SIDs are covered, or whether the scheduled RTOW is based on straight ahead .. or, whatever .. whichever might be the case, the company performance data provided for pilot guidance MUST declare the story.

(f) be VERY wary of assuming anything as different companies and ops engineers have varying policies and interpretations of what the regulatory processes might require.

(g) if there is doubt, and there is no company published guidance, negotiate with ATC to fly the published V1 cut escape until a suitable circling height is achieved AEO, then manoeuvre to the departure track. If you get a later failure during the takeoff, you are in front of the action. The only occasion when this might not be appropriate is for a runway from an aerodrome for which there are no obstacle problems.

Anything else is a bit like putting your head in the lion's mouth, methinks ..

[popay]

Guys, thanks for your contributions to the issue.
john_tullamarine,
I 100% agree with you about the responsibility of the commander and if any doubts arise just follow the EOSID. As well do I agree about the responsibility of the ops performance people and the joint responsibility of operator and the commander, although it does depend on the law. However the book differs between the standard EOSID which is basically straight ahead until 1500 ft above AGL clean up and proceed to specific nav. aid in order to return to the field and special EOSID which contains specific lateral escape route in order to clear the obstacles and of course to return back. The problem is that for each and every airdrome we operate there is either EOSID or special EOSID for the commercial reason (mentioned above) and there is no description when or under which conditions we have to follow it. The preamble only says, that EOSID and special EOSID guarantee the obstacle clearance. However it only becomes relevant if you can’t meet 3,3 % standard climb gradient or higher gradient required by SID. So, in average we are talking about 1000 ft/min climb rate, which corresponds to 5% climb gradient for the average speed of 200 kt. on the departure. That’s my criteria to decide, whether I will meet the requirements or not, in other words if I can maintain 1000 ft climb rate for the given conditions, than I will clear all the obstacle for the departure with max. 5% climb gradient. If I can’t, I will follow EOSID dependable on the airdrome, of course. E.g. departure takes you over the water, no need to follow the EOSID, although its there, or departure takes over the city with high, man made, obstacles, consider to follow EOSID again dependable on the performance. The actual problem stars with the coordination of following the special EOSID with ATC (ATC doesn’t have a copy of the EOSID), what I mean is for instance parallel runway operation in the States. Sometimes your EOSID conflicts with the departing and arriving traffic, so the question is, what is more dangerous to follow the SID or the OESID?
As a conclusion, I would say, dependable on the airdrome, conflicting traffic and prevailing conditions like your take off weight atmospheric conditions and obstacle clearance restrictions, required climb gradient, the decision whether to follow or not the EOSID or special EOSID rests with the commander.
Hope I am right somehow.
Cheers.

[Colonel Klink]

Popay,

There is no Commanders discretion with an Engine Out SID. If the engine fails and an Engine Out SID is provided , it must be followed.
Also, it says in the Jeppesen blurb which stems from Pans Ops (Part 11, 2.5 Contingency Procedures) that Operators are responsible for the developement of contingency priocedures, and that in the case of an Engine failure, the normal action is to follow the SID where terrain and obstacles permit.

I hope this clears up the muddy waters somewhat,

Regards,

CK.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Popay,

You use 1000ft/min if I read your post correctly.

How do you guarantee obstacle clearance over the entire distance to LSA ? Can you calculate the distance covered in the clean up where the aeroplane is not climbing at 5%?

One of the problems is that immediately obvious obstacles may well not be the limiting ones.

By following the EOSID you are ensuring that you meet all of your regulatory requirements as well as ensuring that you live.

By not following the EOSID, regardless of the justification, you are unable, in my opinion, to guarantee that you can meet those obligations.

One area where I believe that C & T has done the general flying community disservice is doing sims at "training weights" how often do you do a sim at limit weight on a terrain limiting airport? Most of the sims I have done over the past 15 odd years have been done at reasonably light weights - or at least weights tonnes under the limit weight.

I think as a result of that we often have an unreasonable expectation of what the jet will do in an engine out case - a dark and stormy night isn't the appropriate place for a surprise when the jet doesn't do what we expected!

[cavelino rampante]

Popay

In the airline you work for its very clear in the performance handbook

''In VMC conditions provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are adequate the pilot may

-Accept radar vectoring by ATC or
-Follow the departure route or
-Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield

If unable to insure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be adpoted''

Hope that answers your question.

[john_tullamarine]

How does the pilot ensure that the aircraft performance is adequate without a pile of charts and other terrain data and sufficient time to do the analysis .. ie, the things the ops engineer does for you ?

[Dehavillanddriver]

I firmly believe that being visual only allows you to see the terrain as you fly into it!

There is no way of ensuring terrain clearance from the flight deck of a jet IMHO.

[denkraai]

My outfit uses either Std n-1, straight ahead speed-up/clean-up @ 1500ftAAL, or E/O SID
if option 1 is not possible due terrain .We are not allowed to use the E/O SID from the database (MD11).But I think a SID is your best option
when in doubt, or when you've passed your first turning point.And I really get the impression that ATC doesn't know about E/O SID's, so get on the phone early....;)

[popay]

Hi guys,
Here some search regarding the issue.

JAR-OPS 1.230 Instrument departure and
approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument
departure and approach procedures established by the
State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) An operator shall ensure that operations are
conducted in accordance with any restriction on the
routes or the areas of operation, imposed by the
Authority.
(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) above, a
commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate
from a published departure or arrival route, provided
obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full
account is taken of the operating conditions. The
final approach must be flown visually or in
accordance with the established instrument approach
procedure.
(c) Different procedures to those required to be
used in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above
may only be implemented by an operator provided
they have been approved by the State in which the
aerodrome is located, if required, and accepted by the
Authority.
JAR–OPS 1.570 Take-off Obstacle
Clearance
(a) An operator shall ensure that the take-off
flight path with one engine inoperative clears all
obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft plus
0•01 x D, or by a horizontal distance of at least
90 m plus 0•125 x D, where D is the horizontal
distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of
[the take-off distance available. For aeroplanes with
a wingspan of less than 60 m a horizontal obstacle
clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m,
plus 0.125 x D may be used.]
(b) The take-off flight path must begin at a
height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the
take-off distance required by JAR–OPS 1.565(b) or
(c) as applicable, and end at a height of 1 500 ft
above the surface.
(c) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, an operator must take account
of the following:
(1) The mass of the aeroplane at the
commencement of the take-off run;
(2) The pressure altitude at the
aerodrome;
(3) The ambient temperature at the
aerodrome; and
(4) Not more than 50% of the reported
head-wind component or not less than 150% of
the reported tail-wind component.
(d) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, track changes shall not be
allowed up to that point of the take-off flight path
where a height of 50 ft above the surface has been
achieved. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is
assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more
than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater
than 15°, but not more than 25° may be scheduled.
Adequate allowance must be made for the effect of
bank angle on operating speeds and flight path
including the distance increments resulting from
increased operating speeds.
(e) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do not
require track changes of more than 15°, an operator
need not consider those obstacles which have a
lateral distance greater than:
(1) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 600 m, for flights under all other
conditions.
(f) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do require
track changes of more than 15°, an operator need
not consider those obstacles which have a lateral
distance greater than:
(1) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 900 m for flights under all other
conditions.
(g) An operator shall establish contingency
procedures to satisfy the requirements of JAR–OPS
1.570 and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles,
to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the enroute
requirements of JAR–OPS 1.570, or land at
either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off
alternate aerodrome
Here is the extraction from performance manual
2.9.3 Engine failure in VMC Conditions
Provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are
adequate, the pilot may:
o Accept radar vectoring by ATC
o Follow the departure route
o Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield
If unable to assure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be
adopted.

2.2.3 Take-off Flight Path – Engine failure at V1
Regulations demand that the actual take-off mass must permit minimum regulatory climb
gradients to be complied with to reach 1500 AAL, or higher for obstacle clearance. The
different phases of this take-off flight path are called segments.
The regulatory take-off flight path, in case of an engine failure extends:
o From the point the aircraft passes through the screen height.
o Up to 1500 feet above the take-off surface or higher for obstacle clearance.

Well, taking all this in to consideration there are two options for EO in IMC:
1. Follow standard or special EOSID regardless of prevailing conditions or possible conflicting traffic and confusions caused to ATC. As an example see chart FRA 25R, the EOSID takes you left to CHARLI VOR and you will cross active flight path of RWY25L and RWY18 and the ATC will be very surprised to hear what you do.
2. Follow the SID provided the performance of the aircraft allows the PIC to reach MSA based on TOGA for not more than 10 min with the climb gradient required (standard SID 3,3% or as defined) for given conditions. In other words, if PIC can reach MSA with remaining engine on TOGA for not more than 10 min, maintaining at least 1000 ft (5% for average 200 kt), PIC can remain on the SID initially levelling off at MSA and after coordination with ATC accept further instructions afterwards.
The best example for that is the procedure for decision making whether to follow the EOSID on the published missed approach.
The following table presents the maximum altitude that can be reached during a single engine
missed approach at maximum landing mass. It accounts for maintaining at least 2.5% climb
gradient to a level-off altitude; acceleration and configuration clean up within the 10-minute
TOGA limitation at that altitude.
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (182,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude
specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.
The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria are not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircrafts climb performance.
• In Kathmandu.
When following the published missed approach, the engine out acceleration altitude is
the level-off altitude or MSA, which ever is lower.
There you look for a max landing mass of 182000 kg for conf 3&2 and elevation of 0 ft for ISA+25 C you can reach 5300 ft. SO all you do is just to have a look what is your landing mass, the atmospheric conditions and Level off or MSA. So let’s say your LW is 180000 and you land at airport elevation of 0 ft and the T is 40 C. The level off altitude is 2000 ft, MSA is 1800 ft, and consequently you follow the standard missed levelling off at 1800 ft.
However we don’t have a similar table for take off performance, giving one the idea of performance of the aircraft for specific weight, airdrome conditions and configuration. That’s why I reverted to the rate of climb; because that’s the only criteria you have available.
Sorry it’s got a bit too long and boring to read and hopefully somehow you could bring up my idea a bit closer.
P.S.
cavelino rampante,
as an example DEP A 34 takes you over the water and there are clearly no obstacles at all, consequently following the SID and levelling off at 1600 ft (EOSID ACC ALT) cleaning up and coming back will not jeopardize the safety in any way and you will stay clear of obstacles. On the other hand the EOSID says at 4 DME RT HDG 010 climb to 1600 ft RT to the VOR and must be followed even in VMC on the hot day with OAT about 41 C and take off weight of more than 200 tonnes, because you wont meet the required climb gradient of 4% up to 900 ft if you loose an engine. Whether you turn away visually or follow the EOSID you still aim the same goal, avoiding the obstacle on the RWY course.

john_tullamarine, I asked my self the same question. How do I ensure I will meet the performance? Well, how about to use your FMS and see what your climb performance will be like, it takes all the data into consideration except the wind on take off. Lets say you will see 5000 ft after 10 NM, that means 8% climb gradient so if one engine fails you will only have half 4%. Than you decide is that enough?
I understand its all a bit theoretical and if any doubts just follow the EOSID, however it might bring you in bigger troubles in certain places.
Cheers.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Popay,

The FMC does not take into consideration the clean up.

The flaps are supposed to be up at the end of the 10 minutes - not fly for 10 minutes in the takeoff configuration at takeoff N1 and then clean up.

I don't believe that you have any option BUT follow the EOSID and I also believe that you cannot GUARANTEE that you can meet the SID climb gradients on one engine when you consider the level segment to retract the flaps.

Why is it that hard? Engine failures don't happen everyday, if you follow the EOSID everytime there isn't that delay where you decide what you are going to do - that delay may well kill you and your fellow crew and passengers.

[popay]

Dehavillanddriver,
First of all it’s just a discussion and not a firm statement.
You are right the aircraft is supposed to be cleaned up within 10 min.
Well, there are couple of problems:
1. ATC doesn’t have a copy of your EOSID and as I described before its required by JAR OPS and should be coordinated with local authorities. Could be a problem.
2. We have about 70 destinations for about 40 different countries. DO you really think its all been coordinated?
However, I have been drawn the attention on that while I was in the SIM with the technical chief pilot and actually been told that the only reason why we have EOSID for each and every airport and RWY is to enhance the commercial load. SO it’s a bit different from the usual concept, like to have EOSID incorporated for the airdromes, where it’s really needed. Like, I told you, home base departure RWY 34, DEP A 34 takes you over the sea and there are no obstacles at all, but there is still an EOSID, which will be needed if you comply with D34 DEP, which does take you over the obstacle and requires 4% climb gradient up to 900 ft.
There is a big performance difference if you perform take off with 180 000 kg TOW or 220 000 kg TOW as well if you depart in ISA conditions or ISA +25. The performance isn’t the same. Finally why do we have to evaluate whether to follow the EOSID or published go around for EO approach and actually decide on the basis of the given sheet (as mentioned above) whether to follow EOSID or the published missed? In other words if you will meet the required missed climb 2,5% performance you DON’T follow the EOSID during the go around. It appears a bit controversy to me.
However we don’t have the table allowing one the evaluation of the take off performance for the given weight and prevailing conditions, so in doubt follow the EOSID.
Cheers.

[popay]

Hi folks, I have done some research again and don’t really know if this tread is still interesting for you? It’s very interesting for me though, since I have two licenses JAR OPS and FAA. I remember somebody mentioned above that it would be nice to have uniform SID (approved by authorities and complied by operators) for particular airdrome and RWY for clearance avoidance, so the folks in the States seem to be a step ahead. This is an extraction from FAR’s and the link http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0502.html
5-2-6. Instrument Departure Procedures (DP) - Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODP) and Standard Instrument Departures (SID)
Instrument departure procedures are preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures which provide obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. There are two types of DPs, Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs), printed either textually or graphically, and Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), always printed graphically. All DPs, either textual or graphic may be designed using either conventional or RNAV criteria. RNAV procedures will have RNAV printed in the title, e.g., SHEAD TWO DEPARTURE (RNAV). ODPs provide obstruction clearance via the least onerous route from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. ODPs are recommended for obstruction clearance and may be flown without ATC clearance unless an alternate departure procedure (SID or radar vector) has been specifically assigned by ATC. Graphic ODPs will have (OBSTACLE) printed in the procedure title, e.g., GEYSR THREE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE), or, CROWN ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV)(OBSTACLE). Standard Instrument Departures are air traffic control (ATC) procedures printed for pilot/controller use in graphic form to provide obstruction clearance and a transition from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. SIDs are primarily designed for system enhancement and to reduce pilot/controller workload. ATC clearance must be received prior to flying a SID. All DPs provide the pilot with a way to depart the airport and transition to the en route structure safely. Pilots operating under 14 CFR Part 91 are strongly encouraged to file and fly a DP at night, during marginal Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), when one is available. The following paragraphs will provide an overview of the DP program, why DPs are developed, what criteria are used, where to find them, how they are to be flown, and finally pilot and ATC responsibilities.
This is not complete document just an extraction. To see the complete DOC see http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0502.html
J. Tullamarine as you can see the law maker reverts to the rate of climb. However in my previous company we used to be stage 2 and PLC concept with 2 laptops. The computer program used for take off performance calculation was giving you all the necessary data like gradient in second and third segments. SO you will be able to see your climb performance with FLEX and TOGA for particular RWY a/c weight and conditions as well as any performance degradation due to MEL items.
Hope that was interesting somehow, sorry for getting to long.
Cheers.

[john_tullamarine]

Problem is ... one size does not fit all aeroplanes .... If one picks out half a dozen AFMs and runs the analyses for an interesting runway with several potential escape options ... consider

(a) third segment height ... 400ft to whatever the aircraft/engine combination is capable of achieving. Very useful to the ops engineer in juggling terrain problems.

(b) third segment distance. Very dependent on aircraft configuration.

(c) number of engines. WAT limit climb values differ with certification.

(d) how important is a particular aerodrome for a given operator ? If Bloggs Airlines makes the bulk of its profit from one hub, it is going to be far more interested in investing the dollars in terrain analysis for each runway at that aerodrome compared to Jones Airlines which runs through the location once or twice a week. Sometimes it just doesn't work out .. I can recall one runway for which I spent around two weeks work on terrain modelling .. eventually a ridge about 15 nm track miles on a convoluted escape path killed the one viable escape option and we ended up opting for straight ahead and living with the small ridge not all that far off the runway head ... was an interesting exercise nonetheless ...

(e) especially with twin jets having highlift devices, at WAT it is not unusual to see 40-50 nm track miles required to get the net path to 1500ft following a V1 failure.

(f) the calculation bits are the easy part .. the difficulty is getting the detailed terrain data .. and that can be a REAL pain for a difficult airport, especially when you consider that any published aeronautical data often is of very limited practical use to the escape design. Any fool with a bit of math background can set up a optimisation program to do the number crunching ... but it is all fairytale land if the terrain models are inaccurate ...


Not a simple matter to figure RTOW unless the runway is totally benign .. ie very long and the departure is over the ocean or a reasonably flat desert .....

Main thing is .. don't consider eyeballing it ... doesn't work and, as one poster suggested earlier in this thread, it just means that you have the terror of watching the hill you are going to crash into get bigger in the windscreen as opposed to not knowing what happened during the death process ...

Ops engineers are there to do the labour for you .. use them.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Popay,

Maybe we are getting some wires crossed as a result of language difficulties - if so I apologise.

However - the main aim of the performance engineer is to ensure that the aircraft can take off from airports in the route network with the maximum load that can reasonably be carried.

In many cases the straight ahead flight path doesn't allow this, therefore a EOSID is designed - call it what you may, escape procedure, contingency procedure, Special Departure procedure - whatever - the purpose of these is to get back the payload that the terrain takes away.

Unless you are flying privately one of the aims of the professional pilot is to maximise payload out of a different port thereby increasing revenue for our employer and hopefully ensuring our professional longevity and employment security.

We hope to do all this safely.

I accept that there are some big performance differences between a 180 tonne aeroplane and a 220 tonne aeroplane, however I maintain, and I suspect that John Tullamarine agrees, that as pilots we are NOT in a position to determine if we can or cannot clear the obstacles and safely maintain terrain clearance - regardless of whether it is VMC or not.

The big issue is that the limiting obstacle may not be immediately obvious and in many cases it isn't the close in obstacle that is limiting it is the one(s) further out - the ones that we wouldn't even think about as pilots because on 2 (or 4) engines we wouldn't even see them.

I wouldn't concern myself about whether or not the procedure has been coordinated with the authorities in various countries - that isn't a problem that should concern line pilots and in any case I'd just declare a PAN and fly the EOSID and let the ATC people worry about the rest of the traffic.

My concern as a member of the operating crew is to ensure that
in the event that we have a loss of performance that we can get the aeroplane on the ground at an appropriate airport (not necessarily the departure airport) without too much excitement.

Remember that the obstacle clearance following a loss of performance could be so little that it may well activate the GPWS -this is the tolerance that is applied to these situations - to eyeball the terrain clearance except in over water or desert takeoff's is foolish in the extreme in my opinion.

As John T says the Ops Engineer has taken a lot of time and trouble figuring out a flight path to follow - don't second guess him/her - it may well be a decision that you don't live to regret!

[FlexibleResponse]

John Tullamarine and De Havilland Driver,
I thought your posts were excellent.

For some reason Popay seems to be worried about other people doing their jobs properly and possibly (and worryingly) at the expense of doing his correctly. For some reason he thinks that ATC doesn’t know about EOSIDs of individual airlines. He may well be right for his airline.

However, I might just note for what it is worth, that I believe that any reputable airline’s Navigation/Planning/ Performance/Fight Ops or whatever Department will ensure that each and every ATC facility at each and every Port will have the full details of that reputable airline’s EOSIDs (and special EOSIDs if applicable) for each runway and aircraft type operated by said reputable airline.

I was trained and I subsequently trained my poor subjects that in the event of an engine failure on departure, after ensuring control of the aircraft is established and the immediate actions is accomplished, to notify ATC of the emergency status of the aircraft and add such words as “…engine failure, we are following the EOSID”. ATC can then carry out whatever actions that might be necessary to facilitate the EOSID such as get rid of any conflicting traffic.

Also, ATC having full knowledge of the consequences of an engine failure including EOSID rerouting on departure will allow for those factors before issuing a takeoff clearance.

The rules of flying have been very elegantly designed to protect pilots as the result of intensive and extensive thought processes in the light of thousands of man-years of experience, including the analysis of many incidents and accidents over many years.

But we as pilots must follow the rules to enjoy that protection.

[popay]

Guys thanks for the respond.
First of all I’m not against the idea of following the EOSID. As I mentioned before and according to the company DOC. If in doubt follow it. However I am trying to understand the concept and more the reason “why on one side to evaluate whether to follow the EOSID or published missed, based on aircraft performance (and that’s the official procedure) during the go around, which might occur immediately after take off, if you come back for landing, as you well know. I have mentioned it in my previous posts and not to do it for take off? If anyone could just answer me that question, that might clear it. Please just answer that question without big polemic.

john_tullamarine, yeap i agree it’s different for various aircraft types. I haven’t considered that one. I thought it would be polled for the particular fleet.

Dehavillanddriver, I have to disappoint you a bit, according to the company manual, as posted by cavelino rampante above
''In VMC conditions provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are adequate the pilot may

-Accept radar vectoring by ATC or
-Follow the departure route or
-Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield

If unable to insure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be adpoted'' in VMC you have the option to fly visually actually assessing whether you can make it? Quite a risky business though, I agree. Whether the pilot is able to do so or not, it’s another question.
AS, I told you departing from home base VMC, where you have 1 building, well known, and having engine fire, one for sure wont follow the EOSID, but maintain Flap 1 and come back and land. That’s what we brief as well. However it a very simplified scenario. Have you ever operated parallel RWY operation or took of from uncontrolled airdrome? Well, if you take off from Minneapolis in the States or Chicago O’Hare, you will receive the clearance e.g. “having the United 777, taking of parallel on your left, in sight, you are cleared for take off” Which means, you fly absolutely parallel to the departing a/c with min. lateral distance required, of course, guess what is your only option, in case of engine failure? Well, if your EOSID says turn left and so on, bad luck I guess, you actually will have to avoid the obstacles by visual means, initially at least.
If you have clicked on the previous link, there are departures in the USA, requiring pilot to asses his climb performance based on 40/1 rule.
Example “Climb in visual conditions so as to cross X airport northbound at or above 7000 ft, then proceed to …..” Aren’t you going to depart? That’s all reality.
FlexibleResponse, not for some reason, but for a concrete reason, in particular I spoke to ATC in FRA and they have no clue about it. ATC said, well do you know how many airlines are flying to FRA? Do you expect us to know every and each EOSID from each operator? DO you know how many airlines we serve per day?
Well, than what you going to do, if you hear airline x following EOSID? We will, of course, give him priority and try to arrange the traffic flow and thanks god there is still min. separation between departing and arriving traffic applicable.
What about, if you start parallel RWY operation? Hmm, he smiled and siped the coffee. Well I don’t doubt the good work of our engineering department, but I just have a reasonable portion of healthy scepticism in how the whole system really works.

[mealie puddins]

Flex, sorry disagree, i have worked for three pretty good airlines and the brief was to inform atc of what we are doing They where not aware of our routeing.

[alf5071h]

I agree with the opinions / advice about flying the engine out departure – always follow your procedures.
As we have seen from many past accidents and indications from several currently under investigation, the problem of human error is underestimated.

The performance engineer has solved the difficult aspects; the pilot does not have to reassess or make judgement, just a confirming decision to follow the procedure. Even in VFR, the limitations of human vision and judgement can easily contribute to error, and some of the terrain clearances may appear very small.

Engine failures in modern aircraft are rare, especially those occurring at a critical point during the take off or in limiting conditions; the crew will be surprised, shocked; even fearful. The best course of action is to fly the aircraft accurately, maximising the safety margins in obstacle clearance, dealing with other surprising events (EPWS alert or EGPWS terrain popup). For failures after V1 the situation is always better, but the crew may not be able to judge by how much. Good procedure design will specify the last point of applicability e.g. start of the emergency turn; if the engine fails after that, then the normal procedure will be safe. However, in very difficult terrain there may be conditional procedures with branch points – see some of the operations out of Lugarno!

Refer to the PSM+ICR reports, especially for the turboprop (http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/alf5071h.htm) causes of accidents that show that loss of control was the dominat factor after an engine failure. Rule 1, fly the aircraft (following procedures), don’t get smart and try to out think people and procedures, this is when you make mistakes.

EOSID – there is nothing ‘standard’ about this. The procedure may be an emergency turn or emergency routing, it is an emergency. At an appropriate time after engine failure and completing essential drills, communicate with ATC to ‘tell’ them what your intentions are; this does not have to be very detailed – you are the one who requires assistance, and the one who has the overall responsibility for safety and the authority to fly a safe route. Don’t forget that ATC can also get excited and in being over-helpful with radar steers or advice they can give you misleading and possibly dangerous information.

Airbus operators should refer to the excellent publication “Getting to Grips with Performance” issued by Flt Ops Support in Toulouse, which explains many of the technical concepts discussed above.

[FlexibleResponse]

popay,

It is beneficial for a pilot in having healthy skepticism as it can sometimes help uncover hidden flaws in the system. But I am sure that we pilots all agree we should be careful not to seize upon “good ideas” and use them as justification to ignore or vary SOPs until such time as these good ideas are fully validated and a decision is taken to amend the SOPs accordingly.

Without a doubt your research and discussion on this forum has made us all think a little deeper about the topic.

mealie puddins says that his training from three pretty good airlines in the event of engine failure was to inform ATC of what they are doing as ATC was not aware of his airline’s EOSID routing.

My reading of JAR-OPS indicates that it is the operator’s responsibility to ensure performance during SIDs including in the case of an engine inop. If the specified performance criteria cannot be met by following the SID with an engine inop, then it becomes the operator’s responsibility to design a new procedure (EOSID) and submit it to the relevant state for approval.

But perhaps alf5071h’s comment that “EOSID – there is nothing ‘standard’ about this” might hold the clue. It is a contingency procedure for emergency use only and so may not need special state approval in advance.

In any case, it would appear from popay’s conversation with FRA ATC that they cannot be sure of the EOSID that a particular airline might fly in an actual engine inop departure due to the large number of operators and corresponding large number of EOSIDs.

So that would seem to leave us with the prospect that ATC either does or doesn’t know about your airline’s EOSIDs and in any case will not be able to remember them on the day? In which case mealie puddins’ and alf5071h’s advice to tell ATC your routing and intentions would seem to be the way to go.

[mealie puddins]

Hi flex, yes what you are saying is correct, however, as someone pointed out do you really think that ATC will have that to hand for each individual operator.

[None]

Every station we fly into has an Operations department. Every Operations department forwards a new copy of our company's "special pages" to the Air Traffic Control facilities as they are revised (infrequently...perhaps once every two years).

Each set of "special pages" includes the engine out profile for each runway, if one has been constructed.

[popay]

Hey folks, well just came from the sim. We have tried a take off from the RWY with special EOSID with 231 000 t A 330-200 TOGA 41 Deg C, engine cut at V1. We kept going straight and didn't clear the imaginary obstacle by about 110 ft. Although RTOM chart was giving that RTOW and according to the assumptions we should have cleared all obstacles by 35 ft, well we didn't. We hardly did 200 ft/min climb at TOGA.
Just wanted to share it with you, was quite interesting to see the buildings passing on the side.
Cheers.:8

[mutt]

didn't clear the imaginary obstacle by about 110 ft

Ouch.......

Back to the drawing board.. :)

Mutt

[BOAC]

popay - the figures assume perfect handling technique, no over/under rotation, correct speeds etc. None of us are perfect and...................

200fpm is not unusual (hopefully +:D ).

[john_tullamarine]

Having just re-read the thread, there are two comments needing comment ..

(a) if you are in a twin and lose one, you end up with half the net thrust, NOT half the AEO performance ... more likely around 10-15 percent ....

(b) if management states that the EOSID is there to improve payload, doesn't that suggest something about going the other way ?

[springbok449]

It seems quite apparent from some of the above posts that many people confuse an EOSID and an emergency turn procedure they are totally different things.

You have to follow an emergency turn procedure in order not to plant yourself into a hill or something (ZRH for example) however the EOSID can be disregarded at Captains discretion if a few factors are met...

My company use to have an EOSID for BCN RWY 20 of climb straight ahead then proceed to VNV to hold...Now why would you on one engine and at a busy time fly towards high terrain when you have miles of sea in front of you where the MSA is reasonable...Ofcourse it was perfectly acceptable in the TO brief to say in the event of...climb straight ahead 3000ft sort the problem out over the water...
The reason the above EOSID was so is because the people that provided our performance insisted that the EOSID ended over a holding pattern...

An emergancy turn however is different as it needs to be followed...

[popay]

springbok449, that's absolutely right. There's a word play in here with us. EOSID has got the purpose just to reposition you for the immediate return, whereas Special EOSID (Emergency turn) presumes avoidance of obstacle due to lack of performance.
However the discrepancy in here is that the RTOM CHART gave us 233 T RTOW with the data above, which supposed to take care of everything on take off, as the name suggests, namely clearance of the obstacle by 35 ft. Remind you that this 231 T weight is a obstacle limited RTOW with codes 4/4, with the RTOM CHARTS assumption of engine failure at most critical stage.
That's the basis of RTOM charts:
The JAA Certification rules determine the take-off procedures for the Airbus A330. They ensure that in the event of an engine failure during take-off, it shall be possible either to abandon or continue the take-off with full safety, having regard to the length of the runway, stopway, clearway, second segment climb and obstacles in the take-off flight path, for the prevailing wind, temperature and pressure altitude.

So theoretically according to the description above we should have been able to clear it, as we took of with the RTOW of 231 T,in the SIM we didn't. Not even a chance. Since there was a special EOSID (emergency turn), we need to follow it, for sure.
That's the only confusing thing for me.
Anyway, it was good to see it.
Cheers.:8

[FlightDetent]

My bus performance course was in Toulouse and I must admit I never understood how they managed to split RTOW chart data from the departure track. I.E. I believe it is not possible.

To me RTOW data applies only for a given ground track over which the terrain clearence is guaranteed. Popay, while I agree with lot of your posting I frankly don't see the point of trying to prove otherwise.

We asked, look, there is no EFP/EOSID for this calculation, does it mean we just keep the runway track? How far is it safe 25, 30, 50NM? Reaching MSA - how do you calculate MSA? Answer: sure, but why would you, just stick to the SID. WHAT??? :oh: :oh: :oh: How do you know what departure will I get? A: doesnt matter, all obstacles are projected onto extended runway track line for worst case sceanrio and performance is validated over these. Q: Now that is hugely ineffective, what for a closed valley airport, where the only departure is to one-side turn for downwind track, you want me to fly straight ahead to the ridge and believe the performance is factorized? How do you project onto extended centerline the obsacles on downwid and on the other side of airport? Q: nou nou, for such a case there would be an EOSID. A: Are not all airfields like this? Well if not, hell how do I tell if I need one, how do the engineerig people know?

So OF COURSE we needed EFP/EOSID for all runways but that was no news.

[captain_jeeves]

I have a question for the Jury to deliberate.

First, a short preamble before I get to my question...

If cleared to depart from an airport via a specific SID, you fly that specific SID, UNLESS, you experience an engine loss. Then you would fly either:

The current SID,
An applicable EOSID,
Radar Vectors, or
Possibly, visually return if conditions would allow, and it was appropriate.

Similarly, if cleared to arrive at an airport, you may be cleared via a STAR, or any other means until established on an Instrument Approach Procedure.

Then, you would fly that Instrument approach procedure until either of two things happened:

A landing, or
A go-around.

If a go-around became necessary, you would - in the absence of an ATC instruction, etc - fly the published missed approach procedure…or would you?

(Assume a CAT I approach, and go-around from CAT I minimums)

Here’s the question…

If an EOSID existed for the runway you just missed on, and you suffered an engine failure during the Go-around, would you fly the published missed approach, or, would you fly the EOSID.


I know what I would do, but I’m curious what others may think or believe.

[FlightDetent]

Long story short: Every G/A has a gradient, if not specifically stated 2,5 % i think. You are supposed to know your sinle engine performance and not exceed the gradient weight - how is it done - a different story. So if G/A from applicable MDA DA - fly go around track. If G/A is initiated below DA MDA or past MAPt you're lost in woodwork, unless you have an EOSID which you are familiar with and follow it. On the other hand some reasonable assumptions can be made such as approach to CAT III (g/a routing from the deck published) runway and you use CAT I minima with engine out. At 100' you need to do a G/A - either you use EOSID or if the G/A procedure is identical to CAT III you may as well fly it. Technically you are not flying the G/A for CATI which no longer protects you because you are already below DA, but you choose to fly another (albeit identical) procedure which provides protection - you are above DH/A and before MAPt.

[captain_jeeves]

"Every G/A has a gradient"..."You are supposed to know your sinle engine performance and not exceed the gradient weight...". Agreed!

My appologies, I should have previously stipulated the example as a CAT I approach, and the go-around from CAT I minimums, for that example.

However, since you bring it up, let's assume another example. The approach is a CAT IIIB, and a published missed approach existed (As it would). At 50 feet (Published Minimums - DH) you go-around (Reason is not relevent). The engine fails upon selection of TOGA. Published Missed, or EOSID?

(Assume an EOSID exists for this runway)

Now, assume a hypothetical CATIIIC. Again, with a published missed approach. This time you go-around from 0 feet. (Minimums are 0 feet and RVR per FOM). The engine fails upon selection of TOGA. Published Missed, or EOSID?

(Assume an EOSID exists for this runway)

I would agree that a go-around after "landing" does leave you "...lost in woodwork..." regarding the engine failure during that go-around. One of the issues would include when the engine actually fails. Agree, or disagree?

Furthermore, I am aware of at least two airlines FOM's (One that I worked for, and one that a peer worked for) that stipulate that the EOSID will be considered for both Take-off and Go-around, and considering that, I can make some assumtions regarding this subject.


All of that said (Please read this carefully), it would seem - following a go-around - that if flying below 1500 feet AGL(All initial climb segments not completed, thus not into the enroute climb phase), AND,

a positive EO "Required" climb gradient is not achievable (see quote above!!!), AND/OR,

if below the MSA, MOCA or MORA (as applicable), AND/OR,

the EO "Required" climb gradient can not be achieved (again, see quote above!!!), AND,

the "EOSID" can gaurantee terrain separation, AND,

FOLLOWING THE ENGINE FAILURE you are able to fly that "EOSID" procedure, from the place where the engine failed , then the answer to this question would appear obvious.

Agree, or Disagree?

[popay]

captain_jeeves, hi there. I was away for quite a while and couldn't expect the subject to be brought up again. Meanwhile we use LPC octopus software for both take off and landing performance including go around which makes it much more easier to have an idea about your performance. Despite the fact that its possible to have very accurate take off performance calculation with actual data and prevailing conditions including manual insertion of the most limited close in obstacle (the reason why in most cases we fly special EOSID) the SOP does stipulate the necessity to follow special EOSID in IMC in any case. In the example before we tried max TOW possible and didn't clear the obstacle but after insertion on the obstacle in to the take off calculation module the RTOW was limited to 210 tons A332 taking off with, one would clear the obstacle as required. In order not to have an unpleasant discussion with the lawyer better just fly EOSID. None the less its essential to have an idea about your aircraft performance in places like CDG where the simultaneous parallel RWY operation is in use and special EOSID tells you to turn in to the active RWY not a very brilliant idea though.
Regarding the go around its determined using the same software for the actual landing performance required including go around climb out gradient for normal ops 2.1% for CAT III 2.5% which tells you according to your landing data if you are limited or not. As general guideline if the landing weight is above max landing weight follow EOSID if below follow go around.
Cheers.

[captain_jeeves]

captain_jeeves, hi there. I was away for quite a while and couldn't expect the subject to be brought up again.

No worries, and I think we can expect more on this subject.

Meanwhile we use LPC octopus software for both take off and landing performance including go around which makes it much more easier to have an idea about your performance.

And, that performance information is based on the loss of an Engine, correct?

Despite the fact that its possible to have very accurate take off performance calculation with actual data and prevailing conditions including manual insertion of the most limited close in obstacle (the reason why in most cases we fly special EOSID) the SOP does stipulate the necessity to follow special EOSID in IMC in any case.

Many SOP do, and the engineers that come up with this stuff are probably more capable engineers than most of us

In the example before we tried max TOW possible and didn't clear the obstacle but after insertion on the obstacle in to the take off calculation module the RTOW was limited to 210 tons A332 taking off with, one would clear the obstacle as required.

We can assume that the performance tables work when used properly, correct?

In order not to have an unpleasant discussion with the lawyer better just fly EOSID.

Don't want to attend that legal discussion.

None the less its essential to have an idea about your aircraft performance in places like CDG where the simultaneous parallel RWY operation is in use and special EOSID tells you to turn in to the active RWY not a very brilliant idea though.

Agreed, it is absolutely essential to KNOW your aircrafts performance at all places, and is equally essential to be aware of what's happening around you at all times.

As general guideline if the landing weight is above max landing weight follow EOSID if below follow go around.
Cheers.[/quote]

You lost me here. "...if landing is above max landing weight..."

Are you talking Structural, or performance limited?

And, why would you be landing at this weight? (I accept that there are numerous possibilties to why)

???

[popay]

captain_jeeves the performance calculation is always based on the worst case scenario namely engine out at Vef its a requirement from the law maker JAR or FAA doesn't matter.
When is single engine go around usually a problem? Well, if you come for the approach shortly after take off with one engine inop, correct? Because the aircraft is above max landing weight. Therefore you have to make sure that the go around performance is met. Here is some extraction from our manual:
The published missed approach is the preferable procedure to fly in the event of missed approach. The following paragraphs define a procedure to allow the pilot decide whether the constraints of the published missed approach are met in the single engine scenario. The standard published missed approach is based on a climb gradient of 2.5% to a specified final altitude. It does not include a level off segment for acceleration and clean up. TOGA thrust is available for 10 minutes, and the aircraft must level off and clean up within these 10 minutes).
The following table presents the maximum altitude that can be reached during a single engine missed approach at maximum landing mass. It accounts for maintaining at least 2.5% climb gradient to a level-off altitude; acceleration and configuration clean up within the 10-minute TOGA limitation at that altitude.
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (187,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.

The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria is not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircraft's climb performance. • In Kathmandu. When following the published missed approach, the engine out acceleration altitude is the level-off altitude or MSA, which ever is lower.
there's a table giving you max level off alt which will allow you to determine the max alt you can reach and maintain in case of single engine. Your go around level off alt must obviously be below.
Cheers.

[captain_jeeves]

captain_jeeves the performance calculation is always based on the worst case scenario namely engine out at Vef its a requirement from the law maker JAR or FAA doesn't matter.

I know, my question "...performance information is based on the loss of an Engine..." was intended as rhetorical


When is single engine go around usually a problem? Well, if you come for the approach shortly after take off with one engine inop, correct? Because the aircraft is above max landing weight. Therefore you have to make sure that the go around performance is met.

Good enough, I just needed you to clarify the intent of your earlier statement.



The published missed approach is the preferable….

To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (187,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.

The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria is not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircraft's climb performance.


Exactly!

Remember what I said earlier (Sorry, I don't have a set of manuals close-by to quote from, so I shot from the hip on this).

...All of that said (Please read this carefully), it would seem - following a go-around - that if flying below 1500 feet AGL(All initial climb segments not completed, thus not into the enroute climb phase), AND,

a positive EO "Required" climb gradient is not achievable (see quote above!!!), AND/OR,

if below the MSA, MOCA or MORA (as applicable), AND/OR,

the EO "Required" climb gradient can not be achieved (again, see quote above!!!), AND,

the "EOSID" can gaurantee terrain separation, AND,

FOLLOWING THE ENGINE FAILURE you are able to fly that "EOSID" procedure, from the place where the engine failed , then the answer to this question would appear obvious.



Unless I've overlooked something, I haven't found anyone in this forum disputing this. However, I have heard some pilots on the line comment that it is not an acceptable procedure.





Cheers.

[popay]

captain_jeeves, well fair enough. So now we have agreed that a pilot does have a choice upon executing a go around. Why not to have a choice upon a take off? It wasn't possible while using the RTOW charts, I agree, but after introducing the performance software one is certainly capable of just punching in the required data and see if you can make it? If you have read the previous posts you might have noticed that the execution of special EOSID was a must regardless of performance data. In other words no matter whether the take off performance is met or not follow the special EOSID in case of engine failure and IMC. Apart from legal aspects its not always the safest solution like in CDG where one will face much bigger problems turning into active parallel RWY. It only makes sense of course if in advance the PIC has made sure that he can follow the SID in case of single engine. This capability is given throughout the new software tool but we aren't using it. Why? don't know? Unless the obstacle is temporarily man made its been there for while isn't it? In case of man made obstacle one has got to punch it in anyway, like i recall the case in LGW with protruding aircraft tails.
Cheers.

[captain_jeeves]

Why not to have a choice upon a take off?

I think that the answer to this is in the fact that – during take-off (and climb phases until the enroute climb phase) – we know where the engine has failed, or for performance planning, where it is assumed to have failed.

During the GA, we have to consider where the actual failure occurs, as the go-around procedure can be somewhat lengthy and not necessarily near the EOSID procedure. Does the failure occur upon the selection of TOGA, or at a later stage in the procedure? This is the “Split Second” decision that we get paid for.


Fly safe, I’m outta here.

[rhovsquared]

just curious if someone would post there EOSID's for any airline, for any airport's rwy- though I' love to see some for LGA or JFK. :)

many thanks

rhov

Davies' books says (in paraphrase) if an engine is lost after V1 "NOW WASH OUT OUT OF YOUR MIND the AEO procedure and switch to the clearance to the 'overshoot beacon' and follow the net flight path". if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.

[captain_jeeves]

if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.

I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).

This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.

If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career.

[john_tullamarine]

... thoughts ..

(a) the ops engineers do the sums in detail but there is a lot of variation in policy amongst airlines

(b) if AEO, the thrust is generally driven by maximising payload, while avoiding any overly high terrrain

(c) if OEI then the need is to get to a safe height and recover.

Two generic considerations ..

(i) basic calculation is V1 style failure and escape .. not really a problem if the track is the same as the AEO departure

(ii) often the more interesting is the post V1 failure .. if the V1 OEI case involves an escape turn .. and the real failure occurs after that OEI turn point.

For those airlines which consider this case, the pilot has only to follow the decision flowchart and the sums have all been done ...

For those airlines which don't worry about this case .. the crew is ON THEIR OWN beyond the planned OEI turn .. and best of British luck to you, good sir !!

It is germane for the captain to know which philosophy is adopted by his/her particular airline, I suggest ...

[rhovsquared]

Thanks Old Smokey - I hope you received my reply

regards,

rhovsquared :)

[rhovsquared]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.


I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).

This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.

If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE

ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter

[captain_jeeves]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.


I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).

This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.

If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE

ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter


I think you should read what I posted on this subject. Then, comment!

[Nick 1]

Hi there,
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.

[Old Smokey]

Hi there,
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.

The first part is as it should be :ok:

For the second, if, as I suspect, you are following the Takeoff EOSID for the missed approach case, presumably your Performance Engineering provider has calculated the splay for the procedure commencing at the Missed Approach Point:confused: This means that, for a Cat 1 (200 ft minima) at 863 M from the runway end of a 2000 M runway, lateral obstacle obstacle consideration must be 358.3 M (1175.6 ft) either side of the runway as you pass the end of the runway. The Takeoff lateral consideration of obstacles upon which EOSIDs are created, comes nowhere near this. You're in No man's land!:eek:

Much better to ensure Missed Approach OEI Net climb performance at 2.5% gradient (or more if specified), and follow the published Missed Approach Procedure, accepting 100 feet vertical clearance from obstacles:ok:

Regards,

Old Smokey

[rhovsquared]

Captain Jeeves your other posts were great and wise :D :D :D

but you can't assume I don't understand the huge conglomerate of variables involved in 'slipping the surly bounds of earth' in any craft be they: Jets, props, choppers, airships, hot air balloons or whatever. every thing is risk/benifits. and we are all Guests in the air.
I understand the dillemma of being in a no mans land, on an OEI special procedure - thanks Old Smokey for the correct term- but I was commenting on only the post directed at me.

In A No-man's-land situation, well fate is THE hunter- and your experience obviously will allow you too think outside the box, and hopefully reconcile the situation - and dodge the Arrows and missile shot forth by fate.

Safe flying, keep the brown down,
may the words: Flt 123, ABC tower, monitor ground on point-six to the ramp
always follow you :)

rhovsquared

[captain_jeeves]

but you can't assume I don't understand the huge conglomerate of variables involved... I didn't intend to imply that, but apologize profusely if it appeared that I did.

In all other points regarding this issue, I think everyone is somewhat in agreement.
.

[SIDSTAR]

In a twin, the OEI Escape manoeuvre/emergency turn procedure is calculated to ensure obstacle clearance at all available weights for the aircraft up to the maximum weight/temperature combination on that particular RTOW chart - ie to ensure obstacle clearance at each of those weight/temperature combinations.

It doesnt matter a whit whether you're IMC or VMC - with proper average piloting technique (and without using TOGA thrust) you will clear the obstacle(s) that limit the takeoff. (it also helps to get the gear up!!) If taking off with Reduced/Flex thrust, going to TOGA will provide an additional level of obstacle clearance but is not mandatory in order to clear the obstacle.

If some pilots imagine that in VMC they are going to construct their own escape manoeuvre and visually keep themselves away from terrain they are sadly mistaken, and I hope I'm never in the back of their aircraft in a limiting takeoff with OEI. As someone said earlier, all that will do is to ensure you see the mountain get bigger in the windscreen.

However, IMHO, you should always tell ATC exactly what your company ETP is, as they will probably not have it to hand even if your airline is one that informs ATC of such manoeuvres. At least that way they can work in advance to clear other traffic out of your path.

Another point worth mentioning is that an ETP for takeoff is not necessarily required for the go-around case due to different points of application of TOGA thrust and different heights for that application (CAT 1 200 vs zero feet on the ground plus the fact that the go-around is initiated at a point further back (from the obstacle). The baulked landing is a different case and may be required for places such as Innsbruck in Austria.

If an ETP is required for the G/A case it should be stated in your performance/Ops manual. In any case it is up to each company but especially each pilot, to ensure he's up to speed on the exact details of his company's procedures.

Additionally, you should ensure that you fully understand the basis on which the ETP is constructed. Is it based on continuing to keep the aircraft climbing at between V2 and V2 + 10 in the climb/turn, or is it one of those (rare) procedures that allow you to level off at the usual single-engine acceleration altitude and simply turn as directed ( much wider radius of turn bringing more distant obstacles into play and thus limiting the takeoff weight even more).

In my experience, most ET procedures involve CLIMBING turns where there is no level off until the turn is complete. However, I believe a handful of airlines do use the other type which will usually be far more limiting on the available weight that can be lifted.

In every case:

1. Know your own company's procedures
2. Apply them in all conditions - VMC or IMC
3. Don't attempt to second-guess the performance engineers who constructed the engine-out procedure in the cold light of day using the aircraft manufacturer's performance programme.

It might just keep you (and me) alive one day.

[mutt]

It doesnt matter a whit whether you're IMC or VMC

Actually it makes a big difference on the width of the takeoff cone and therefore the required obstacles!!! Its quite legal to state that takeoff is only permitted in VMC and crew are to avoid the mountain!!!


Mutt

[john_tullamarine]

.. caveat .. depends on the jurisdiction .. in Oz, VMC-predicated departures are limited to smaller Types. Originally up to 50,000 lb which, unfortunately, was metricated to 20T .. which excluded the F27 and 748 .. although I note that it was then changed back to 22.7T to give back that which was taken ... Quite amazing .. I argued with CASA and precedent organisations until I was blue in the face and got nowhere .. obviously somewhere along the line someone in the organisation came along with a bit more attentiveness to the history ..