G/A below minima

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

I have searched the forum, but could not find a thread on this topic- I am sure it must have been discussed before so please forgive me for posting a new thread. :\
If you are unlucky enough to find yourself below minima on a single engine approach when you find the runway to be blocked and forced to go around, would you:
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)

For the sake of argument let's assume we have a tall mountain ahead and you are performance "challenged":E. I have had this discussion with colleagues in the bar a few times earlier, but we were all trained on the same SOPs. I would love to hear some opinions.
Thanks! :)

[Dream Land]

My guess is that your aircraft should be able to comply with the standard SID performance.

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

Yes, but Single Engine/ one engine out.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

This sort of sick question illustrates why these folk would be better employed in accountancy.

Keep them away from an aeroplane. They could easily be hurt.

[galaxy flyer]

While OEI go arounds are practiced, I'd damn sure let the tower know our situation, probably by "confirm the runway is clear as we have an emergency'" radio call. If perf were really critical, there could be an argument for landing and take the consequences. Crashing into a car might be better than slamming into a mountain.

Yes, accountancy might be a better pastime

GF

[PappyJ]

Since you were all trained on the same SOP, let us know which aircraft we're discussing and you may get some more accurate opinions.

If we are talking about typical GA aircraft type - with the scenario you presented - I'm gonna have to agree with Galaxy on this; run into the car in a somewhat controlled condition.

If we are discussing an aircraft which is capable of reasonable Single Engine performance, then the solutions would be:

All those which you suggested, and the one that EVERYONE seems to forget....

Look out the window, and fly visually around the obstacles!


That said, you may want to check out Top Accounting Schools & Top Accounting Programs | Top Accounting Colleges & Accounting Classes - AccountingProgramsU.com (http://www.accountingprogramsu.com/)

[framer]

All things being equal/standard....there is a different climb gradient required for the SID and for the MAP which makes one of them more attractive to you.
The single engine emergency tracking will obviously follow a low terrain path as well.
If you know what these are and are still argueing in the bar about it then I'm puzzled.....if you don't then looking them up will help you remember them better than me just telling you what they are.
You would have done well to brief the go-round tracking in the hold before commencing the approach as well considering how critical this field is with the mountain and all.

[Wizofoz]

Perfectley reasnoble and often asked question.

The answer is:- If your aircraft cannot meet the required climb gradient of the missed approach, fly the engine out procedure.

[Akali Dal]

Wiz......absolutely correct unless you are visual and meet obstacle clearance visually.

Wiz is absolutely right that it is a perfectly reasonable questions. I wonder what make barbie's paramour and gf to be so haughty and intolerant.

I have self professed skygods begging for jobs in incredible India ASKING ME THIS when I pointed out to them during line training:ugh::ugh:

[Sciolistes]

Wizofoz,

I agree it is a reasonable question.

I think I would consider that I would probably be nearly DH/MDH * 2 below the missed app profile with a balked landing just prior to touchdown, and that height loss cannot be assumed to be regained if on one engine. If there is no one engine SID then perhaps a normal SID maybe a better choice given that you will be a few hundred feet above that profile, and unless there are promulgated specific climb gradient requirements I think it maybe safer to assume that you will remain clear throughout the manoeuvre despite the initial standard SID climb gradient being higher.

In short, I'm thinking that flying a normal SID is a valid consideration.

[Dream Land]

Wiil the real accountant, please stand up. :D

[Sciolistes]

What, you mean factually spot on but practically useless :\

[despegue]

"Fly the Engine out procedure"... All very well, but that must imply that you either know this procedure completely by heart or you have the procedure written/depicted in front of you when landing. Now as this is a procedure used for T/O, I doubt that many have... :rolleyes

[Kirks gusset]

SE Go around you should fly the standard missed approach as published, the EO procedure is only applicable to runway departures.

Fly a SID? Nonsense

Below Minima? You would have to be a long way below minima not to be able to comply with the GA proceedure in terms of climb gradients and your speed would have to have decayed below VREF as VREF for you landing flap is V2 for the next stage GA Flap.

In circumstances where a high missed approach gradient is required your landing weights will be restricted as per your performance manual, in other words, you would also have to be over performance limited landing weight as well.

Quick look at Pan Ops 8168 might clear this up for you.

All in all, it would have had to be a complete mess up.

If you were trained to the same SOPs, what do they state..

[Blip]

This issue has been raised a number of times in the past here in pprune if you look back far enough and each time I have been amazed by those people that dismiss this issue.

In my opinion, your ONLY option is to fly the Take-Off One-Engine-Inoperative procedure for that runway. Let me explain why.

Some days you might get away with following the published missed approach when the terrain is flat in the surrounding area and the tracking is straight ahead, or if there is a turn away from high terrain but this happens some distance past the upwind end of the runway. You would without a doubt be below the designed climb gradient, but this is of no consequence.

Some days you might get away with following a SID for that runway. This time at least you begin at an altitude above the minimum climb gradient required, but there is no guarantee that you will remain above this before reaching the MSA.

Remaining clear of terrain visually is fraught with danger too. I can think of at least one one-engine-inoperative procedure that requires tracking in one direction, then after some distance, a turn back to fly overhead the aerodrome. Interestingly, the procedure turns to the right whereas the SID turns to the left! Also to continue straight ahead visually and simply looking for the lowest saddle between two peaks on the horizon would almost certainly result in contact with terrain. Just because you can see it doesn't mean your not still destined to hit it.

And what are these people going to do at night eh??

No. The only way you are going to ensure terrain separation in every case is to study the engine-inoperative procedure for that runway during the approach briefing.

I would like to add too that not only is the tracking important, the acceleration altitude is also very important. Quite often it is the standard height of 800 ft above the runway (for my company at least), but there are also exceptions. The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft! The take-off performance charts for that runway are climb limited and require an acceleration not below 2000 ft!

Also the take-off limits for that runway are much lower than the structural landing weight limits. If you are departing AKL for the east coast of Australia in conditions below the landing minima, and therefore require a Return Airport other than AKL, you'd better have done your homework if you are going to divert to WLG after losing an engine above V1 in AKL. Rejecting a landing at a weight well above the MTOW for RWY 34, then accelerating 1200 ft below the minimum acceleration altitude is surely going to end in tears!

Do people still think it's not worthy of serious consideration?

And don't come back with a counter argument starting with the words "Yeah but what are the chances bla bla bla..."

Answer: 10^-6? 10^-8?? I don't know. But I would say it's just as likely as an engine failure at V1 and we all know how much effort goes in to having that scenario taken in to account.

[turnandburn]

//////////

[FCS Explorer]

:} actually there's always some truck on the rwy when i come in single engine the first time and i have to make a G/A from 50ft. and on the 2nd app we land.
also on the 2nd app the wx is suddenly better but the ils is down...:\

[mm43]

The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft! Oh dear! Why bother flying into the terrain? You've got a whole harbour below, and a simple bank into the righthand circuit will deliver you to the South Pole, if you've got nothing else to do.:=

mm43

[Blip]

Oh dear indeed mm43! Are proposing we just make it up as we go along??

Last time I checked the WLG 34 ILS chart it indicated that CIRCLE-TO-LAND was "NA". What does that say to a B737 or B767 crew considering your proposed visual circuit during the day, never mind at night or in IMC?

What altitude would you consider safe? There's no published Circling Minima. How far in track miles will it take you to climb to the MSA? Did you brief the other pilot that that was your intention BEFORE commencing the approach or did you just bank the aircraft into the downwind turn without warning? Great CRM that.

Like I said, you need a procedure that will consistently ensure terrain clearance in all situations. You need to be clear about your intentions before you commence the approach.

[Capriati]

@TurnandBurn: Yes you are right about the A330 part. But the overweight landing procedure (A332) says that during a G/A you should retract flaps/slats to 1 instead of one dent less. This obviously leads to a better climb performance. But will it make up for the excess weight?

Regards,
Capriati

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

Does it matter? We had 9 different fleets in the company all CAT C or D.

BLIP- Spot on.

The company flew to over 900 destinations all over the world and the point made to us was- When breifing the approach have a look at your "flygprestanda" for OEI procedure as it may differ from your missed approach and that could be your life insurance if a go around below minima is required. Reasons for which could be numerous. Fire trucks on the runway due to you declaring an emergency with the OEI could be one. I do not think it would make a big difference hitting a fire truck (or more) or hitting a moutain- the outcome would be the same I think :(

Accountant? :uhoh: I am terrified to hear that commercial pilots (assuming that they are) advocate making up procedures or just do not worry about worst case scenarios. :ooh:
Seriously! If your level of professionalism is as reflected in your posts I am worried!

[Wizofoz]

despegue,

As I'm sure you're finding out from reading here, it is indeed considered SOP by many operators to know the EOP for the runway you are landing on, particularly if you are SE and know there are terrain issues in the go-around.

Kirks Gusset,

You are not guarenteed making required climb gradient S/E for the Missed Approach from the minima, let alone below it. And I don't mean in a piston twin. I fly 777s, and even the -300ER won't make 2.5% under some conditions, and there are also approaches with higher than standard gradients required.

Under those circumstances you are stuck either with higher minimas, or the requirement to plan a non-standard MAP. In either case, the aircraft will not make required terrain clearence if you flew the standard MAP from below the minima.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Blackcoffeenosugar,

You are not expected to look at the take off performance and engine out procedure when flying an approach and GA, and ATC will not expect you to fly a SID, so my ANS = A.

The GA procedure's for PANS OPS 1, 2 and 3 plates assumed you could make 2.5% gradient initially, a level acceleration at a published acceleration altitude (or if non published then your company's standard AA) for 7 miles, and then a small +ve climb gradient with MCT set and clean. Most Pans OPS 4 plates don't include the performance calculation and it's up to the operator to choose his AA. The published initial turn on the GA, speeds to fly and tracks etc. should ensure a safe trajectory provided you can make the published gradient from your minimum.

Since you started the GA from below minima, you may be in deep poo.

If your calculated GA gradient is below the published figure (due overweight landing etc.), then you should have advised ATC that you would be unable to GA from the approach due performance, and have received "Landing Assured" before you commenced the approach.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

If this should happen to you- Clearly you are having a day that no approach plate writer foresaw.

Fly your aircraft and do your best. No plate can help you.

When weird stuff happens-and it does. You will get ZERO help from books or plates.

Instead of worrying about unlikely (in fact, so unlikely that it will probably never happen to anyone) **** like this, learn to hand fly your a/c to a good standard. Or do some other useful work.

Either that, or..................accountancy!

Remember. The books are there so the company can kick your ass. If you think they are there to help you? Think again...it's not the whole story.

On reflection, I suppose your hypothesis could have some value in the SIM.

But do you think, it could ever happen in real life? And realy.................is it ever likely to GETCHA!

[Kirks gusset]

Wizofoz, In circumstances where the net climb gradient for the missed approach is not guaranteed, the landing weight is reduced or the minima is higher, we have already stated that. I flew 777 as well, so please advise me when I can't make the gradient taking into account the above.

Balckcoffeenosugar, The missed approach should commence at the MAP. The EO sid commences after take off at the DER. How do you propose to get from the MAP back onto the EO sid. The screen height and terrain clearance from the EO sid is MORE restrictive as it assumes a starting position of zero ft on the runway, not from a MAP height of perhaps 200'.

Looking at typical cases, Geneva, Dalaman,the landing weights are all restricted and there are two minima for different climb gradient, I fail to see where the problem is unless the restrictions have been overlooked.

The 2.5% net climb should be achievable.

In cases where the GA performance is questionable, eg gear no retraction, the approach should not be commenced unless a landing is assured.

The problem with all this stuff is that it is theory and sensible airmanship will prevail, but if you are not following the std missed approach procedure all terms of refference are lost at a time of high workload.
The other consideration here is speed, some missed approach and EO sids, eg CMF are based on a fixed speed to keep the a/c within the protection area, carrying out a missed approach and then trying to get on the E/O sid.. pray tell.

Blackcoffeenosugars, what do your SOPs state?

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

You seem to have missed the part about this being a go around/ balked landing below minima (regardless of which ones). You are in fact closer to the DER than to the MAP. Also- the fact that you are slightly higher and faster than you normally would be at DER following would improve you chances of making the minimum gradient there is no shame in making a better gradient?
May I suggest that you read BLIPs post again.

SOPs, as per my previous statement, all the pilots I discussed this with were trained to the same SOPs. There was however (at that time) no specific reference to G/A below minima with an engine out.

Ken- you frighten me:). Yes I have had it in the SIM. What do you know about my stick&rudder abilities anyway? (I haven't flown with you, have I? :\)

[Wizofoz]

I flew 777 as well, so please advise me when I can't make the gradient taking into account the above.


1) When below minima, the point of this whole thread.

2) When reducing landing weight involves jettisining all ones fuel plus more- not always optimal!!!

In cases where the GA performance is questionable, eg gear no retraction, the approach should not be commenced unless a landing is assured.


No landing is EVER 100% assured!!

[FE Hoppy]

Note that the aircraft is certified for 2.1% approach climb gradient (twin oei) not the 2.5% that the procedures may be designed to.

[Kirks gusset]

Blackcoffeenosugars, I'm confused now! I just stated that the go around from the MAP must be less restrictive as you have a better climb gradient as you have more height and distance. Hence there is no reason not to follow the published missed approach,your climb gradient is assured if you follow the profile.
The Go Around point, even below minima, cannot possibly be closer to the EO SID than the DER. Most runways are 2 miles long, the MAP for an NPA will be 2 miles this side, for a CAT 1 .75 miles, thats at least 2.75 miles before the start of the EO side, probably more, as the first segment will add another mile, advantage at least 3 miles, or XXX feet in altitude.

For a balked landing SE? once the wheels have touched? never, never.

We do not have to follow the EO sid for the Go Around from the same runway we departed for instance as we are already at V2 and the performance allows for the normal SID.

Probably, the reason there was no discussion on go around below minima is that there is no legislation to cover this, other than, don't go below minima unless you have the required viusal refferences to land.

Rudderrudderrat is quite correct in the statements made.

Blips opinion, it's a debate, he's entitled to it, it's not approved or recognised and has practical problems, no LNAV available for instance, unless you know an FMS where I can sequence a departure E/O sid following an approach?
Where no circle minima is published, rules are found in PAN OPS, it's not a guessing game here.
The suggestion you are below minima in the first place implies IMC conditions and the visual terrain avoidance hmm?

Wizofoz, In the cases you sited, Dumping fuel, I am assume you are reffering to an return to land or diversion possible overweight landing.
For clarity, In terms of your opinions to the three scenarios presented in the original post..what course of action are you suggesting.. an Non Standard missed approach was not one of the options.

FE Hoppy, the minimum certified perf is 2.4% at V2, obviously if you are below V2 this will not be guaranteed.

[turnandburn]

//////////

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Blackcoffeenosugar.

Heck! You scare easily!:uhoh:

Plainly, old chap, I've no idea at all about your hand flying skills. You could be the next Bob Hoover for all I know.

I've met plenty of folk who are ****-hot in the books before though, and lets just say that they're not always the most capable in the cockpit.:hmm:

There's more important stuff than this obscure bollocks, to worry about!

IMHO, of course.;)

[ManaAdaSystem]

I fly into airports surrounded by high terrain on a regular basis. I suspect some of the answers here come from pilots who do not.
Staying on a SID will not protect you if you lose one engine, not during take off, not during MISAP from above or below minima. It MAY be OK, but you don't really know.
The MISAP procedure will protect you in the event of a single engine MISAP from minimums. It is designed to do this, and if you have terrain issues you will have different minima depending on your weight/performance. You need to check this during planning, and if needed, the weight must be limited.
If you go around from below minimums on a single engine you need to stay on your take off E/O procedure. And. yes, I have this procedure available when I fly into any of these airports. It doesn't say anywhere that I HAVE to, but my @ss is in the aircraft, and my objective is to keep it safe.

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

The scenario has you below minima- which you would be if you had the required references and was attempting to land, but then some thing happens that forces you to go around. Be it fire trucks on the runway, another aircraft on the runway (for whatever reason) etc.

The point is you have gone below with intentions to land and now you can not land.

I am not advocating busting minima for fun or not following a missed approach if a missed approach profile can be followed.
In the scenario you have to come up with a good solution fast.
We are now discussing it on an internet forum and can have different solutions and have the luxury of time to discuss them. This way if the scenario should present it self in the future one will hopefully have "experience" in figuring out a solution.

With regards to LNAV- RNAV is not allowed with pilot defined waypoints, but the procedure could have NAV aids and radials to follow. AND this is an Emergency!
On the Airbus you could as an example enter the OEI SID in Secondary flight plan.
On the Boeing you could enter the points after your missed approach (with a discontinuity) and line select/sequence the first waypoint if you go around below minima.
On PROLINE 21 you could do the same as on the Boeing or use FIXes (provided you have enough FIXes available) the latter would require you to fly in HDG but the MAP presentation will be pretty dxxn good.

IF you choose to follow the SID you might not make the required gradient because of you weight or just because you are SE even with the better starting point (V2++) Higher than AFE and at least at the other end of the RWY.
IF you attempt to get back up on the missed approach profile you might not make the required gradient because you are lower and further along i.e passed the MAP.

IF you fly the engine out procedure (EO SID) you already have more altitude and speed than the procedure assumes (as you are already airborne before the runway starts) and this could make up for the fact that you are heavier.
And there are to my knowledge no EO SID with a higher gradient requirement than a SID?
This solution is only do-able provided you have looked at it whist briefing the approach in the first place.

[FE Hoppy]

CS25.121

(d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which VSR for this configuration does not exceed 110% of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2·1% for two-engined aeroplanes, 2·4% for three-engined aeroplanes and 2·7% for four-engined aeroplanes, with – bla bla bla bla

Take off climb second segment is 2.4% at V2

You have no idea what V2 is on final approach. You do know exactly what Vac is. I'm quite sure that in the case of a go around most pilots would follow their fight directors which will in most modern jets guide to Vac in the single engine go around case.

Vac gives a 2.1% gradient or 2.5% Cat II/III

[Kirks gusset]

I agree with all that Mr Hoppy, however one slight exception: we do know what V2 is on final approach, Vref for current flap setting is V2 for the GA flaps at 1.3VS. so Vref 25 is V2 20.
I'm prepared to be corrected here, but I thought the approach climb gradient of 2.1% was without reconfiguring,i.e with landing flaps, which is why it is more penalising than the 2.4% certification requirement..any thoughts?
That's enough thread creep for me, in the revised situation, we find ourselves half way down the runway s/e at 5o feet, then flying the EO sid may be worth considering, if we GA at the MAP, its the standard missed approach.

[safewing]

I'm nearly sure that there is a requirement that VREF is equal to or greater than V2 specifically to cater for this scenario.

How it is done may be manufacturer specific but that is a fundamental I believe.

[FE Hoppy]

I'm not going to copy paste CS25 as it's available free for download.

Vac has no relation to V2. It may be that some manufacturers have tied the two together but each is independent and has it's own requirements. Some aircraft go around with flap settings not available for Take off and as such there is no V2 schedule for the configuration.

Landing climb is 3.2% all engines operating landing flap and gear down. This may limit Vref to a speed higher than the minimum stall margin. This is the case for the Ejets with flaps Full. So much drag that to make the landing climb requirements they had to increase the Vref speeds.

[Sir Donald]

Why isn't there an explicit SOP to deal with such situation?
Ask the training department?
Then you get''where is that written'' on a line check. Sound familiar?

Aviation is full of deficiencies and especially at airline level. That deficiency is often filled implicitly by the crew's skill and knowledge.They exercise judgement based on?
When they fail to fill this deficiency as some many here have clearly demonstrated in theory, then the airline has no option (due to ass covering) to put it down to pilot error.

For the real answer seek guidance from the Chief pilot and in writing, should you are unable to come up with an answer at the bar!

[gearpins]

Blackcoffeenosugar,
Approach climb gradient(for twins) is 2.1%.assuming
S.E.;G/A FLAPS;L/Gup;live Eng at max avail thrust.
For cat II and above the requirement is 2.5% from Airfield elevation.
Before commencing an approach if it is determined that 2.5% can be met then there is no problem flying the published G/A even if initiated below cat I minima since all charts are based on 2.5%(those that require higher, are stated on the chart.)
hope that answers your concern about a G/A below minima.
In situations where you cannot meet 2.5% or the specific gradient required at some airfields, the crew can, with prior advice to ATC (preferably before commencing the approach) choose to fly the E.O.sid for want of a better option.
hope that helps
cheers:)

[Sciolistes]

Approach climb gradient(for twins) is 2.1%.assuming
S.E.;G/A FLAPS;L/Gup;live Eng at max avail thrust.
For cat II and above the requirement is 2.5% from Airfield elevation.
Do you have a reference, as that is not what 8168 says? It says a nominal 2.5% from minimums.

[despegue]

Some wise answers here.

When flying around critical terrain, always have your Engine-fail escape route ready and planned-for is an advice that I have been given years ago, and follow. Although the Engine-fail procedure is theoretically only valid when your failure happens at V1, it IS the procedure with the best margins, PROVIDED THAT ATC IS ADVICED AND AWARE. THis can't be stressed enough.

This is a good discussion so please don't hold back, give your opinion, be advicate-of the-devil (like I often play by suggesting "alternative" views) and we'll all learn.

[Artificial Horizon]

Thankfully my company Perf Manual is very clear on this subject. It states:

In the event of a single engine missed approach from below MDA the aircraft should be flown to the departure end of the runway and the engine out Obstacle Clearance Procedure followed to ensure terrain clearance.

Seems pretty clear to me and now means that I include the OCP in my single engine approach briefing, just in case.:ok::ok:

[gearpins]

Sciolistes,
unfotunately I do not have a ready reference to attach or quote.

it is my understanding that cerification requirement for approach climb gradient one engine inop:-
is 2.1% for twins, 2.4% for 3eng, and2.7% for 4eng a/c.(from ATPL days)

Doc8168 refers to the 2.5% used to establish procedures and charts.

Do correct me if I am wrong.
cheers:)

[9.G]

Reference is EU OPS 1.510
The landing weight of the aircraft shall not exceed the maximum landing weight specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate airport.
For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2.5%, the expected landing mass of the aeroplane shall allow a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one- engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed.
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*)

For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, the approach weight of the aeroplane, taking into account the take-off weight and the fuel expected to be consumed in flight, must allow a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2.5%, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater.

(*) The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach should be considered.
As an alternative method, an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height and/or a contingency procedure providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved.

Taking into account the regulations following the contingency procedure for go around is an option provided it's approved and published in the manual or if PIC regards it to be the safest coure of actions.

P.S there's two requirements:
approach climb assuming OEI and gear up etc requiring 2,1 %
landing climb assuming normal config and gear down 3,2 %
For all Airbus aircraft, this constraint is covered by the approach climb requirement. In its operational documentation (FCOM), Airbus publishes the maximum weight limited by the approach climb gradient only. Landing climb performance is found in the AFM. Those are just certification requirements.

Compliance with a published MA climb gradient must be evaluated for the very concrete approach with valid data. Keeping contingency procedure for a EO in case of a go around is always IMHO a must. :ok:

[clunckdriver]

All sounds very complicated! Its much clearer in my little 421, the placard on the side wall says'" To maintain level flight with one engine inop, speed must be above Blue Line {110kts} gear retracted, flaps retracted, inop engine prop fully feathered, truck or no truck on the Piste, we are landing once that gear is out, now isnt that much more simple than all this technical bafflegab?

[MungoP]

What we teach in the sim is that with one engine out (assuming a twin) you are an emergancy a/c and as such it's perfectly reasonable to request an alternate MAP if the published involves any immediate turns. Certainly the a/c may be capable but the pilot is already involved in a heavy worload so why exacerbate the situation ?
The request to ATC should be made prior to the approach not at the missed approach point.

[Avenger]

One must consider that some airports do not have an alternative go-around, some of the horse shoe valleys for instance and the EO SID is based on a DME and Speed and ALT, if you are going to execute this as an alternative, or even consider doing so, It should be briefed and as much of it set up in advance, even if it's just radials form the fix pages. Somewhere like CMF is a strictly disciplined affair or a crash..

[FE Hoppy]

OK, so now we have an engine out, a need to go around below minimums, and an unusual engine out sid that we are going to pre-brief!

I would be interested to know:

a) In the last 20 years how many aircraft have had to go around below minimums?

b) How many of those were OEI?

c) How many of those were at an airfield with unusual terrain?

d) How many aircraft were eaten by Godzilla type sea monsters?


My guess is that d = c

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Exactly.:ok:

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

How many aircraft had an engine fail @ V1?
Is your suggestion that we do not discuss that scenario either?
:ugh:

[FE Hoppy]

How many aircraft had an engine fail @ V1?
Is your suggestion that we do not discuss that scenario either?

No. That's quite a realistic proposition.

But a double engine failure after V1 when taking off from an aircraft carrier isn't.

There is no performance standard for a OEI missed approach from below minima.

The only requirement from below minima is landing climb for which the aircraft is certified to make a 3.2% gradient.

Why would anyone be taking a jet OEI into an airfield with dodgy terrain? and not securing the runway before commencing approach?

We could make up ridiculous scenarios all day to discuss but they are of little or no benefit when half the audience doesn't know what the aircraft is certified to do or what assumptions various procedures use.

Much better to make sure we can all do the stuff that is likely to happen properly. If that day ever comes then we can move on to the unlikely and eventually the ridiculous.

[Blackcoffeenosugar]

Yet artificial horizons company chooses to includes it in their perf manual.

1. What gives you the right to accuse half the audiences of not knowing?

2. How do you decide what is likely or not? Funny that you mention double engine failure when taking of from an aircraft carrier as there is a procedure for that ;-) Albeit military, I don't think ICAO remembered any civilian aircraft carriers. What would you think the ASDA is on a carrier since you assume there is a V1? I propose you did not think that one through.

Might I remind you FE, that not all operate aircraft as new as your E170 and some have grandfathers rights as the aircraft design is old?
With regards to assuring a clear runway you can NEVER do that. Where did you do your ATPL training? Not everybody operate on fixed routes either.
Apart from that, it would be great if you could issue you rules for what one may post so that one doesn't make the mistake of posting something you do not find worthwhile in the future. Until then thanks to those giving good answers.

[9.G]

Gents, it helps just to concentrate on the subject itself. The points brought up here are valid in both ways: on one hand we're talking about aircraft's certification requirements, which must be kept within some reasonable boundaries (e.g dual engine flame out on a twin during takeoff is not part of certification whereas dual flame out in cruise is), on the other hand there's legal requirements bounding the operator regardless of a/c's certification requirements to ensure safe operation as we saw in the relevant EU OPS 1.510
The bottom line here is aircraft's certification doesn't mean automatically safe operation, does it? All the rule says is that one must comply with the gradient, doesn't it? Regardless of the timing of EO the requirement is still very much valid. EO might occur at any time in real life, there's no guaranties. It's up to the operator how safe the operation runs. On the other hand there's always money at stake. The ruling allows the operator safe operation using alternative methods (using the EOSID for GA) in order to retain max payload. It's far simpler in reality as we try to picture it. A serious operator takes care of GA performance for each and every RWY it operates and makes it accessible to the crew. All the pilot has to do is simply have a look at the GA performance layout and decide what to do when it comes to that. No brainer at all. :ok:

[gearpins]

9.G,
Good contructive post,
cheers :)

[fdr]

Hi.

While on a normal approach the application of an OEI procedure in relation to a rejected landing is excessive, a loss of engine and a rejected landing or vv can happen. For an OEI approach, it would be prudent to ensure that the rejected landing case performance is assured.

The FAA position is it ACCEPTS OEI procedures, JAR/EU OPS is somewhat different.

Under PANS OPS, (ICAO Doc 8168) procedures do occasionally have altered minima due to G/A gradient issues, HKG 07L/R ILS being one example. (Under TERPS, I am not certain that is to be the case).

An OEI missed approach commenced from the published minima should usually be assured terrain separation by design, (but with the broad caveat of IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)], shown below).

In the case that the aircraft descends below the minima during the missed approach, that is part of the design for DH operations. Where a late go around/rejected landing occurs, then it is prudent under FAA and required by JAR to follow a procedure that assures terrain separation. Separation is not assured by TERPS/PANS OPS in such a case, so it is reasonable to follow the OEI procedure if published. If no OEI procedure is published, and the operation is a Part 121/135 or similar, JAR-OPS1/EU-OPS 1, then the operator is obliged to have assessed OEI procedures, and no procedure should mean no obstacles exist that affect OEI operations.... in a properly functioning system at least. If you end up going into an airport not analysed by your company on one engine, I would suggest a fairly close look at the charts for obstacles, or ask for information from ATC if time/workload permits.

[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be
approved] [ ]. IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]

Do note that the OEI procedure does not assure the same terrain clearance that PANS OPS/TERPS procedures do for normal operations.

Stuff does happen, and usually at the most inopportune time.

(The certification criteria for the aircraft performance is in FAR 25 and CS-25, and the procedures for showing compliance are well stated in FAA AC 25-07A, and CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ).

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear."

William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I Scene V (1564-1616)

Links:
AC 120-91 - Airport Obstacle Analysis - Document Information (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22479)



References:

FAA AC120-OBS-11,
AC120-91 (by AFS-400)
FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
FAA Form 8260-10
JAR-OPS 1.510
JAR-OPS 1.495
JAR-AWO
JAR-OPS 1 AMC & IEN
CS-25
FAR 25
FAA AC 25-07A
CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ
IEM OPS 1.495(f) Engine failure procedures
JAR-OPS 1.495(f)
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]

[FE Hoppy]

I fail to see anywhere in a) your post and b) ops-1, any reference to a requirement to plan for a OEI landing climb.

There is no such performance standard nor procedural requirement.


Note: I speak from EASA EU standard as I'm not fully aware of FAA requirements.

[fdr]

"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".
Mark Twain (1835-1910)

JAR/EU:
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] :

Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].

FAA:
AC120-91:
MISSED APPROACH VS REJECTED LANDING: A One-Engine-Inoperative Missed Approach Can Frequently Be Flown Following The Published Missed Approach Procedure. Rejected Landing May Require Some Other Procedure

FAA reqt for OEI procedures on Departure:
Sections*121.177, 121.189, 135.367, 135.379, And 135.398
"The Takeoff Flightpath Must Meet The Specified Obstacle Clearance Requirements In The Event Of An Engine Failure. CFR Part 97 Applies To Standard Instrument Approach Procedures"


AC120-91 preamble exclusions (Page 1):

The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are neither mandatory nor the only acceptable methods for ensuring compliance with the regulatory sections. Operators may use other methods if those methods are shown to provide the necessary level of safety and are acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This AC need not serve as the sole basis for determining whether an obstacle analysis program meets the intent of the regulations. However, the methods and guidelines described in this AC have been derived from extensive FAA and industry experience and are considered acceptable to the FAA when appropriately used. Mandatory words such as “shall” or “must” apply only to those who seek to demonstrate compliance to a specific rule by use of a method set out in this AC without deviation.

AC120-91 Page 15/20:


17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.

a. General.

(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.

(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.

NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.

(3) A distinction needs to be made between a missed approach and a rejected landing. A one-engine-inoperative missed approach from the minimum descent altitude (height) (MDA (H)), decision altitude (height) (DA (H)), or above can frequently be flown following the published missed approach procedure. A rejected landing from a lower altitude may require some other procedure (e.g., following the same one-engine-inoperative procedure as used for takeoff). In any case, the pilot should be advised of the appropriate course of action when the published missed approach procedure cannot be safely executed.

b. Assessment Considerations.

(1) Operators may accomplish such assessments generically for a particular runway, procedure, aircraft type, and expected performance, and need not perform this assessment for each specific flight. Operators may use simplifying assumptions to account for the transition, reconfiguration, and acceleration distances following go-around (e.g., use expected landing weights, anticipated landing flap settings).

(2) The operator should use the best available information or methods from applicable AFMs or supplementary information from aircraft or engine manufacturers. If performance or flightpath data are not otherwise available to support the necessary analysis from the above sources, the operator may develop, compute, demonstrate, or determine such information to the extent necessary to provide for safe obstacle clearance.

(3) The operational considerations should include:
(a) Go-around configuration transitions from approach to missed approach configuration, including expected flap settings and flap retraction procedures.
(b) Expected speed changes.
(c) Appropriate engine failure and shutdown (feathering if applicable) provisions, if the approach was assumed to be initiated with all engines operative.
(d) Any lateral differences of the missed approach flightpath from the corresponding takeoff flightpath.
(e) Suitable balked landing obstacle clearance until reaching instrument approach, missed approach, or en route procedurally protected airspace.
(f) Any performance or gradient loss during turning flight.
(g) Methods used for takeoff analysis (such as improved climb), one-engine-inoperative maximum angle climb, or other such techniques may be used.
(h) Operators may make obstacle clearance assumptions similar to those applied to corresponding takeoff flightpaths in the determination of net vertical flightpath clearance or lateral track obstacle clearance.

c. Assessment Conditions for Balked Landing.

(1) A “balked landing” starts at the end of the touchdown zone (TDZ). A TDZ typically is considered to be the first one-third of the available landing distance or 3,000 feet, whichever is less. When appropriate for the purposes of this provision, operators may propose to use a different designation for a TDZ. For example, alternate consideration of a TDZ may be appropriate for runways:
(a) That are less than 6,000 feet in length and which do not have standard TDZ markings;
(b) That are short and require special aircraft performance information or procedures for landing;
(c) That are for Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft; or
(d) Where markings or lighting dictate that a different TDZ designation would be more appropriate.

(2) An engine failure occurs at the initiation of the balked landing from an all-engines-operating configuration.

(3) Balked landing initiation speed > VREF or VGA (as applicable).

(4) Balked landing initiation height is equal to the specified elevation of the TDZ.

(5) Balked landing initiation configuration is normal landing flaps and gear down.

(6) At the initiation of the maneuver, all engines are at least in a spooled configuration.

d. “One-Way” Airports or Other Special Situations.

(1) Where obstacle clearance is determined by the operator to be critical, such as for:
(a) Airports in mountainous terrain that have runways that are used predominantly for landing in one direction and takeoff in the opposite direction (“one way in” and “opposite way out”); or
(b) Runways at which the planned landing weight is greater than the allowed takeoff weight.

(2) The operator should provide the following guidance to the flightcrew:
(a) The flightpath that provides the best ground track for obstacle clearance, and
(b) The maximum weight(s) at which a missed approach or rejected landing can safely be accomplished under various conditions of temperature, wind, and aircraft configuration.

18. ALTERNATE MEANS.

The methods and guidelines presented in this AC are not the only acceptable methods. An operator who desires to use an alternate means should submit an application to the CHDO. The application should describe the alternate assumptions, methods, and criteria to be used along with any other supporting documentation. The CHDO will forward the application through the FSDO (CMO/certificate management unit (CMU)) to the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, for review and approval, if appropriate.

ORIGINAL SIGNED by

Carol Giles for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service




suggest you contact:

FAA AFS-400, [email protected], or alternatively call:
(202) 385-4670
AFS-400 responsibilities:
Policies, Criteria, And Standards For Establishing And Maintaining Terminal And En Route Flight Procedures
Final Authority To Issue, Amend And Appeal Standard Instrument Approach Procedures Under 14 CFR Part 97.
“Special” Instrument Approach Procedures
Requests For Waivers Of Standards.

FAA types of procedures:
Public IAPs: CFR Part 97 (Regulatory), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-1
Special IAP’s: Order 8260.19C (Enabled), TERPS, Flight Checked>AFS-400
SIDs, STARs: TERPS, Flight Checked> National FLIGHT Data Digest (NFDD)
Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFPs): NFDD
Engine Out Procedures (EOPs): Developed By Operator, Accepted By POI

Cheers

"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again". Andre Gide (1869-1951)



regards,

FDR

[9.G]

FE Hoppy, it seems you've answered your own question. Perhaps rereading the alternative methods will help. Let's consider a practical example Zurich ILS 16 CAT I approach, shall we? If you chose DA of 1590 your required MA CG is 5%, isn't it? As we saw it earlier you must be able to fly it in EO conditions, don't you? My questions is: are you gonna follow published MA in case of SE GA at DA assuming A320 performance data? Will you fly published MA in case of a GA from 100 ft AAL as well? :ok:

[FE Hoppy]

FE Hoppy, it seems you've answered your own question. Perhaps rereading the alternative methods will help. Let's consider a practical example Zurich ILS 16 CAT I approach, shall we? If you chose DA of 1590 your required MA CG is 5%, isn't it? As we saw it earlier you must be able to fly it in EO conditions, don't you? My questions is: are you gonna follow published MA in case of SE GA at DA assuming A320 performance data? Will you fly published MA in case of a GA from 100 ft AAL as well?

I think you're missing the point.

OPS 1.510 covers the missed approach requirements including the need to satisfy the published climb gradient when above 2.5% or a minimum of 2.5% when the DH is below 200'. But, in both cases the procedures assume the GA begins at or above the published minima.

The case under discussion is that of a single engine landing climb from below minimum. As described in 17 item 3 of FDRs post above. The FAA have been very clear with their guidance so this thread is closed from an FAA operators point of view and I thank FDR for the excellent post. However, the EASA EU perspective is still open as there is no equivalent guidance in the EU references given thus far.

[fdr]

from BC0S's original post:

If you are unlucky enough to find yourself below minima on a single engine approach when you find the runway to be blocked and forced to go around, would you:
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)


FE... ;

this thread is about engine out G/A's below minima, refer 1st post. This related to whether there needs to be a plan to follow something other than the published MAP if the landing is balked below minima, on one engine out....

"A goal without a plan is just a wish"
Antoine de Saint-Exupery, (1900-1944)

CS 25.119 Landing climb: all-engines-operating

In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3•2%, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting (see AMC 25.119); and

(a) In non-icing conditions, with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(i); and

(b) In icing conditions with the “Landing Ice” accretion defined in Appendix C, and with a climb speed of VREF determined in accordance with CS 25.125(b)(2)(ii).

[Amdt. No.:25/3]

Thats all engines for Landing Climb.

Approach climb Engine out performance is covered as

CS 25.121 Climb: one-engine-inoperative (See AMC 25.121)

(d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding the normal all-engines-operating procedure in
hich VSR for this configuration does not exceed 10% of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating
landing configuration:
(1) The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2•1% for two-engined aeroplanes,
2•4% for three-engined aeroplanes and 2•7% for four-engined aeroplanes, with –
(i) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the go-around power or thrust setting;
(ii) The maximum landing weight;
(iii) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1•4 VSR; and
(iv) Landing gear retracted.

(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (d)(1) of this paragraph must be met:
(i) In non-icing conditions; and
(ii) In icing conditions with the Approach Ice accretion defined in Appendix C. The climb speed selected for non-icing conditions may be used if the climb speed for icing conditions, computed in accordance with sub-paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this paragraph, does not exceed that for non-icing conditions by more than the greater of 5.6 km/h (3 knots) CAS or 3%.
[Amdt. No.:25/3]

And of course for nett, subtract 0.8%. Nett is where the real world (read obstacles) live. If your twin climbs on a single engine at MLW gear and flaps down, good for you. If you want to climb via a PANS OPS MAP procedure after a balked landing engine out, again.... good for you. If you are a 4 holer operator, not a big problem, so long as you don't lose the next one (that has only happened about a dozen times, IIRC). As you have indicated it isn't a situation that you are likely to ever experience so that should be an end for it. Unfortunately, as a postholder, under JAR/EASA or FAA that would probably be unwise, and would bite back, certainly it was an audited item on the last JAA/EU AOC I developed, and was also audited by EASA on behalf of JAA. As a pilot, under the FAR, you would also of course end up with CFR 14 Part 91.7 biting you financially, but the upside is that for about a year or so, you wouldn't have to pay for board or lodging. Don't want to get a cell with "Bubba" though.

To put a numeric solution to your question about SINGLE ENGINE LANDING CLIMB, Boeing at least provides that as advisory information, in the QRH PI 13.12 (for the B777):

The B777-200ER/PW4090's, F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL, available climb rate is 120 FPM, GROSS.
The B777-300ER is much more powerful as it is standard with the GE-115B engine...
The -300ER achieves a F30, gear down, ISA +15 SL EO ROC of -30FPM.

SE Landing Climb re G/A? you get what you pay for... Hence the reason the approach climb is where you need to get to fairly quickly. And if the OEI landing climb is considered an unlikely condition to find yourself in, think about the alternate gear extension + 1 pidgeon.

"The highest result of education is tolerance".
Helen Keller, (1880-1968) "Optimism", 1903

cheers,

FDR

[9.G]

FE Hoppy, we're getting there slowly. They key point to the big picture of this admittedly confusing matter is fact that there's two sets of rules:
One is aircraft certification and another one operational is EU OPS or FAR. They're unfortunately not harmonized as you seem to assume OPS 1.510 covers the missed approach requirements including the need to satisfy the published climb gradient when above 2.5% or a minimum of 2.5% when the DH is below 200'. But, in both cases the procedures assume the GA begins at or above the published minima. and the rule doesn't say anywhere you're safe no matter what the MACG might be, on contrary it says;
For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2.5%, the expected landing mass of the aeroplane shall allow a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one- engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed.
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*) Thus in our case for the approach to ILS 16 CAT I in LSZH you have 3 options:
1. Fly higher minimum published for MACG of 2,5%
2. Fly CAT I minima and reduce LW to meet 5% MACG SE
3. Fly CAT I minima and retain MLW but follow EOSID in case of SEGA.
As we saw earlier the operator may do generic calculations so as far as I see my performance layout for RWY 16 says A 320 can follow published MA with MLW CONFIG FULL only when OAT is below 0 C otherwise EOSID.
It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO.:ok: as it's self-explanatory Cheers

[Blip]

It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO. as it's self-explanatory Cheers

Sorry 9.G but I must correct you there. What you mean to say is " IT SHOULD be pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO. as it's self-explanatory Cheers"

Unfortunately the fact that this thread has made it to page 4 suggests that what is self-explanatory to some, is not to many others.

Personally I think ICAO has a lot to answer for in this and many other areas of aviation safety. This area of performance should be accounted for just as thoroughly as take-off performance, but it clearly isn't.

Whether the aircraft is approaching an airport in the USA, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia, or Australia-Pacific, the same laws of physics and gravity apply yet the regulations covering this aspect of aircraft performance apparently does not.

ICAO should have this covered so that it does not come down to individual national/regional authorities such as FAA, JAA, UK CAA, AUS CASA etc.

Thank you fdr for your FAA references. I would never have known otherwise. I have now downloaded the said document from the original source.

[9.G]

couldn't agree more Blip. No matter how we twist the words the essence doesn't change. Let's write it off as a pun, shall we? FAA is ages ahead of EU in some respect and deserve the credit for it. :ok: In the end there'll always be white spots on the chart of knowledge no matter how advanced technology might be. It's always the curios individual mind that drives it forward, doesn't it? Isn't it why we surf those sites? Cheers.

[411A]

No matter how we twist the words the essence doesn't change. Let's write it off as a pun, shall we? FAA is ages ahead of EU in some respect and deserve the credit for it.

Tell your Euro friends, they will be amazed.
Nevertheless...fact.

[FE Hoppy]

It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO. as it's self-explanatory Cheers

not at all.

That's why the FAA have described the position, configuration and speed to be used in this case.

There is no certified performance data for a missed approach from a low energy state below minimums.

You would need to consider the worst case which could be below Vref, wheels on or close to the ground. The effect of ground contact on the ability to reconfigure. The time needed to spool up and accelerate back up to Vref.

All these considerations mean that without pre-prescribed criteria it is not possible to produce a standard operating procedure for single engined baulked landing(missed approach below DH) which regardless of FDRs post is why many EU operators do not cover this scenario in their SOP and yet operate quite legally. I checked 3 EU national flag carrier airlines OMs to confirm I wasn't going mad before making this reply.

It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.

"sky of blue and sea of green, in our yelow submarine"
Richard Starkey Jr (1940 - present)

[fdr]

"yelow" ? An EU chromatic product?

There is no certified performance data for a missed approach from a low energy state below minimums.

Not true; refer your QRH (or AFM), it is generally advisory information but provided as part of the certification package, and required under CS25.1581, refer AMC 25.1581 Aeroplane Flight Manual. There is no performance requirement established, but the figures are available. The figures are available for at least the B737, B747, B744, B767, B777,... whereas the A330 etc you will need to talk to your performance engineers to get the data, or check your AFM and/or ODM. For the A330, it's in the AFM, 6-4, (data on 6.13-6.14) and reiterates the requirements of CS25.121.

(If your "low energy" point is that the aircraft needs to be operated within it's usual approach envelope in order to affect a G/A on one engine, that is the norm. The aircraft cannot complete a G/A successfully at 10kts on the taxiway either, or at the terminal gate with the engines shut down and the APU running, (or on external power), all low [kinetic] energy states, nor is it expected to be able to do so. It is however able to (except in a few instances) achieve a missed approach from a OEI approach, including the big twins, up to late in the approach/landing. Once your speed is below Vref, your margin above VMCa with limited bank angle may be as limiting as your excess thrust available). Selecting gear up on most large aircraft will result in a short term increase in total drag, where gear doors are sequenced open from a closed position. And yes, adding thrust may take some time to reach rated G/A thrust, however the time you have noted is not from an approach idle setting and is also the maximum allowable not the usual time.

You would need to consider the worst case which could be below Vref, wheels on or close to the ground. The effect of ground contact on the ability to reconfigure. The time needed to spool up and accelerate back up to Vref. FEhop

Why? On a B744 OEI, you can go around from touchdown, but you probably would have a hard time doing that in a B737. What is required is.... Your organisation needs to evaluate it's operation of aircraft and routes to assess the applicability of restrictions, or procedural guidance to satisfy 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). that can include a commitment point as it does for a 2 eng approach on a B747/744. If you want to start a thread on another topic apart from the one posed here, then please do so. perhaps quirky limitations of certification is one... this topic is about what procedure to follow on an OEI G/A below minima.

IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
See JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].

Dear FE... What you and your airline do in order to comply with the requirement is entirely up to you and your airline. That there is a requirement to consider factors in relation to a OEI G/A to protect the operation is stated, in your EUR case in 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). How you do so, and whether you do is entirely up to you.

If you want to split hairs, then you may contemplate the use of "should" from a compliance point, however, after the fact you need a pretty darn cogent reason in court if it goes pear shape and you consider you didn't need to comply with "should". The French Judiciary would be an interesting one to run that by.

All these considerations mean that without pre-prescribed criteria it is not possible to produce a standard operating procedure for single engined baulked landing(missed approach below DH) which regardless of FDRs post is why many EU operators do not cover this scenario in their SOP and yet operate quite legally. I checked 3 EU national flag carrier airlines OMs to confirm I wasn't going mad before making this reply.

It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.

“And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to bloom”. Anais Nin (1903 - 1977)

What you & your "3 x EU" carriers do to comply with 1.510 is dependent on their operation and route, and their understanding of their compliance obligations. You do at least appear now to understand some of the aspects to the OEI approach considerations.

Assuming that you are not just being contrarian, merely obtuse, and are having some difficulty understanding this fairly simple concept, I have written this post very slowly, in order that you can read it consequently. I do hope that helps.:)

"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge". Elbert Hubbard, (1856-1915)

Cheers,
FDR,

[9.G]

FEH, well I'll spare you all the legitimacy traps one finds himself inevitably by signing the dispatch release, flight plan etc. Bottom line is PIC is responsible for a safe conduct of the flight beyond any doubts as well as lack of knowledge doesn't liberate one of accountability. I know of one particular compliant EU OPS operator which apart from detailed performance charts 10-7 Jepp EOSID for DEP adn GA with associated generic data for each RWY and A/C type provides in OM A guidelines when the EOSID to be followed. The final sentence is whenever PIC is in doubts follow EOSID instead of MA procedure. I frankly couldn't care less if EU OPS provides the same detailed info as FAA, common sense is my ally. :ok:

[BOAC]

Slightly off topic but relevant - Salzburg has two g/a procedures on the southerly depending on chosen DA. My last company only used the higher DA but I always briefed the second g/a in case of a g/a below DA.

[BILGROM]

Fly the engine out missed approach procedure. It's the only way you are obstactle protected. They were built for that. And good luck.
Good flights

[BOAC]

ENP - is that in your company SOPs?