PDA

View Full Version : Engine out procedure


alexban
4th Nov 2007, 11:58
Can I ask you who is making the engine-out procedures for your company?
You have engine-out procedures for every airport you operate on ?
I'm asking this as I've found myself,not once, in a situation when I had to ask for the oposite rwy, and all other planes had no problem with the rwy in use. Similar types,similar payload...

IRRenewal
4th Nov 2007, 12:53
Can I ask you who is making the engine-out procedures for your company?We have an in-house performance department for that.
You have engine-out procedures for every airport you operate on ?We have a generic procedure which we use (climb straight ahead, retract at 1000' AGL) unless there is reason not to do so. That's when published emergency turn procedures and/or non standard flap retraction heights come in.
I'm asking this as I've found myself, not once, in a situation when I had to ask for the opposite rwy, and all other planes had no problem with the rwy in use.I guess you meant 'more than once', as 'not once' means never. :)

If you would be willing to name a specific airport and set of conditions, we might be able to compare numbers and procedures from different companies.

alexban
4th Nov 2007, 12:56
Indeed you're right, I meant more than once.
One airport that I can think about is LTAI with departure to the north,on a hot day, on a full B733

Dehavillanddriver
4th Nov 2007, 13:17
In order to properly assess the performance capability out of each runway, a proper analysis of the obstacle field needs to be done.

This involves looking at type A charts, topos of an appropriate scale and any other information that you can get your hand on (google earth is an excellent tool for general orientation and "reasonableness")

I would suggest that most performance engineers would automatically look at straight ahead first in order to see if the terrain allows an unrestricted (or close enough to unrestricted) payload.

If the terrain is such that a turn is required then they draw up the splays account for all the obstacles and use those obstacles to produce the runway charts.

In many cases they only publish the turn procedure - simply assuming that crews understand, or the ops manual clearly states, that in the absence of a published procedure the procedure is straight ahead.

Personally I prefer to publish a procedure for every runway - even if the procedure is straight ahead clean up at 1000 ft.

This eliminates any doubt and also gets people into the habit of looking for an engine failure procedure for every runway.

One observation of performance engineers who are not pilots is that in order to milk the last kg of payload out of a procedure they often make the procedure so complicated that the average pilot can't actually fly it - or can't fly it accurately, which kind of defeats the purpose.

I am thinking of the procedures like "runway head to 5 dme then left track 125 to 9 dme then turn left track to the VOR and hold".

I use (or used to when I did this stuff) the "dark and stormy night" test - could I do this myself in the aeroplane on a dark and stormy night having just flown 4 busy days, am totally shagged, and have an ineffective offsider.

The other thing I dont like is procedures that use heights and/or headings - "at 1500 ft turn right heading 300" - how can you be sure that you are tracking where the performance engineer intended you to track?

So Alex - after that rant - it might be worth checking with your performance engineering people - who might be an internal department or Jepps, Navtech or somesuch other external organisation, that if no procedure is published then straight ahead is the appropriate procedure.

Denti
4th Nov 2007, 13:25
We use a standard procedure of straight ahead, acceleration (flap retraction) at 1500' AGL, 30 NM obstacle radius. However for some runways we have emergency turn procedures and i'm sure LTAI to the north has one, however i wasn't there for quite some time.

We use a programm called TOPerf on our EFBs for performance and that provides the OEI procedure as well. As far as i know that program is made and maintained by hapag lloyd and uses a boeing background program and database for the actual performance calculation.

All that for 733s only at the moment.

FCS Explorer
4th Nov 2007, 13:33
as far as i know the operator is responsible to create an engine-out proc. so different companies might have different climb-outs for a given runway.
with us it's mostly straight, min flap 800AAL, but the take-off-performance software on the laptop always tells us clearly what to do.
terrain situation might lead to turning procedures and the engine-out routing is available as FMS-routing with has to be EXECuted on the box after liftoff.

alexban
4th Nov 2007, 14:25
ECS- you have takeoff engine-out procedure on the 737 FMS? Is it 10.6 version?
Or you have EFB installed on your 738?

FCS Explorer
4th Nov 2007, 15:18
it's on the FMS. supposedly the FMC detects an engine out and puts the EO-SID on top of the LEGS page. PM/PNF then EXECutes it.
not sure if it is 10.6 or 10.7 or whatever. i don't fly that often and things change fast.

Centaurus
6th Nov 2007, 12:22
use (or used to when I did this stuff) the "dark and stormy night" test - could I do this myself in the aeroplane on a dark and stormy night having just flown 4 busy days, am totally shagged, and have an ineffective offsider

The chances of that combination AND a engine failure at V1 AND the lowest worst flight path gradient, is for all practical purposes, zero. We fly complicated SIDS with one engine inoperative provided the info provided by the performance engineers is correct. This includes dark nights and long duty hours. Of course these are assiduously practiced in the simulator and any totally shagged pilot given further training.

What pilots need to know is to what distance from the runway is the obstacle survey valid. I flew with one well known European 737 operator who provided individual runway analysis charts that only went out to 5 miles and then you were on your own with a vengeance. The excuse given was the particular country that provided the obstacle charts only measured out to 5 miles. As there was a bloody great island with a hill 2000 ft high just 7 miles in the middle of the engine-out flight path, this was not mentioned.
All runway analysis charts that take into account obstacles should include where pertinent an "escape" procedure with sufficient guidance to enable the aircraft to reach a safe height for return for a published instrument approach.