Hobart r/w 30 Pitt Water SID

[NorthSouth]

Does anyone have experiences they can share of flying the Hobart 30 Pitt Water visual SID?

As part of a project on design of turning departures in Euroland I've been looking at examples elsewhere and the Hobart 30 is one of the more interesting ones. However I was surprised to see on the plate that there are no minimum bank angle or maximum speed restrictions, no DME or other specified limit on how far north you're allowed to go, and no type/weight restriction.

I presume it's simply left to flight ops departments to work out if they can fly the SID in given conditions. But what procedures do airlines apply to judge the flyability? And how do you deal with engine failure scenarios - e.g. on a heavy departure, starting the right turn below 500ft, then suffering an engine failure when you're, say, 30 degrees round the turn and now pointing straight at the 914/938ft hills, what's the escape route?

Thanks for any info you can share

NS

[t_cas]

The short answer for our airline (jets) is we do not fly it.

OEI is the clincher most likely.

However, as the "SID" states, it is VISUAL. That would explain the lack of any limits/restrictions etc.

[NorthSouth]

Can I ask what type you fly? I can see why 767s and the like wouldn't fly this departure but I'm interested in any 737 or similar operators that do.

NS

[waren9]

Jetstar pilots (A320's) are not to accept that SID either. A recent ammendment.

Engine failure before the turn, follow the RWY30 EO SID, engine failure during the turn, continue to pick up the RWY12 EO which takes us out on the 155 radial.

With weather better than 1000'/5km its do-able but not that appropriate for jet ops.

[ad-astra]

Check you PM
Regards

aa

[PLovett]

The original reason for the departure was a certain feature just to the north of Hobart airport called Mt Lord. A departure from 30 takes you to the west of this feature.

In the early days of turbine and jet operations into Hobart this mountain could get in the way of an aircraft having to do a right hand circuit to return for a landing following an engine failure. The departure was designed to get an aircraft to the east of the mountain where there were no such obstructions to impede an aircraft.

From memory and being too lazy to go and get my Jepps, the turn was not before 500' or the departure end of the runway. Some turboprops still use the departure but the present day pussies in jets don't appreciate the fun.

With weather better than 1000'/5km its do-able but not that appropriate for jet ops.

The last jet that I have seen doing the departure was the freight 727 that used to be based here. Ansett and TAA used to do it as a matter of course in their jets. Real pilots. :E :ok:

[waren9]

Mr Lovett

There are quite a few things here in Australia that get done in jets that perhaps shouldn't. Just coz Ansett and TAA etc used do do it, doesn't make it any more right.

Anyway, back to the thread!
:ok:

[Goat Whisperer]

Still approved for VB 737s but I've only ever seen it flown in conditions well above the published mins.

[Capn Bloggs]

There are quite a few things here in Australia that get done in jets that perhaps shouldn't.
And there are things done overseas in jets that would make the Australian magenta-line brigade shake with fear.

[clark y]

NorthSouth,

Have a look at the Cairns runway 15 Swift7 departure. Its another fun one to fly. Its always enjoyable watching a jet doing a left turn at the departure end of the runway.
As for Hobart pittwater, used to be a standard procedure. The engine out procedure from memory was basically positive rate ,gear up and at the end of the runway- turn. No different to the current Cairns engine out procedure except the turn was to the right.

Clark y.

[Normasars]

Clark Y

Actually the CNS 15 is a damn sight more difficult OEI than the 30 VISUAL Take Off Procedure at HBA.

Just amazes me that this procedure was quite acceptable for 40 odd years in jets that didn't have anywhere near the takeoff performance as the new generation equipment has now, but now it's not allowed. give me a break.

Not as ridiculous as CASA now stating that night currency in the SIM is no longer valid, IT MUST BE IN THE AIRCRAFT. Are these buffoons for real. It's been acceptable since ADAM was a kid, but not any more unless the operator applies for a dispensation from CASA.

So I can do a type rating but can't keep my night recency in the SIM. They are out of control.

[john_tullamarine]

Having flown both the HBA and CNS procedures routinely in a previous life, I can only shake my head in amazement. Both were an absolute doddle .. but don't get them wrong ... they needed a modicum of attention to what one was doing.

But, then again, we would always fly them by hand ..

[NorthSouth]

JT:then again, we would always fly them by handFor a procedure that requires minimum 25 deg AOB (Cairns) I would have thought that was essential, especially when differences in actual vs forecast conditions dictate that the AOB you planned to use doesn't give you enough separation in practice so you have to crank in some more.

Comparing the two, it looks like the maximum turn radius on the Hobart chart (not to scale of course, so difficult to judge and would presumbaly be defined in any case by the regulatory required min horizontal separation from the obstacles) is not too far off what would be achieved by the required max 190 KIAS/min 25 deg AOB for the Cairns departure (around 2100m turn radius). But it's the OEI provisions that get me. What happens when you get just enough round the turn to point at the hilltops and one engine packs in, requiring an immediate roll-off to 15 degrees AOB?

NS

[Capn Bloggs]

But it's the OEI provisions that get me. What happens when you get just enough round the turn to point at the hilltops and one engine packs in, requiring an immediate roll-off to 15 degrees AOB?

Company engine-out procedures should take that into account. What the SID says and what one does during an engine failure are not necessarily the same thing.

[clark y]

NorthSouth,

Also remember that if you're already in the turn chances are that the gear is up and you're climbing and well above min speed. So it gives you the ability to trade speed for height and bring the speed back to V2 or appropriate. I don't know the design criteria for lateral distances, but I do know that I've only got 50' vertically to play with in a turn.
Airservices Australia might be able to give you the design information for the Hobart chart.

Clark y

[john_tullamarine]

But it's the OEI provisions that get me. What happens when you get just enough round the turn to point at the hilltops and one engine packs in, requiring an immediate roll-off to 15 degrees AOB?

(Caveat - comments relate to the old SID procedure)

Having laid the procedure over the terrain for a number of aircraft, the flying was not a problem - the run of the mill airline aircraft of the day fitted in around the hills quite nicely and I guess that the present situation is not too different.

The main thing was for the support pilot to put his nose on the window to be able to see when to call the turn. As with any jet departure predicated on a visual call, the hardest bit usually is trying to see where you are .. rather than where the ground is 1-2 miles away, considering visual cutoff angles ..

Once the turn was complete, one headed off towards Antartica for the initial recovery ...

What the SID says and what one does during an engine failure are not necessarily the same thing.

It's important to keep in mind that we didn't follow the SID OEI. The escape diverged part way around the initial turn. AEO, one was above a difficult position by the time one reached the point of divergence.

If you are concerned about the bad hair day sort of thing with additional problems AEO reducing the gradient .. then you were going to be very uncomfortable with a failure thrown in for good measure. One needs to remember that there are no guarantees .. only probabilities .. and that sometimes, that unpleasant stuff happens.

So it gives you the ability to trade speed for height and bring the speed back to V2 or appropriate.

As I recall, that SID had some tight speed criteria. In general, if one is interested in turning in and amongst the hills .. one MUST be VERY attentive to speed as speed dictates turn radius for a given bank angle. If one is a few knots above V2 min, one probably is better hanging onto those few knots for the improved gradient provided the speed is within the maximum prescribed for radius considerations.

[Chapi]

Actually ... the real reason for the Pitt Water procedure was not Mt Lord itself ... rather the range of hills behind Mt Lord.

The procedure came about many years ago after a crew simulating eo and tracking straight ahead found that the terrain was out climbing the aircraft.

So the procedure was implemented to get aircraft to the east of Mt Lord and the other high terrain until they could climb to a safe level above the terrain.

BTW ... in the old days ... there was an exemption that allowed B727 to climb on rwy hdg

It is an old procedure ... that is not as relevant to new generation jet acft.

[skylane]

Wasn't the procedure implemented in the early sixties, after a DC4 departed RW30 straight ahead, with a cloud base of around 800'. At about 1500' in IMC, they had a run away propellor. My memory is getting a bit dim these days, but I understand that the Captain made and immediate right turn and descended o get visual downwind for RW30. When the estimated return path was plotted. it showed that the aircraft came very, very close to Mt Lord. Hence the design of the SID for low performance piston engine airline aircraft such as the DC3, DC4, DC6 and the turbine Viscount and F27. The Electra was about the only aircraft that could accept departure on runway heading. The procedure was also flown by DC9 jets and the early 727's, with an exemption in later years for the later versions of the 72.

Nothing nicer than being in the bowels of a full DC9 at night departing RW30. The turn occurred straight after rotate and used to gain the full attention of the punters on board!!!

[NorthSouth]

This has all been great stuff guys - fascinating. Particularly interested to hear the history, since it's now clear that speed is the key - originally designed for slow climbers which also by definition had small turn radii, but now with jets, you may get the height but you have to watch that speed until you get there.

Now I have one more question for you. What if the "obstacle" for the 30 departures out of Hobart wasn't a 938ft hill to the right of the straight-ahead track, but a weapons range with a danger area from surface to 4000 feet which crosses the straight-ahead climbout at 1.3nm from the DER and requires a max 1600m radius turn starting over the DER to clear its boundary on a right turnout? In other words (a) straight ahead isn't an option and (b) no amount of height gain will give you clearance.

NS

[Normasars]

Easy NorthSouth,

Wait for the seabreeze and use 12. And just as spectacular for the punters walking along 7Mile.:ok:

[yarrayarra]

For a while Ansett ran Hobart- Auckland. And there was the Ansett B727-200 that, due weather conditions, and at night, required to depart RWY12 with about 8 knots tailwind. Shortly after rotation the RWY 12 LLZ failed and, despite attempts by the controller to reset the aid, nothing eventuated. Techs called and discovered LLZ aerial missing!! Wires and fragments found tangled in the undercarriage of VH-RM.. on arrival in Auckland:O

[skylane]

One could surmise that the 727 used the full lenght for departure!

[point76]

As others have said the Pitt water departure was the only 30 departure in AN/TN days due to Engineout limitations with a straight ahead engine failure.Hobart wasn't the only port with a 'curved' departure and all were based on a turn from a visual sighting point ( SE shore of Barilla Bay rings a bell ) then a 15' bank turn on to the escape heading.( I also remember that 3 lights had to be visible for a night departure.Two on Mt.Lord and a third on the point NW of the runway.Don't think that one is there now.Eventually each Airline came up with a straight flight path engine fail procedure and the Pitt water dep. went out of favour for jet ops.Have noticed that QF still use it though in VMC conditions.

[PLovett]

Think DJ used it a week or so ago but that may well have been due to inbound traffic heading from Clark to Tea Tree. DJ tend to go a lot further towards Tea Tree before turning right to intercept 335 radial for Launie.

[Chapi]

... Techs called and discovered LLZ aerial missing!! Wires and fragments found tangled in the undercarriage ...


Actually, it was not the LLZ, and I don't recall anything of wires in undercarriage.

However, the aircraft did knock over the LLZ monitoring aerial ... 2m high and 200m from the end of the runway!