Climb gradient requirement on SID

[IFLY_INDIGO]

Some SIDs mention a specific climb gradient requirement on the chart. for example, an RNAV SID mentioning " this SID requires 7% climb gradient". How would a pilot ascertain that climb requirement is going to be met? I am flying A320.

Thanks in advance

[MD80rookie]

Your Groundspeed x 5 = Rate of Climb in ft/min

[sabenaboy]

For a 7 % gradient requirement, multiply your groundspeed in knots by 7 to obtain the necessary climb rate in ft/min.

[Intruder]

AFAIK, there is no requirement for airplane mfgrs to publish climb gradient performance. I have been unable to find it for the 744...

[DaveReidUK]

At, for example, 200 kts, a climb gradient of 7% is just under 2500 fpm.

[sabenaboy]

At, for example, 200 kts, a climb gradient of 7% is just under 2500 fpm.

No, that's not correct.

200 kts = 20 253 feet / minute
7% of 20253 = 1418 ft/minute
My rule of thumb where you multiply the required climb gradient in % by the GS in kts to obtain the required climb rate in ft/min is very close and good enough.

So, if the SID reads "this SID requires 7% climb gradient until passing 4000 ft" it comes down to a little experience. An A320 at MTOW will have a typical GS during initial climb of about 165-170 kts (no headwind). Thus a climb rate of around 1200 ft/min (170x7) is needed. Even a new pilot on A320 knows that this will easily be achieved on two engines. In case of doubt when in IMC or by night, you can consider delaying the acceleration and flap retraction until out of the restricting altitude. Make sure you have a good engine out strategy/routing if the climb gradient was necessary because of obstacles.

Cheers!

[BOAC]

IFLY - as an 'airline pilot' you need to talk to your company Performance dept. If your a/c cannot achieve the required gradient they must produce an alternative, eg OEI SID. Actual gradients should never bother you as a driver.

Of course, if you are somewhere the company has not analysed, more work is required.

[Water Wings]

Anyone else concerned a pilot flying an A320 is only just learning about this now?

**Edit. On further thought, at least this individual realising he/she did not know the answer sought help. Better than some out there!

[BOAC]

If you look at all the questions about the 320 http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=1190277 one must assume an extremely limited conversion course:confused:

Worrying, really!

[sabenaboy]

The only stupid questions are the ones that are not asked. (as Water Wings seems to have realised)
May I suggest to stop making fun of/criticising fellow aviators asking question, even if you think that the answer should be obvious!

[BOAC]

sb - the point you are missing is that some 'airline pilots' appear to be operating aircraft with very little knowledge of technical, flying or performance issues. That worries some of us. Not you?

[Teevee]

I am not a pilot, but for those expressing concern that II may be, perhaps the clue is in the name.

[One Outsider]

What is worrying is that being an OAP appears to be a real bitch.

[mustafagander]

On the SID charts with which I am familiar, any gradient restriction has a table of GS vs gradient on the same page. This table covers the likely speeds to be encountered.

[One Outsider]

The question asked by IFLY was "How would a pilot ascertain that climb requirement is going to be met?". The answers so far haven't actually answered the question except perhaps sabenaboy's which alluded to experience being the only way and Intruder alluding to why that is. One way to find your all engine climb gradient, which charts for are difficult to come by, is to find the one engine out gradient and multiply that by 5. That gives a ballpark figure for a twin.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi IFLY_INDIGO,
How would a pilot ascertain that climb requirement is going to be met? I am flying A320.
Your NAV display with Constraints will show the ALT required in magenta to make the required gradient. If they appear in amber, then you will need to speed intervene / delay acceleration etc.

[BOAC]

If they appear in amber, then you will need to speed intervene / delay acceleration etc. - and engine out? What to do then? Does the OP know?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi BOAC,
and engine out? What to do then?
Perform the EO procedure and routing stored in the secondary flight plan (Air Bus SOP).

[DaveReidUK]

No, that's not correct.Doh. :ugh:

You're right, of course, what I worked out was a 7 degree climb gradient, rather than a 7 percent one. :\

[airbus_driver319]

IFLY, I presume you are working for IngiGo in India, specifically which airport are you referring to and I can assist you further.

As a side note, look on the company supplied RTOW charts (made using Airbus PEP) you will find that quite a few of them don't even have obstacle data... So you may as well pluck the numbers from thin air as the company has not bothered to pay for a proper obstacle analysis before starting the route.

When IGO started operating some routes in the far NE of India a few years ago they nearly got really burnt because of the lack of an airport study.. Until one of the expats with his own PEP and LPC pointed out to them the shortcomings in their RTOW charts and the fact they had a woefully lacking airport database.

[BOAC]

the company has not bothered to pay for a proper obstacle analysis before starting the route. - right cancel ask the Ops Department. This is major. As a pilot you have no way of knowing the climb gradient of your ship at any particular WAT. If proper RTOW analysis has not been done, this airline needs stopping!Perform the EO procedure and routing stored in the secondary flight plan (Air Bus SOP). - you may wish to think again based on the post from ad319! What makes you think there will be one in this airline?

[FlightPathOBN]

BOAC,

Concur with many of your posts with regards to aviate, and yes, this thread really does appear troubling on many aspects. :eek:

There have been many other discussions on pprune regarding OEI procedures and how the criteria and procedures deal with that situation. :{

EOI in the database? Very, very unlikely. :mad:

You will also find, worldwide, a severe lack of obstacles in the survey. Even in the US, the Part 77 surfaces are limited, and there is no proactive effort to gather obstacles. (note that SafeCo Field was built in the flightpath for Boeing Field, and wasnt even lit. It was the Head of the FAA flying in for a meeting, that wondered about this huge dark spot in the middle of the City)

In most other Countries, it is even worse.

[aterpster]

OBN:

You will also find, worldwide, a severe lack of obstacles in the survey. Even in the US, the Part 77 surfaces are limited, and there is no proactive effort to gather obstacles. (note that SafeCo Field was built in the flightpath for Boeing Field, and wasnt even lit. It was the Head of the FAA flying in for a meeting, that wondered about this huge dark spot in the middle of the City)

As you certainly know, Part 77 is not designed to provide OEI surfaces. It's up to the operators to provide each runway end OEI survey up to the OEI en route flight path.

In most other Countries, it is even worse.

Indeed it is as to "normal ops" obstacle data. But, no country has obstacle data for OEI.

[mvsb1863]

Very good answer BOAC. Let me say, as always.

[FlightPathOBN]

terpster,

Yes, this is what I meant by Part 77 being limited. Given that this has been discussed ad nauseum on pprune, I didnt even want to get into OEI stuff...

When I said in most Countries, it is even worse, I was referring to virtually ALL obstacle data, not OEI...

Edit: I would add that given the charting standards and adherence to charting standards, I would consider obstacles on a plate as a courtesy, and would absolutely NOT rely on either the lack of obstacles, nor the obstacles shown, to have any relationship to reality.

[vilas]

IFLY INDIGO
I am sure your operations manual will have something to say on this. Before launching operations from an airfield the company performance engineer using Airbus softwares like PEP or OFP is to ascertain that all these requirements are met. Generally with two engines SID requirements are met. If the gredient is due to terrain issue then OEI perfomance must be checked and OEI SID may have to costructed. There will be company policy on this. If you acedemically want to know then the thumb rules can be used but operationally it is not decision made in the cockpit.

[BOAC]

vilas - see post #20? These 'rules of thumb' are actually useless in this case since they only tell you the required RoC and what is needed is the actual, which is NOT available and is well out of reach of any line pilot until they see it when an engine goes pop - which is a little late if you are then over-weight for the required gradient.

IFLY does NOT need 'Rules of Thumb' - he needs performance charts for each SID at each airfield. a_d319 says they are not available and thus as OBN agrees, OEI procedures will not be adequate.

I find this extremely worrying if true. I am also concerned at the number of questions IFLY has asked (including how to fly a circling approach). It raises questions about the training he/she has received both for licence and type.

[MD83FO]

I use the FCOM climb performance charts on tHe 320 as the predictions on some makes are not accurate. I use them for Kathmandu and they're quite accurate.

[jaja]

I seems there is some misunderstanding here regarding SID climb requirements.

The performance manual from your company will take care of ENGINE OUT climb requirements + a specific procedure to fly in case of an engine failure on that specific SID.

What you see on the SID chart, is a requirement for ALL ENGINES climb gradient, and that is a pilot responsibility to adhere to these. These restrictions are normally due to noise restrictions or for ATC purposes, but can of course also be because of obstacles.

You can NOT use "Rate of Climb thumb rules" here, as you have a segment where you are accelerating.
Instead you need a point, where you have to be at a certain altitude.


You can use this formula :

Required height (ft) = Distance (NM) X (req climb gradient 0,0x) X 6000



Let`s say you need a 4 % climb gradient to 13 NM.

Which altitude at 13 NM ? :

altitude = 13 X 0,04 X 6000
altitude = 3120

3120`

If you do not have a waypoint at 13 NM, create one in your Flightplan and see what altitude the FMS predicts there.



or another example. The SID asks for a 7 % climb gradient to 8000`

At what distance from departure do I need to be at 8000´ ? :

8000 = distance X 0,07 X 6000
8000 = distance X 420
8000/420 = distance

19 NM

again, create a waypoint at 19 NM, and see if the FMS predicts to be at or above 8000`there.


Easy

[BOAC]

The performance manual from your company will take care of ENGINE OUT climb requirements + a specific procedure to fly in case of an engine failure on that specific SID. - I refer you to post #20 as well.

While your use of the FMS is good, it does not tell IFLY what RTOW he/she can use on a particular day and SID, does it? By the time the boys and girls get their stickies on the FMS and start making new waypoints the a/c will have been loaded.

[jaja]

BOAC

Off course you need the correct GMC for your specific RWY of DEP, to satisfy the ENGINE OUT climb requirement. You can NOT calculate that yourself !

My input were for the ALL ENGINE SID climb requirement, which is the responsibility of the pilot to comply with.
Even though many pilots are not aware of that, and do not know how to make that simple calculation, which is very easy and fast to make (even for an old man like me ;-)

[IFLY_INDIGO]

So irrespective of what analysis airline has done, there is no way for a pilot to ascertain on the ground (using chart/table) that he would be meet the climb gradient requirement of SID? experience or FMGS prediction (magenta/amber as suggested by rudderrudderrat) is the only way out?

using the formula GS * % climb gradient, does not sound the right way to ascertain the climb performance on ground. it doesn't include the available thrust, OAT, PA, actual takeoff weight in the calculation, which my common sense tells should be the part of calculation. After all, we can be flying level with any of the GS mentioned on the chart!

[BOAC]

Unless there are particular obstacle problems on a particular SID, you can pretty well assume that as long as you are below WAT limits you will achieve normal climb gradients on all engines. It is engine out that is the governing consideration for which you need an airfield analysis.

[sabenaboy]

A climb gradient requirement is not the same as an altitude restriction at a certain point. When the chart says that a 7 % climb gradient is required up to 7000, that means that you should stay above this slope all the time! Theoretically it could be that you make the restriction at 7000 ft with more then a 7 % average climb rate, BUT you might have gone below the required slope during the acceleration phase to get your flaps up.

So, as I said in my previous post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/514212-climb-gradient-requirement-sid.html#post7830129): "In case of doubt when in IMC or by night, you can consider delaying the acceleration and flap retraction until out of the restricting altitude"

[IFLY_INDIGO]

There was no restricting altitude in my original post. I am referring to few RNAV SIDs of VABB and VIDP. only climb gradient requirement is mentioned.

[jaja]

IFLY_INDIGO

We are talking about two things here.

Engine failure
Your company Performance Manual will (hopefully) have a correct calculated max T/O Mass for each RWY you are flying from. This gives you the max T/O Mass + procedure, so you will able to safely fly up to a safe altitude in case of an engine failure = it keeps you away from obstacles


All engine T/O
Here you as a pilot have to calculate and comply with the restriction laid out in the SID. These restrictions can be due to noise restriction, ATC or obstacles. Use the formula I wrote earlier.


You can NOT do what "rudderrudderrat" wrote earlier :

"Your NAV display with Constraints will show the ALT required in magenta to make the required gradient. If they appear in amber, then you will need to speed intervene / delay acceleration etc."

because very often these restrictions are not in your FMS as a waypoint/restriction.

[IFLY_INDIGO]

Jaja, your method is good. I have noted it down to try.

7% climb gradient turns out to be 3.99 deg of climb angle. of course, we can use FPV one side to be ascertain that we are meeting the requirement, but that is only possible in-flight.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi jaja,
because very often these restrictions are not in your FMS as a waypoint/restriction.
Then insert a "+ALT" restriction.

[jaja]

BOAC

Not to be personal, but considering your post # 7 talking down to AIRBUS pilots, and now # 33, there is no such thing for a professional pilot as to "ASSUME" in cases like these ;-)

BOAC : "you can pretty well assume"


rudderrudderrat
Quote:
"because very often these restrictions are not in your FMS as a waypoint/restriction.
Then insert a "+ALT" restriction"
That is also what I wrote earlier, but you have to make the calculation first, and then create a waypoint.

Sabenaboy
You can NOT just delay the acceleration fase. In your Performance Manual you have a Maximum Acceleration Height (this is to complete the 3rd segment before end of the 10 minute T/O thrust limit). I think also you are mixing things up. Your example with a 7 % climb requirement, is an AVERAGE of 7 %, so it CAN include the acceleration fase. Read the previous posts again, and you will see we are talking about two different things here ;-)

[BOAC]

Not to be personal, but considering your post # 7 talking down to AIRBUS pilots, and now # 33, there is no such thing for a professional pilot as to "ASSUME" in cases like these ;-)- nothing to take 'personally', jaja since I am not aware of talking 'down' to AIRBUS pilots in #7 or #33 and in fact to introduce 'Airbus paranoia' into this non-type-specific thread takes some doing! Do you see monsters behind settees as well?

Regarding 'assume', I take it you still have not looked at #20? I recommend you do soonest. How else can +IFLY work it out? Any ideas? (non-type-specific, of course:ugh:)

[sabenaboy]

Jaja,

We're not talking about one engine out situation phase and it's phases. And I didn't talk about delaying thrust reduction. Just saying that in a normal climb-out, you could delay the accelerating needed to retract the flaps.

Also the SID IFLY_INDIGO mentioned does not mention the word average. If I were to depart from an unfamiliar airport in mountainous area In IMC with a sid mentioning a required climb gradient of 7 %, I would make sure to stay above the required slope all the time!

Of course, by day in CAVOK or at an airport I know, I'd be happy to retract the flaps as per SOP.

[sabenaboy]

IFLY_INDIGO,

I've just had a look at some VIDP and VABB charts.
At VIDP I found several Rnav SIDs requiring a 7 % climb gradient uo to 3600' (Alija, Bipan, Hinda etc) Our VIDP company charts (LIDO) all show a table with required V/S versus groundspeed.

Now if you're asking, if somewhere in the FCOM, you will find the answer to the question as to whether you'll be able to get that V/S in specific conditions, the answer is no. If you're looking for a practical answer to the question my reply is: don't worry, even at MTOW in hot conditions, you'll make it! (assuming thrust reduction at 1500' AGL and acceleration at 3000' AGL)

[airbus_driver319]

Vilas,

IndiGo use PEP, (version 5.3 if you want specifics!) However, PEP is only as good as the data you enter into it. The surveys that have been (or have not been conducted) at some of the IGO destinations is the problem.

Just look back a few years to the NE when they were departing from certain airports with no obstacle data... The answer given was it wasn't published.

As has been said on here many times before - a simple ICAO obstacle chart is not always enough.

Also, for reasons unknown (cost) IGO won't have the EO procedures coded into the navigation database.

It used to amaze me to see the guys diligently calculating the speeds and FLEX:ugh: for an airport where the airline had not conducted a survey! Those numbers then become meaningless!

[vilas]

airbus driver 319
I guess you have flown with them so you know better. I agree with your comment. All I was saying this is not everyday exercise.

[IFLY_INDIGO]

question arises, why airbus could not provide any chart/table that could state the possible climb gradient in various conditions, all engine/single engine? what is the difficulty in designing such a chart? too many variables? lets consider what all factors, climb angle depends upon. IAS, weight, OAT, PA, tailwind/headwind. One thing I noticed is that varying IAS during takeoff climb and acceleration would make it difficult to publish a single climb angle figure. Also the changes in the wind direction from ground above would also make it impossible to state a single climb angle.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi IFLY_INDIGO,
why airbus could not provide any chart/table that could state the possible climb gradient in various conditions, all engine/single engine?
Do you mean like the charts contained in:
Performance, Take Off, Take Off Data, 50 Net Take Off Path, Close and Remote obstacle clearance for all the take off flap settings, showing the climb gradient V the take off weight?

Do you actually read your manuals?

[Teldorserious]

Well I guess the Quote feature doesn't work. From another member -

'Anyone else concerned a pilot flying an A320 is only just learning about this now?'

-----------------------

I stopped railing about this a while back. Let the planes crash. If the chief pilots don't care, The FAA doesn't care, the passengers don't care, the insurance companies don't care, the pilots don't care, the forum membership doesn't care then it's an industry of hucksters pretending to be concerned about safety and professionalism.

[BOAC]

Well I guess the Quote feature doesn't work. From another member - this one?

[vilas]

IFLY INDIGO
What you are asking has so many variables. No manufacturere gives charts for all contigencies.That is why Airbus has software programmes like LPC. PEP, TLO, ADAS etc. where you can put in the factors affecting the performance and you get the answer. Your company ops executives will have entry to Airbus world website. Read 17th Performance and Operations conference Dubai you will get all your answers. I cannot produce it here.All i can say is SID gradient by definition average gradient and with all engines at TOW of 77000 from sea level you will get above 7.5 upto 5000ft.in flex of 40or 50 degrees.

[sabenaboy]

All i can say is SID gradient by definition average gradient

I'd be real interested to see a reference to an official definition of "required climb gradient to a certain altitude or point" (as used in aviation) as being the average gradient required!

I see the required climb gradient as an imaginary steady climb path that you should always stay above.

I will be glad to stand corrected, but I want to see an official reference.

edited for spelling

[FlightPathOBN]

EO procedures are not cheap to design.

The SID OIS surface begins at the end of the runway, goes out for 10,200 feet at a 40:1 slope, with ICAO being the same 2.5% for 2nm. This is the limit of the area surveyed for obstacles. Remember, this is the OIS, NOT the re'd min climb gradient of 3.3% If there is an obstacle in the OIS, then the required climb gradient is raised from the min 3.3%

The aircraft performance is a significant issue in the procedure design and configuration. There are usually many iterations of the procedure, especially if there are turns, as those factor heavily in the EO climb.

Once the desktop SIM has been run, using terrain and available obstacles, an obstacle field assessment must be done. This will be done along the flightpath and as wide as the procedure containment area. All obstacles found are loaded into the procedure, and it is run again, and more often than not, there is a new controlling obstacle.

After all of this has been approved, a flight validation is required with the same aircraft type as the procedure is designed for. This brings up another expensive issue, EO procedures are per aircraft type and even aircraft/engine type. (unless you want to limit the entire class, such as 737NG to the lowest common (worst case) scenario. This is why there are no public EO procedures.

Most Countries do not even maintain obstacle databases, the obstacle standards vary, as does the foundation of the datum. AIP information is hit/miss. New airports seldom have any data. (especially in China)

[vilas]

sabenaboy
It is mentioned in the same presentation which I have referred.

[AerocatS2A]

I see the required climb gradient as an imaginary steady climb path that you should always stay above.

I will be glad to stand corrected, but I want to see an official reference.

That's how I see it as well. A slope starting at the end of the runway below which you must not fly. Of course if you take off two thirds the way down the runway, achieve 12% gradient to acceleration then you can afford to fly a 2% gradient as you accelerate and still not dip below the imaginary slope. Maybe this is what people mean by an "average", but I don't think you can, for arguments sake, fly level at 100 feet for 4 miles and then do a zoom climb up to meet the altitude restriction and claim you have met the SID climb gradient requirements because your "average" climb gradient was 7% or what ever.

In my semijet we can't always make the SID climb gradients AEO and just have to use experience and common sense to decide whether we can accept a particular SID or not. If there is no alternative radar SID we might have to request a waver on the height requirements (obviously not an option if it is due terrain.)

[sabenaboy]

It is mentioned in the same presentation which I have referred.
Could you be a little bit more specific, please? :E
A quote from an official document including chapter + paragraph, perhaps?
A link to it?

Vilas, all the documents I have seen, including "getting to grips with aircraft performance" (http://www.smartcockpit.com/download.php?path=docs/&file=Getting_to_Grips_With_Aircraft_Performance.pdf) show climb gradient requirements as a CONSTANT flight path, not an average one over a certain distance.

So a "7 % climb gradient to 3600 ft" is NOT the same as "cross 8,465 DME at 3600 ft or above" (= average climb gradient of 7 %)

Once again: I do not mind to be corrected on this, but until you come up with a verifiable trustworthy source I respectfully dare to say that you are just wrong!

[vilas]

sabenaboy
Am I right or wrong is not important. What I quoted is from Airbus 17th Performance and operations conference Dubai. Climb gradient varies from when you put the gear up to thrust reduction, after thrust reduction to acceleration point, and where you reach 250 kts. On a graph of altitude vs diastance if you draw lines from origin to these points, there will be three gradients. Average of these gradients is the climb gradient. You can read it for yourself. If you differ from Airbus you can send them a query. This is not same as missed approach gradient. Missed approach gradient is not average gradient but the minimum gradient upto the limiting obstacle, a plane below which it is forbidden to fly. This is also given in a presentation on Go around. I said SID gradient in the original post I stand corrected I am talking about all engine climb gradient.

[FE Hoppy]

It's not that difficult.
Pans ops has the details and it's free to download.
SIDs are predicated on a 3.3% gradient. This is based on 2.5% OIS + .8% for error.

If during the survey an obstacle penetrates the 2.5% gradient the the gradient required to that obstacle is calculated and .8% is added. This gradient is then stated on the SID i.e. 7% required until 3000'. above that height then 3.3% is assumed.

SIDs are written for AEO and it's up to the operator to come up with a OEI procedure.

OEI gradients are published in the AFM. (Some also include AEO gradients)

If you don't have AEO look at the OEI gradient and if it's above the SID gradient or 3.3% if no gradient is stated then it's safe to fly the SID with or without an engine failure.

If it's less than the stated gradient and no company OEI SID is published or you don't have AEO gradient data call your chief pilot and ask him to provide the required data to safely operate.

[aterpster]

This is how climb gradients for missed approaches and SIDs are calculated in the U.S.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/welgvm6j8uic5vm/US%20TERPS%20Climb%20Gradient%20Criteria.pdf?v=0mcng

[sabenaboy]

Am I right or wrong is not important.
Who is right or wrong is not important, but WHAT is right or wrong IS important!
You can read it for yourself.
No, I can't!! :ugh: That's just the problem! You keep talking about something you (think) you heard or read about in a conference in Dubai. I think you're misinterpreting something you heard or read!

When I read that a SID requires a 7 % climb gradient up to 3600 ft, I am pretty sure that means that you're NOT supposed to go below a 7 % imaginary slope extending up from the runway end up to an altitude of 3600 ft.

So, once again, please provide a link (URL or document with chapter, paragraph or page) to what you're saying so that I CAN read it for myself. I'm not happy with a statement such as "that what has been said at certain conference somewhere... :rolleyes:"

[aterpster]

sabenaboy:

When I read that a SID requires a 7 % climb gradient up to 3600 ft, I am pretty sure that means that you're NOT supposed to go below a 7 % imaginary slope extending up from the runway end up to an altitude of 3600.

There shouldn't be an iota of doubt in your mind.

[vilas]

Sabenaboy
I have made a correction to my statement. I am talking about definition of all engine climb gradient. In the original post wrote SID gradient by mistake. That caused the confusion. Sorry about that.

[FlightPathOBN]

terpster,

I think it is also important to show how the obstacles and terrain are calculated for the procedure design, as well as the design parameters.

Terrain data will have several additives. There will be an automatic add to the elevations of one contour interval, the a canopy add of usually 100 feet for trees.
Obstacle data provided will have accuracy codes per obstacle that must be accounted for. As an example, a wind turbine will typically have a 5E code, which means you have a circle 500' around the point and add 125 feet to the recorded elevation. (iterations around obstacles with different accuracy codes is a pleasure, as well as determining shielding and time of exposure)

For the aircraft, the design will use the max high recorded temperature for that airport, as well as the max low.
Aircraft will use MTOW with all bleeds on, and actual engine parameters, or the worst case in the fleet the procedure is designed for.

Very, very seldom has there been a design that works for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft...

The performance profile for the ac given the above parameters is then used in the procedure path, with additional additives for turns.

Design also assumes that the ac will be crossing the runway end at 35 feet.

Then its up to the people back at Company, to load the ac accordingly, with the real time parameters, and start limiting wt with temp.

When you add up all of these parameters, it becomes easier to understand why there are very few EO procedures in anyones database, and why the procedures are expensive to design.

[FlightPathOBN]

ooops, forgot to mention that every 56 days, you have to re-run the analysis for any updated obstacles, then

just prior to the AIRAC cycle, you get a build from all of the navdatabase providers to verify they have the coded procedure correct (which somehow, they do manage to screw up between cycles)

you must monitor each airport there is a procedure the NOTAM's 24/7 for obstacles that would affect the procedure (since it is not public) The write the NOTAM yourself to send out to everyone affected.

[fuelevaporator]

departure 31 sez with right turn before hills.
know of a company using thrust reduction and acceleration at 800ft for a while and this is what a first officer told me to have happened to him three times in a row:

before right turn had a hard warning from egpws to pull up...

so even never flying below the 7% extension from runway end is not allways enough for some aircraft with "look ahead - but never around a planned corner - feature", when during acceleration the fms derived path is below required and to stay on safe side most of the time I follow the "sabenaboy"-method and delay acceleration all the way but sometimes when sure gradient is NOT due obstacle and limit goes up a lot (dxb up to 8000ft towards west until some time ago) I use flight path vector during clean up even if gradient is only 5% or 3degrees just to show to my colleague that his method (disregard) is wrong.

however as allways using not trained methods has downsides and this happened to me in athens with 7% to 7000ft: speed sneaking up with 3 to 4 kts per 10 seconds as shown by speed trend but crossed "f"-speed anyway.
good solution: increase angle even more and wait for the 7000ft.
my not so good solution: retract flaps and see minimum selectable speed "overtaking actual speed"...

[Old Smokey]

For ANY aircraft fitted with Flight Path Angle / Flight Path Vector indication (or "The bird" on your A320), multiply the Climb (or descent) gradient in % by 0.6 to convert to degrees. The FPA/FPV indicates (or is selectable) in degrees. For your 7% gradient, 7 X 0.6 = 4.2 degrees FPA/FPV. A piece of cake and dead accurate.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Cagedh]

Old Smokey,

Your reply is missing the point.

The original poster wants to know how he can ascertain, before departure, that he will be able to respect the required climb gradient.

Telling him how he can see his climb angle (or gradient) at any given time, is not really helpful)

[BOAC]

Cagedh - you do the venerable Old Smokey a disservice! He is merely responding to all the other irrelevant twaddle on here about achieved climb gradient.

It was established very early on that IFLY has no way of determining whether his/her potential climb gradient in his airline operations is suffcicient.