Single engine CAT II Missed App Gradient

[CTLHC]

I seem to remember many, many moons ago that the CAA had a specific requirement for UK registered aircraft to have a 3% missed approach climb gradient capability from a CAT II approach.

Is this still the case and if so does anyone have the reference?

Much appreciated

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi CTLHC,

My current copy of A320 FCOM, Flight Operations, Performance, PER-GOA-ACG-Cat Cat II, has a Note saying:
"For Aircraft operated under UK regulation, for single engine CAT II approach a minimum gradient of 3% is required."
Edit
Old ref = FCOM 3, 5, 35 Go Around Procedure.
Both have 2.1%, 2.5% and 3% Approach Climb Gradient performance tables published.

[FlightPathOBN]

Criteria is 2.1% net and 2.5% gross...unless otherwise noted.

It is likely that the actual CAT II minima per the procedure drives a higher climb gradient, as the 2.5/2.1% is based on a 250 MDA for obstacle clearance on missed.

[OPEN DES]

Hi guys!

Possible UK regulations aside. Anyone with a UK reference BTW?

My understanding is that the mentioned 2.1% is an aircraft certification criterion i.a.w. EASA CS-25.

Whilst operationally we should always use 2.5% as this provides us with the required obstacle clearance i.a.w. the procedure design gradient of PANS-OPS unless otherwise stated.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi OPEN DES,

You are correct.

I don't have a copy of EASA rules and regs but
From EU OPS: (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:254:0001:0238:EN:PDF)

Page 104
"OPS 1.510
Landing — Destination and alternate aerodromes....

(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows 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 (see CS AWO 243).
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority."

(I've never found the UK CAA regulation which specifies 3% go around from CAT II approaches.)

[de facto]

I vote for 2.5%
2.1 % would be for Approach climb gradient.

[FlightPathOBN]

Per CAP 785
2.1 The criterion for IFP design in UK airspace is based on the following document: ICAO Doc 8168-OPS/611, Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations Volume II, Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures (PANS-OPS Vol II)

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SC-11.jpg

(the 2.1% net is due to the level section)
I also find it interesting that the EUOPS states engine out, while the criteria 8168, does not.

approach climb gradient??