Delaying Radar Vectors Or Holding One Engine Inop

[punk666]

Hello Boys and Girls,

I am looking for advice and/or opinions regarding delaying radar vectors and holds after an engine failure.

I was taught delaying radar vectors to give you time to fulfill the necessary checklist(s) but wouldn't a hold be a better option for ATC?

What would you do?

Regards,

Punk

[de facto]

Holding is obviously less work for everyone,less work,less chance of errors.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I have worked with aircraft with such tech problems. At a major airfield, the main holds are likely to be some distance away and require a climb to maybe 7-8,000 feet. My personal preference was to hold the aircraft on radar - simple racetrack close to the downwind leg which required only instructions to turn at either end. The crew could then deal with their problems and the aircraft would always be close enough to a quick approach when the crew was ready. Of course, a lot depends on local traffic and procedures so this may not work everywhere.

[punk666]

Thank you for your responses :ok: Heathrow regarding your comment, im guessing you would do that if the flight crew request the vectors correct.

I guess the vectors are more practical in the sim because we have the clock ticking against us but on the line I think a hold is more practical.

[aterpster]

punk666:

I guess the vectors are more practical in the sim because we have the clock ticking against us but on the line I think a hold is more practical.

In the real world not every airport has radar. At a non-radar terminal areas the company is well-advised to design its OEI procedures with a holding pattern included for just such reasons. Otherwise, you are opening up the possibility of ATC assigning an unapproved non-radar holding pattern. Those mistakes do happen when urgency enters the picture and can be risky, at the least, where there is higher terrain nearby.

[punk666]

That is true and I will take note of that. I should of mentioned I was referring to busy airports such as MAN, LGW LHR etc etc or Class Bravo airports as you guys call it over the pond.

I personally couldnt see ATC being to happy with an aircraft buzzing around its airspace getting in the way of other aircraft if its busy (obviously it would be controlled by atc).

[Piltdown Man]

...but wouldn't a hold be a better option for ATC?

With respect to ATC, but when you have an engine you should really be insisting on getting what is easiest for you. However, my experience with ATC is that they'll do all they can to help whenever you have a problem. And this should also be reflected in the sim. I've been taught that the sim. is "real" and you should act in the sim. the same way as you would on line. To come out of the sim. and say "But in real life I would..." is not acceptable.

PM

[bubbers44]

It shouldn't take an entire turn in a holding pattern to complete an engine failure check list so if you have radar contact just get a momentary vector to make life simple. If you are in a valley with no radar don't wander into terrain but hold. We had a 727 lose an engine right after takeoff at Guatemala City heading west into terrain so they did a 90/270 and landed VFR. The engine out procedure would have taken him over 30 miles to complete. I asked the captain what checklists he did? He said the appropriate ones and smiled.

[de facto]

He said the appropriate ones and smiled.
No comment:E

[PT6A]

HD,

We have our own holding patterns as part of our EOSID so no need for us to travel across to the ones published on the STAR.

Generally, unless they have had to design something otherwise due to terrain it would be on runway heading and then into the hold. They have been very good and had all of this coded into FMS and LPC database for us. :)

For the more "interesting" EOSIDs we also get a charted version of the procedure.

*As we are reminded on all of our company information, ATC are not aware of these procedures as they are company specific and ATC must be informed what we WILL be doing.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

PT6A.. Guess you don't operate in the UK?

[PT6A]

Yes we do.

Our procedure is also the same as that of a very large orange airline.

HD, from your comment.. What is it that surprised you? Because we are not using a published hold or navigation aid?

A few years ago we started to have all of our EOSIDs designed so the navigation reference was based on RNAV, then the procedure designers were free to place the holding point and track pretty much as needed. (subject to obstacle's etc)

There is a document floating about on the Internet that has all of the criteria for the design of EO procedures and the various differences depending on what form of navigation you use to accomplish the procedure.

The procedure that we use is far from unusual and I would imagine almost every airline has done the same thing.

Runway heading until x altitude then hold. My company along with others have gone that one step further and made the procedures available in our FMS database (and as such created our own waypoints)

On a day to day basis makes things very simple as at the briefing the actions in the event of a failure after V1 are simply "standard" except for a few airports where we fly a "non-standard" which would be briefed in detail before departure.

In the event we actually have a problem, we would declare an emergency and expect ATC to clear and protect the airspace around us until we have done what we need to and then return.

It just removes the chance for us to make a navigational error, intercept the wrong radial or wrong DME for a turn.. Reducing the workload in an emergency can only be a good thing right?