do we really need to retract flaps in case of an engine failure after take-off?

[eagle737]

hello, experts, one qiz doubt me very much recently--do we really need to retract flaps in case of an engine failure after take-off?
the standard procedure of B737 says we can retract flaps when above min retraction alt. i think that's because of performance requirement if we need to follow the departure route, but in real world, retracting flaps has few negative factors:
1\increase crew's work load,do we really need to retract then extend flaps? remember we might have time pressure if we need to turn back;
2\increase potential hazards of system failure such as flaps...what if we can't extend flaps again after retract them?

my opinion is it should depend on different situations:
1\if we need to turn back,
a.with critical terrain situation, normally we will have a specific procedure for it,follow it.
b.with nice terrain situation,keep your take-off flap setting,follow ATC instruction.
2\if we need to divert, retract flaps.

one more thing,for situation 1/a, i really suggest performance dept to design a procedure without flaps retracting action. i've ever heard there is 3 different way to design the single-engine inoperative procedure, and one of them is without flaps retracting action? i don't know it's true or not?

waiting for your opinions,thank u!

[411A]

In all aircraft, swept wing or straight (excluding delta-winged aircraft), the best rate of climb is achieved when flaps/leading edge devices are fully retracted and the airplane is flown at the appropriate speed.

Suggest you fully read and understand the book....'Handling The Big Jets'...authored by Capt DP Davies.
He explains it all, very nicely.

[eagle737]

"In all aircraft, swept wing or straight (excluding delta-winged aircraft), the best rate of climb is achieved when flaps/leading edge devices are fully retracted and the airplane is flown at the appropriate speed."
---agree with that, and that's basic.

but for the case i mentioned above, we depart from a airport located in a nice broad champaign- climb gradiant is not the priority factor anymore,but the time pressure/working load is.

thank u for your recommendation, anyway.

[Jane-DoH]

The slower a wing flies the higher the Angle of Attack (or "alpha") becomes, which increases drag and eventually results in the wing-stalling.

To allow reasonably low-speed performance a variety of high-lift devices are used which increase lift, thus reducing the alpha for a given airspeed allowing you to fly slower without excessive drag or stalling, reducing stall, landing and takeoff speeds (and reducing takeoff run).

As your airspeed increases, the alpha lowers and flaps are no longer needed to keep the wing from stalling. Flaps produce drag (which at low speeds is offset to some degree by reducing the wings overall alpha), and as airspeeds increase this becomes quite significant (also, most flaps used on commercial jets have a structural limit of around 250 knots) and it becomes practical to retract them.

Excessive drag affects climb-performance by affecting acceleration and speed: The faster you accelerate, the faster you get up to a reasonable speed; the faster you fly for a given angle of pitch, the more rapidly you climb.

[Sciolistes]

As a non-expert, If I was on fire I in good VMC I would consider an immediate turn downwind, retain the takeoff flap and a visual circuit to land. In a dire situation I think it is necessary to consider all options for an early and relatively safe arrival.

For any other non normal involving controlability or with endurance limited only by fuel I would probably stick to the book.

[eagle737]

thank for everyone's reply!
i think the main reason for keep retracting flaps in Boeing's standard procedure is for training purpose. I still think we should consider a little different from that depanding on factors such as terrain\kind of emergency,etc.
so what about your company policy? maybe we can find sth. from that.

[SNS3Guppy]

i think the main reason for keep retracting flaps in Boeing's standard procedure is for training purpose.

Have you flown an actual airplane, or is this guesswork based on simulator games?

You think cleaning up the airplane following an engine failure is only for training? You really believe this??

[Challenger05]

Lets see....
OEI and Flap Retraction above TOSA....
Gets you going faster with same thrust... a FAR bigger advantage since lift depends on square of your velocity compared to coeff of lift which is a function of your AoA. So you can climb quicker which is ALWAYS good because chances of rubbing against concrete or dirt is less in that particular configuration.

Another way to look at it is that IF THIS IS really that one day you are gonna get the OEI chances are you might get the other one going off too...

Something that sounded kinda like " Gents in case you are in trouble hope for the best BUT assume and plan for the worst" said day in and day out in the flight school comes to mind... :ok:

Thus I would rather make sure I am wings clean after TOSA at Flap retraction speed instead of having extra drag in OEI situation.

If you think OEI and Flap retraction is high work load; I dare to presume both motors gone and having to retract flaps THEN will be beyond belief in terms of workload... :)


As for the statement:

"i think the main reason for keep retracting flaps in Boeing's standard procedure is for training purpose"

I sincerely hope you do not believe that... Stuff in those manuals and indoctrained in the Sims are things to make sure we have the highest probability of getting back in the air after an incident. :D

Safe flying buddy...

[GlueBall]

...After take off with engine failure it's practical reality to retract flaps, especially when heavy and fuel dumping is required, which could take up to 50 minutes [B74]. In many cities, as FRA, for example, you couldn't dump just anywhere, you'd be vectored up to the North Sea for dump. And besides all that, it's not a "distraction" to retract flaps, just as it is not a distraction to raise the gear after positive climb. . . with or without an engine failure. :ooh:

[BOAC]

There is only one sensible reply on this thread from someone who has read and understood the question - Sciolistes in post #5.

Let's see - we have:
worrying about retracting flaps with a double engine failure after take-off on a twin jet??
worrying about fuel dumping on a 737
worrying about flying into a hill where none exists


The answer as given, eagle, is stick to the book UNLESS there is an over-riding reason not to.

[henra]

Hi Eagle737.

Besides the reasons mentioned above you also might want to consider the Asymmetry.
In an assymmetric thrust situation you want to have as little drag as possible because that improves controllability margin.
And that is good to have. It keeps you from loosing yaw authority.

You definitely want a plane as little draggy as possible in such a situation.
So as the previous posters stated: Stick to the books. They are there for a reason....

[NigelOnDraft]

To expand on BOAC's post... The answer as given, eagle, is stick to the book UNLESS there is an over-riding reason not toand being non-type specific.

To not retract the flaps is different to the SOP / trained for profile / expectation of both crew members. To deviate from the SOP requires justifcation, and such justification needs to be agreed by both crew members. That agreement may be by company / type SOP (which you say is not offered?), or on the day briefing (prior takeoff). If it has not been established until after the engine failure, it is not the time to break the profile / checks and start discussing "if it is a good idea" :=

As a guide, in our outfit / type, it is in our books for an (exceptional)immediate VMC return option, which cleans up to 1 stage of Flap. I tend, when the weather is appropriate to "mention" it in the brief as an option. However, I can see workload meaning it difficult to get it agreed at the appropriate moment - it jumps a fair amount of the decision / diagnosis process(es).

NoD

[HazelNuts39]

Also ..., takeoff thrust expires after five or ten minutes use, and you're down to max continuous?

regards,
HN39

[captjns]

Plain and simple... Follow the SOPs and NNOPs and profiles as trained by your instructors.

[A37575]

Remembering that if you are taking off into icing conditions with the engine failure (assuming you intend to return to land) Boeing recommend the holding pattern be conducted clean for as long as practicable. In any case, your claim of extra load on the crew during flap retraction is nothing out of the ordinary. Same with flap extension. There is more load on the crew if fiddling with FMC's at low altitude. There is so much :mad: about crews being overloaded even when the tasks are mundane. You have been reading too much psycho-babble.

[aterpster]

The takeoff flight profile is dictated by the takeoff flight path certification requirements of F.A.R. Part 25 (or its equivalent). The carrier can modify the regulatory takeoff flight path segments, but only with the concurrence of the aircraft O.E.M and usually also with the concurrence of the state of registration aviation authority.

The crew is most decidedly not competent to further modify that profile in the event of an engine failure on takeoff. They have no idea of the location of critical obstacles, clearance of which may only be assured by following the takeoff flight path with precision.

Further, failure to follow the flap retraction schedule with OEI, especially with a heavy aircraft at a critical airport, can result in running out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas, all at the same time.

[eagle737]

i really respect everyone's opinion and thank for them. but as BOAC said, i am also doubting that my opinion is cleared by everyone or not. Sorry about my english, i'll try to make myself clearer this time.

1. performance limit
the only situation i will consider this method is when taking off from an airport like MLE(capital airport in Maldives) -—we don't need to worry about climb gradient totally in case of an engine failure!
VMC? i really don't think it's necessary for my decision.

2. FAR regulations
Law is law, no negotiation on it, i know this. so i asked a qiz at my first post:" i've ever heard there is 3 different way to design the single-engine inoperative procedure, and one of them is without flaps retracting action? i don't know it's true or not?"
now i am still waiting for the answer.

3.company policy
my company's policy is the same as Boeing's procedure. can we doubt Boeing's procedure?best not before we have adequate proof--so we discuss and we learn.
Boeing is not the GOD, and its procedure is not the Bible,at least we may give it some good supplementary idea--and that's why we have so many company's policy.
acctually, i started this qiz just because i had a chance to give some advise to our company's SOP.

4.briefing between crewmembers
of course we need to brief and get a same expectation before we do that.

5.Asymmetry
good thinking.but let's see Boeing's procedure, you maybe only have 30 sec between retracting and extending flaps:)
as my company's SOP, PM should monitor how flaps' retracting and extending work and call out any abnormal situation like asymmetrical flaps---i think this rule is good----and this is what i mean "increasing work load"!
recent Qantas A380's engine failure has proved the possibility to a flap's malfunction after an engine failure---that is what i mean "increase potential hazards of system failure such as flaps"

6.icing conditions\critical airport...etc
sorry, i really didn't mean that.

[HazelNuts39]

1. performance limit (...) when taking off from an airport like MLE(capital airport in Maldives) -—we don't need to worry about climb gradient totally in case of an engine failure! Wrong, regulatory minimum climb gradients apply always, with or without obstacles.

FAR regulations - (...) now i am still waiting for the answer.These are the regulatory constraints:
FAR 25.111 Take-off path
(a) The take-off path extends from a standing start to a point in the take-off at which the aeroplane is 457 m (1500 ft) above the take-off surface, or at which the transition from the take-off to the en-route configuration is completed and VFTO is reached, whichever point is higher. In addition (...)
(c)(3) At each point along the take-off path, starting at the point at which the aeroplane reaches 122 m (400 ft) above the take-off surface, the available gradient of climb may not be less than –
(i) 1·2% for two-engined aeroplanes;
(...)


Have you checked that you can always meet the requirement of 25.111(c)(3)(i) with one engine inoperative, the remaining engine at maximum continuous thrust, and flaps in the takeoff setting?

Boeing is not the GODRight, even they are subject to regulations.

regards,
HN39

[bearfoil]

Keep it simple, it is harder to argue... Except for the first few degrees, Flaps are a descent device. Counterintuitive when the goal is to arrest sink, k?...........

bearfoil

[XPMorten]

An acft with flap usually has more drag than one without. This again
means you need more thrust (assymetric) giving more acft assymetry, which again means even more drag...which again..

xpm

[TyroPicard]

You have to love PPruNers .. dogmatic answers from their own narrow viewpoint.

In a 3 or 4-engined aircraft above specific TOW you do need to retract the flaps ASAP, so that if another engine fails you are flying fast enough to survive on the remaining one/two.

In a twin this is not a consideration. As NoD pointed out, the A320 has a procedure entitled "IMMEDIATE VMC LDG FOLLOWING ENG FAILURE ON T/O" which involves remaining at FLAP 1 for a visual circuit.
I have no knowledge of other modern twins, but many years ago, on suitable days, a BAC-111 skipper used to finish his EFTO briefing with "but in reality I will level off at a thousand feet, turn downwind and land...."

So my answer is... it depends.

[boguing]

Bearfoil.

"Flaps are a descent device."

Except, of course, when used as an ascent device.

[excrab]

As BOAC has pointed out - this question was specific for the 737.

There is very little (I will not say None - although it was what was taught on my type rating course) drag at flap 1 or flap 5 - as evidenced by the fact that the aircraft will not descend appreciably better with these settings - you need at least flap 10 to get any noticeable drag.

So in the circumstances asked in the original question there is no reason apart from SOPs why you should bring the flap up, although you could perhaps consider that on a flap 15 take off you might go from flap 15 to flap 5 then stay there until you get to "gear down flap 15 landing checks" on the final approach.

All that assume no performance issues (apart from the choice of take-off flap setting) as given in the original question.

[aterpster]

TyroPicard:

You have to love PPruNers .. dogmatic answers from their own narrow viewpoint.

You got that one right. Why let those pesky certfication/operational considerations get in the way of pilot instinct?

In all my years flying a four-engine aircraft, this is the first time I've heard that we retract flaps on the OEI profile because we may lose another one. No doubt that is a possibility but far more remote than suffering adverse consequences from improperly flying the specified profile.

[formulaben]

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/style_emoticons/others/popcorn.gif

[Escape Path]

VMC? i really don't think it's necessary for my decision.

What do you mean by that? Certainly one can get IMC on flat terrain too

and this is what i mean "increasing work load"!

Well, I think that since we have to retract the flaps anyway on every takeoff it is actually easier to retract them than to leave them extended. And looking it from the stupidest point of view, it is actually the engine failure that increases the workload, not the flaps retraction! :8

From the logical point of view, if wx and mother Earth are not an issue, the easiest way to turn back is a visual pattern and then if one has sufficient speed and is light on load, one could leave the flaps at a lower setting than T/O. But then comes the issue that maybe if, for any reason, you haven't completed all checks and procedures and you already have to start to configure for landing...talk about increasing workload!

I'd take my time, the thing should fly on one engine anyway (unless it is fuel contamination/starvation :eek: ) so why rush things? Do things accordingly at due time and Bob's your uncle

[Denti]

What's the rush with a simple engine failure? It is not a situation where you have to land back immediately, in fact you might have to use a take off alternate due to performance issues, low vis doesn't matter anymore with OEI CAT IIIa certification in the 737. On the other hand flying around with flaps 25 (which is a normal take off flaps setting) just because i do not like to bring the flaps up from take off setting seems rather stupid as well.

However in any situation requiring immediate return simply use the Immediate Landing Checklist on Back Cover 1 in the QRH which does not require to raise the flaps.

[rogerg]

flaps 25 (which is a normal take off flaps setting ?? Dont you mean 5

[A37575]

Flaps 25 is a certified take off flap setting in the 737-200. We used it on short strips in the South Pacific.

[Denti]

It is as well in the 700/800 and as far as i know in the 400, dunno about the 300/500/600.

[SR71]

I'd suggest the risk of fouling things up because you deviate from SOP/NNOP/QRH procedures in the circumstances suggested, exceeds the benefit of any heroic attempts at adhoc procedure design "on the fly".

If some pilots were as attentive to detail in their flying as they are at their keyboard, I'm sure we'd have a few more smokin' holes in the desert.

;)

[eagle737]

again, thank everyone for your great ideas!

Have you checked that you can always meet the requirement of 25.111(c)(3)(i) with one engine inoperative, the remaining engine at maximum continuous thrust, and flaps in the takeoff setting?
no matter which method we will take, the top priority is satisfy the minimum certificated path profile, this is no doubt.
i have to say i didn't calculate it. but from a pilot's instinct, B737 will satisfy that at Maldives----for this case,we have a minimum 1.2%. Since this number is set up before maybe 20years ago(i guess) and applied to every model of aircraft in the modern age, we can believe a B737 can achieve that in most circumstances.Anyway, if we want to put it as a reasonable supplement to company's SOP, we have to provide convincing performance analysis. i will work on it.

and yes, for this situation, most company's policy define it an urgency and only a "pan-pan" call is needed. we don't need to rush,but we still want to degrade the crews' work load, right?

another thing, all my assumptions are based on flap 5 for take-off. we were just starting use CALTOW method in our flights 1 year ago, but normally most pilots in our company like to use flap 5.

[ImbracableCrunk]

Just a thought:

Maybe the OP knows what is SOP or NNOP or what have you. However, maybe he wants to know theoretically if this makes sense or why Boeing doesn't consider this, etc.

To say "because the book says so" isn't really much of an answer.

Maybe not all runways require us to go to Flaps 0.

What if we could fly? If God wanted us to fly, we'd have wings.

[john_tullamarine]

Minor point of style ..

from a pilot's instinct, B737 will satisfy that at Maldives----for this case,we have a minimum 1.2%

Generally, the minimum surveyed slope published is 1.2%. However, the minimum second segment WAT gradient required (ie often limiting the TOW for less terrain challenged runways) is 1.6% net for twins.

[Escape Path]

and yes, for this situation, most company's policy define it an urgency and only a "pan-pan" call is needed

Really? That would be the first time I've heard that :eek: (for a twin engine, that is)

[Blip]

I was in the B737-800 sim the other day.

Low vis take-off at MTOW (79 t) and 15 kt quartering tailwind. ( 10 kt TW, 10 kt XW). Engine failed shortly after V1. (They're mean aren't they!) :)

No significant terrain ahead so engine out procedure was simply to track straight ahead with a standard acceleration altitude of 800 ft AGL.

During the flap retraction, I held the vertical speed at zero so there was no way we could have accelerated any quicker than we did.

Guess what. We didn't reach Flap Up manoeuvring speed until we were almost 30 nm from the aerodrome! It seemed to take for ever!

Now in this case with the visibility being so low, it probably did make sense to clean up as there was no chance of returning for a landing. A diversion to "return airport" was the only option. But imagine if the weather was fine and there was an engine fire, or severe engine damage. You're going to want to return for a landing as soon as possible. Over weight landing? So be it.

How can flying 30 nm away be safer than simply accelerating to flap 5 manoeuvering speed, keeping the aircraft close to the airport, and getting the aircraft back on the ground that much more quickly?

Don't forget that the extra time spent accelerating to flap up speed, can't be used to get much else done in the flight deck. Both pilots should be making sure the aircraft is flown correctly.

So for me, it's a valid question worthy of discussion.

[Rotorgoat8]

Congratulations "eagle 737"! What an interesting hornets nest you've set off. First and formost you should be commended for THINKING as opposed to being an FOM/POH/AFM junkie. Todays airline training syllabus is more or less geared to the lowest common D. Japan Airlines is a classic example of what you get when you don't allow thinking outside the box. In Anchorage AK we used to watch the JAL 747's make numerous visual approaches to the no ILS runway - you could hear the power go up then back to idle then back up then back down followed by a miss. They were simply out of their element. Remember YOU are the Captain! An engine failure IS an EMERGENCY--Declare it! Handle it as you see fit--You have the authority to deviate from any Regulation and proceedure to deal with it.

[john_tullamarine]

THINKING as opposed to being an FOM/POH/AFM junkie

Such documents definitely should be read with commonsense and a modicum of intelligence.

Indeed, I can recall the then Head of Certification in the local Regulator observing that one didn't necessarily need to observe the documents .. with the caveat that one might then be called upon by the Regulator, insurer, or the legal system to demonstrate compliance with the Certification etc. requirements for the "non-compliance(s)".

That is to say, "thinking" is eminently admirable and to be commended .. but make sure that it is backed up by a LOT of knowledge if you intend to go it alone. Even where the commander exercises command prerogative ... he/she may have to justify the decision to go outside the rules with considerable risk of penalty if the story is not up to speed ...

For instance, looking at the POH side of things, I routinely conducted takeoffs with zero flap in light twins when the POH/AFM didn't contain data for that configuration. However, I had done my own reasonable and conservative calculations backed up by some simple flight tests to confirm the sums .. the Regulator's folks (both Certification and Flying Operations) never once queried my approach to the matter ..

One of the benefits of complying with the published requirements is that you are then placed rather strongly to argue the point after the fact ..

[eagle737]

Guess what. We didn't reach Flap Up manoeuvring speed until we were almost 30 nm from the aerodrome! It seemed to take for ever!
you will always want to complete whole training subjects in a 4-hour sim, for that situation, we normally turn to downwind at suitable distance/time(or be asked to do so by instructor) while keeping 15 degrees AoB.
for sim,time is money. for real flight, sometimes time is life and time is pressure.
after each recurrent training, i will have sth. to write down. can i handle every emergency just perfect in real life? i don't know, i will try but i have to say i will still feel some pressure even after 10 sec deep breath. i hope i'm not the only one here to feel like this:)
our SOP defines an engine failure after take-off a "URGENCY" and an engine fire a "DISTRESS", but meanwhile SOP always give the captain an authority to judge and declare the situation by himself. for my personal view, it's not such a big difference between them.

[rubik101]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!
I cringe when I read this sort of scary stuff:

Boeing is not the GOD, and its procedure is not the Bible,at least we may give it some good supplementary idea--and that's why we have so many company's policy.

and further, equally scary:

but normally most pilots in our company like to use flap 5.

Boeing (Airbus) SOPs good; invariably, Chief Pilot's, Ops Director, Chief Trng Cpt's versions, BAD!!!!!! VERY BAD!!!! and AWFUL!!!!!

If it's not broken, don't fix it springs to mind.

[aterpster]

Blip:

Now in this case with the visibility being so low, it probably did make sense to clean up as there was no chance of returning for a landing. A diversion to "return airport" was the only option. But imagine if the weather was fine and there was an engine fire, or severe engine damage. You're going to want to return for a landing as soon as possible. Over weight landing? So be it.

How can flying 30 nm away be safer than simply accelerating to flap 5 manoeuvering speed, keeping the aircraft close to the airport, and getting the aircraft back on the ground that much more quickly?

That's why you're paid the big bucks for judgment. :D

But, you've added "engine fire" and/or "severe engine damage."

More often than not the engine failure on takeoff is not an engine fire, but if it is aren't you trained to keep the engine running until achieving a safe altitude for the circumstances?

As to severe engine damage that isn't necessarily easy to determine.

In any case, being at a flat-land airport on a bright, sunny day is great, so why not cut the OEI profile short and return for landing? The question then becomes, how short do you cut the profile? You probably want to be in approach configuration and at least at minimum maneuvering speed. If this is at 800 feet rather than 1,500 feet, or higher, you have less margin of altitude protection and perhaps a more difficult situation for maneuvering with OEI.

But, we don't fly only on clear days, so the ability to get onto an IAP for return to the departure airport almost certainly requires not less than 1,500 feet, afe, and often higher.

[Sciolistes]

It is very interesting reading comments on certification requirements and SOPs. The way I see it, is that the crew's primary objective is to achieve a safe flight, followed by an efficient flight. But the primary goal is safety. Therefore, it is beholden on the crew to de-risk the operation as much as is practically possible. To that end SOPs are a tool designed to help the crew. If for whatever reason secific SOPs aren't going to narrow the gap between now and a safe landing, then It is the crews responsibility to consider other options.

More often than not the engine failure on takeoff is not an engine fire, but if it is aren't you trained to keep the engine running until achieving a safe altitude for the circumstances?
Until the other recent thread, I'd never heard of such a procedure. A safe altitude i
For a shutdown should always be 400'. If we can't fly the SID or contingency procedure after EFSD recall, then the chances are the same coud be said for a EFATO.

[aterpster]

Until the other recent thread, I'd never heard of such a procedure. A safe altitude i
For a shutdown should always be 400'. If we can't fly the SID or contingency procedure after EFSD recall, then the chances are the same coud be said for a EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off).

I can only speak for my airline. No altitude was specified. As to 400 feet, if memory serves me correctly on the 767: if an engine fire is detected on takeoff after 100 knots, it is not displayed to the crew until passing through 400 feet. At least that is they way it was way back when.

[Vertical Speed]

I think many people here are not considering the scenario where, after an engine failure, a decision has been made to remain in the circuit for an immediate return to land. (Obviously this assumes that there are no known complications like being significantly overweight, other system failures, and perhaps a very inexperienced crew member ?) The minimum flap setting for joining the (standard single engine) circuit is Flap 1 going to Flap 5 so IMHO there is very little point in retracting flaps to less than 1 and then almost immediately extending them again.
I instruct on the 737 and often see crews getting so involved with checks whilst downwind in the circuit they forget they are still at Flaps Up speed (c. 210-220) and I end up having to freeze the simulator to prevent them ending up in the next country/county! It is usually best to fly the circuit at standard speeds and this gives an average competent crew time to get the QRH OEI c/l done ,a Flap 15 bug set, and a quick brief before turning base. In the event that a decision is made to join a holding pattern then obviously the aircraft is better in the clean configuration. It all comes down to "airmanship"-- Boeing's standard patterns are for guidance but as the A380 incident showed often crews need to think a "bit outside the box"-- i.e. be a bit flexible and use common sense.

[Denti]

Common sense is always a good idea, however one has to take care not to invent their own SOPs just because everything from boeing or the company is seen as normal corporate bull.

Anyway, to stay in the circuit you need a rather pressing issue in which case the non normal immediate landing (formerly called immediate return) checklist applies, which indeed does not require to clean up the aircraft. For a normal engine failure there is usually no time critical problem and it's best to just fly the standard procedure, do all the checklists, FORDEC, performance calculation (OEI landing climb limit has to be checked before departure in low vis to decide if you need a take off alternate or not), and then set up for an approach back.

[aterpster]

Denti:

...and then set up for an approach back.

...and, if IMC (or perhaps night) what minimum altitude will be required before level off and set up for the IAP.

[Denti]

Isn't that a normal part of the pre-departure briefing?

[Vertical Speed]

Denti said "Anyway, to stay in the circuit you need a rather pressing issue in which case the non normal immediate landing (formerly called immediate return) checklist applies, which indeed does not require to clean up the aircraft. For a normal engine failure there is usually no time critical problem and it's best to just fly the standard procedure, do all the checklists, FORDEC, performance calculation (OEI landing climb limit has to be checked before departure in low vis to decide if you need a take off alternate or not), and then set up for an approach back."

Denti- it sounds like your company has re-written the Boeing QRH? What is FORDEC? and Boeing do not have a "non normal immediate landing (formerly called immediate return)" checklist so I guess that is a company specific one? Additionally even with a 737-800 if you have taken off from a 10,000' runway there is really no need to do a performance calculation. Sometimes it is easy to overcomplicate the situation (IMHO).

[Denti]

Well, not every runway is that long, remember you can carry 79t out of around 2000m of runway. Which can be demanding to land back on in case of malfunctions.

We do have boeing supplied checklists, on back cover page 1 is an immediate land checklist. Dunno if it is tailored for our operations though as boeing of course offers that service.

FORDEC is a standard CRM procedure, back when we were part of the Nigel world we used DODAR, pretty much the same thing.

Again, a simple engine failure is no reason to hurry, only if there is a very time pressing matter you need to rush, like a fire you can't extinguish. Undue haste can lead to very nasty surprises, better to take your time and be thorough.