Engine Out Emergency Turns

[javelin]

How many of you ATC folk out there are aware that we (large charter airline) recently implimented standard emergency turns in the event of engine failure after take off ?

If terrain is a factor, it will usually tend to follow the SID or miss relevent terrain.

If it is not a factor, nearly all of them indicate at 1700' an immediate turn back to the overhead beacon - VOR or NDB.

Now, if we did this at, say LGW or MAN, would you be surprised and has anyone discussed this at Grown Up level :ooh:

[Del Prado]

Hi Javelin, surprised no one has answered you yet.

As a lowly operational Atco (Gatwick Approach), I have no knowledge of this procedure (although that doesn't mean your guys haven't passed it to our guys).

At Gatwick I would be surprised at your early turn back to the field. Experience shows most engine failures on departure would climb straight ahead unless the aircraft was on fire.

The problems your turn would cause would primarily be with the next departures, hopefully the tower controller would be aware of your problem and not launch anything behind.
Bottom line is though, if you're having an emergency we should expect anything.

If you find yourself in this position squwaking 7700 would get everyones attention and get a PAN/MAYDAY call on the tower frequency if you have time.

Are you going to tell us which airline?

[tescoapp]

We have the same sort of thing on our pref sheets.

And after talking to one of the tower controllers at man. Her responces was christ don't do that it would stick you straight in the way of any GA's on the other runway.

There are other crackers like at 50ft turn left by 20 degrees.

Some as you say follow the sid then take you back others you get to do some acrobatics and get to do 170 deg heading changes at 1700ft just to get you back in the overhead.

I believe these engine out turn procedures have been produced by the performance company to a standard design. They have very little to do with real life, they have been produced to comply with some regulation for paper work. And more importantly with no regard at all to the local ATC procedures.

To be honest I have now started briefing the old way of "In case of engine failure follow the SID and ask for radar vectors when we are ready" And when flying with one of the gods in the training deptment. I have only once been asked why we are not going to be flying the pref emrg turn. Which I replied the SID has been designed for Pref A machines and we can comply with the minimum climb grad on one engine and I really don't fancy heading off on some procedure that ATC don't have a clue where we are going and we don't have any seperation from other aircraft. The reply was "OK seems fair enough"

But unfortunatly there are some that you really do need to comply to eg PIK. It would be better for the airport to publish a standard emergency turn which complies with Pref A min climb grad so that everyone knows whats happening.

Why on earth anyone would want to be swinging an aircraft round the sky at 1700ft to enter the hold at 3000ft while trying to secure an engine. When they have available a highly trained ATCO who is more than capable of steering you round the sky avoiding high ground and other aircraft mistifies me.

[Pierre Argh]

Whilst I can see the logic of the Emergency Turn, it does seem peculiar to adopt an SOP that may not atke into account procedures at ALL airfields... and if the pilot hasn't had time to put out an emergecy call, ATC might not be expecting this course of action... even an emergency squawk, whilst it will certainly alert ATC of your difficulty... doesn't ensure a clear path, or rather ATC may not have time and know what path to clear?

If this is to become SOP ATC, everywhere, needs to take this possibility into account, and IMHO that might be far easier said than done!!!

[javelin]

Del Prado

MyTravel, we have had these turns for about 6 months now.

[Down Three Greens]

Javelin

Knowing you well enough, you must also be aware that this scenario is under much discussion behind the scenes....and before you ask...no I am not privilaged to the debate either.

Maybe it would be better await the results of this before posting on here.

DTG

[javelin]

D3G - no, I wasn't aware, that is good to hear because at present, my brief is that we prepare to do what is appropriate for the airport and conditions. It seldom involves a return at 1700' !

Caveat to that is obviously, proper published emergency turns are complied with.

[Down Three Greens]

That's why they have given you four bars ;-) :ok:

My experience too!

DTG

[fireflybob]

>I believe these engine out turn procedures have been produced by the performance company to a standard design. They have very little to do with real life, they have been produced to comply with some regulation for paper work. And more importantly with no regard at all to the local ATC procedures.<

You cannot be serious!!

In the event of an engine failure it is VITAL to fly the emergency turn to ensure obstacle clearance as defined by the performance regs!!

This is an old subject which has been discussed on Pprune at length before (I think if you do a search you will find the previous thread).

In reality, whether the controller(s) on the day are aware of the individual company's emergency turn procedure is debatable but one large charter airline I used to fly for formally notified ATC at the aerodrome concerned of an ET procedure - whether it got down to those on the shop floor is another matter of course!

[javelin]

We are not talking about detailed emergency turns here, we have recently adopted a 'standard' emergency turn on all runways that previously didn't need a turn.

If terrain or other factors dictate that an emergency turn is necessary, we must comply.

[West Coast]

"Why on earth anyone would want to be swinging an aircraft round the sky at 1700ft"

Try coming out of an airport in mountainous terrain in Montana at night and lose an engine. You don't fly the engine out procedure and rely on ATC and you and your pax are dead. Left to be scraped off the side of a cliff.

I'm with fireflybob on this. Your response scares me. You should be briefing the special dept procedure in addition to the all engine one for every leg. You must have all the NAVAIDs ready to support flying it as well in case of a worst case scenario.

[john_tullamarine]

(a) a search on PPRuNe will come up with plenty of discussions on this sort of thing .. several for starters - Thread A (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=188272), Thread B (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197130&highlight=escape+procedure), Thread C (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=177310&highlight=escape+procedure), Thread D (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=167873&highlight=escape+procedure).

(b) routine considerations

(i) one doesn't want an aircraft stooging around at low level a long way from the airfield with a straight flight path .. consider that a critical twin with a reasonable split between V2 and clean can take up to 40-50 nm (track miles) to complete the takeoff OEI net flight path .. OK, the likely gross path will have you to 1500 ft earlier .. but, nonetheless, still a good distance out if the aircraft is at or near WAT-limited. Does this sound like the sort of situation you want to be in ? If the reference to 1700 ft is AARL, then I would suggest that that procedure is not well considered .. I would like to think that the general plan is to turn well before that sort of height (ie a long way out) in the event of a V1 failure.

(ii) usual story is for the operator to schedule a general procedure for runways not requiring a specific procedure. Typically this will seek to keep the aircraft within a reasonable distance of the departure aerodrome ... terrain knowledge, familiarity, aids, etc., etc. Common to see something like a turn at a standard height or distance. Keep in mind that such a procedure needs to be very simple so that it can become an SOP style of thing unless a specific procedure is required and scheduled

(iii) a runway might require a specific procedure if the terrain is critical, the airport is payload critical to the operator, there are unusual ATC considerations etc.

(iv) generally it is not feasible to wing an OEI departure .. the achieved gradients are too shallow for the pilot to make any real time sensible assessments if there exist obstacle problems .. hence the need for the sums to be done ahead of time

(v) following the SID generally may not be a good idea unless the ops engineers have done the sums .. third and fourth segments might prove an embarrassment.

(c) if the operator proposes to schedule something a little surprising for ATC then it would be entirely expected to see the operator provide appropriate SOP advice to the ATC unit concerned to avoid just that situation. One would presume that ATC then disseminates the information appropriately. Certainly I have never had other than a "thank you" from ATC when I have discussed with them a procedure which is a bit out of the ordinary ...

[discountinvestigator]

It is quite clear that emergency turns are the responsibility of the aircraft operator and not in relation to PAN OPS v2 design criteria.

It is also quite clear that the airport operator must liaise with the aircraft operators to determine where they are likely to go. The airport operator must provide ICAO Type A, B and C charts if the terrain and obstacles around the airport dictate the requirement. Oh, in the UK, the CAA cannot be bothered to publish type B and C, even if an airport operator considers it necessary and Type A has to be obtained via a long winded method.

The airport operator then has to inform its ATC subcontractor, or self operated unit, of where the aircraft are likely to go and do what and when. This will be published in the Aerodrome Manual or operational manual and then passed to ATC for inclusion in their MATS Part 2 or whatever. The airport operator then audits the MATS 2 to check that emergency turns have been taken into account for the procedures used at the airport. This is then used as part of the safety argument documentation for the aerodrome licensing process.

Now, why do I get the impression that this is not going on? Perhaps because none of the airports that I audited on 5 continents last year had this in place. However, in the UK, you will find that I have interpreted the relevant laws, and case law, to provide a reasonable answer.

[springbok449]

Hi,

As I mentioned in "thread A" you must not confuse an Emergency Turn and an Engine Out SID.

EOSID is provided by performance manufacturers of what to do (advice) in the event of an engine failure on TO when for say terrain is not realy a factor ie: LGW. The EOSID normaly ends in a hold overhead a beacon.
You could say in your TO brief that if you lost an engine, you will climb straight ahead and disregard the EOSID.

The ET however is live saving stuff, I take ZRH for example, if yu lose an engine you need to follow the published EOSID in order to avoid the hight terrain.

Rgds, Bokkie

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

springbok449

In the light of the comments made by discountinvestigator I wonder if I could trouble you to post a broad outline of the EOSID you have for LGW/EGKK. Given the example of an aircraft suffering an engine failure on a departure off 26L perhaps planned on a SAM or LAM SID, where would it go (roughly) on the EOSID?

When I used to operate from Gatwick there was a published Emergency Turn for depatures off 26L (for the 767) which was (IIRC) turn left about 15 degrees from runway track and climb above MSA. The company SOP is to follow the SID in the absence of an Emergency Turn.

I think that the LTCC/KK TWR controllers would be interested to hear what track you would fly and to what level you would climb if the unfortunate did occr.

All the best

G W-H

[springbok449]

Hi,

I am talking about my previous employer on A319 the EOSID for 26L was straight 1700ft then left to MID to hold or on 08R would be straight ahead 1700ft to DET...
We had instances for say in EDI where on 24 the EOSID was climb straight ahead at 1500aal left to EDN ie 180 turn back towards to airfield...

Clearly during the TO brief most people would say climb straight ahead in the event of engine failure...

As I said for an Emergency Turn, the story would be somewhat different...

[discountinvestigator]

In the event that an aircraft can meet the SID minimum climb gradient, with a critical engine failure, then there is no need to deviate from the SID. Be aware that the LGW SIDs are not SIDS, but actually NPRs, Noise Preferential Routes. You may find that there are certain classes of aircraft where the ability of the crew to fly the NPRs with an engine out is somewhat limited. However, there is not much at LGW that falls into this area these days.

There is one airport in the UK where the engine failure climb rate was the same as the VSI reading going up the runway slope for a twin turboprop operator. Do not retract the gear based on the baro VSI! You need the Type A as well to check what you will get on RadAlt in this case.

You should always be careful with emergency turns and missed approach tracks etc. I have seen cases where the baulked landing case for go-around did not have a minimum distance before turn, whereas the engine failure on departure did. I seem to remember that you would probably get away with turning early if you did the go-around with one engine out, after the fire truck ran across the runway ....

I have just been looking at a case on a missed approach where the turn was made early. They missed the mountain, but it was not the best place to turn. Be aware of why the missed approach point is set where it is. This should be on your Captain's brief and given to you when the airport inspection team from your airline carry out the JAR OPS 1.220 audit of the airport before you fly there. Now, exactly how many airlines are auditing the airports in this way remains to be seen..... Although I do it for one UK operator on their routes to dodgy countries in Africa.

Zurich and Innsbruck are interesting cases. I have been looking at INN recently and found the crew coordination to be "interesting" as you have the left seat flying and right seat looking out of the window. Then left seat starts to look but cannot see yet, the bank angle unwinds and you overshoot the centreline.

Perhaps, if Captain is going to fly the right hand turn for 08 (?) it would be better done head down getting the high bank angle maintained, rate of descent right etc and not looking out of the window. Right seat can then look out of window and do quick cross checks on the instrumentation.

Do you all brief what to do in terms of control hand over in the event of left side flight data or screen failures?

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

discountinvestigator

I think that you will find that the Gatwick SIDs are SIDs. They all do, however, incorporate the NPRs.

springbok449

Did you happen to operate into LHR/EGLL with your previous employer and if so, would you have briefed for a climb straight ahead in the event of an engine failure?

My employer specifies that we follow the SID out of Heathrow following an engine failure. I did meet a E145 skipper from a Middle sized UK airline who I think said something about climbing to 1500'aal then returning to the overhead. My memory on this is very fuzzy, but I think it would be instructive if people could post rough ground tracks they would follow from UK airports following an engine failure. I am sure there are some ATCOs out there who would be interested to know.

G W-H

[jonesthepilot]

I haven't seen it in writing but i'm told that the emergency turns requirement has come from JAROPS. I guess if they say we need emergency turns then turn we must - straight ahead is no longer an option! Surely the indivdual airport authorities should have some input into this one rather than it being a free-for-all amongst the airlines?

[Sir Norman Fry]

Just for your interest, my company's ET procedure out of MAN from Rwy 06L is: Ahead to 700' QNH, turn left at V2 to WAL VOR. We only have ET procedures published where terrain is a factor on the departure route. i.e. An ET procedure is not published at every airport we operate into, only where necessary.

Now I have discussed this with a few of my colleagues and a few ATCO's at STN. If you continued straight ahead off Rwy 23 at STN this is going to take you towards the Luton CTA and the London TMA. (There is no ET out of STN.) Is it not better to follow the published SID to the MSA or SID stop altitude to save a potentially dangerous situation? Interestingly enough, the ATCO's I spoke to said they would expect us to continue straight ahead.

Also if your departing MAN off Rwy 06L on a Honiley SID, the right turn at 1.2d takes you away from the terrain anyway. So is it not better to follow the SID as ATC are expecting you to do, rather than turning the opposite way to what they are expecting? I don't really have an opinion on this, just wondered what others think on this particular scenario?

Thanks.

[BOAC]

Cats and ways to skin comes to mind here:)

BA 737 SOP was - with no published ET, follow the SID. Other airlines go straight ahead. My brief at STN R23 is SOP straight ahead (telling ATC) and then (asap) accept a 'directed' turn. It may be that a 15 deg banked turn onto the SID there might be a problem?

Likewise at MAN, I guess (without the charts) that 700' V2 to the left clears the terrain better than 1.2 D and 15 deg bank to the right?

These things are normally fairly carefully worked out by clever people!

[NudgingSteel]

Couple of thoughts....
Sir Norman - there's no HON SID off 06L at MAN. Everything southbound goes LISTO (as does the odd HON dep off the other end from time to time.....)

And the ATCO emergency training that I've experienced tends to point out that, in an emergency, expect the unexpected. Crews are going to be so busy, they might not have time to follow a particular track, particularly if it's good VMC and they can see they're well clear of terrain. As long as we on the ground know there's a problem, we can always offer avoiding action to other traffic to keep it out of their way. I'd personally wait for the crew to advise what they are doing / wish to do, before assuming they're going a particular way.

[Sir Norman Fry]

Sorry, yes you are correct I meant the Listo SID. Thanks for the replys, interesting to read.

Regards :ok: