ONE ENGINE OUT VISUAL TAKE-OFF

[MAAZ]

Hi..

I'm looking for information from anyone working in the EASA rules european context.

What about your Operations Manual?
Can you perform a visual separation in case of one engine out during take-off?
If so... do your Company describes any "visual course guidance navigation" with any written/pictorial description of the track to fly and weather minimas, both to avoid ostacles?

tnks :rolleyes:

[CaptainProp]

Airbus has a "Immediate VMC LDG following eng failure on t/o" proc in PRO-ABN describing configurations, track and timings. Visual approach for us requires min 800 RVR and circling CAT C 600 feet / 2400 VIS.

In case of immediate return after take off I would suggest you need to maintain visual with runway / approach lights. In any case, if you declare an emergency it's up to you as PIC to decide what the safest course of action is.

CP

[Max Angle]

I think Maaz is asking whether EASA allow an emergency turn that relies on visually avoiding terrain rather than a prescribed procedure that assumes you are IMC. I can't offhand think of anywhere in our operation that specifies different procedures for VMC or IMC conditions but there may be some. My memory from years back (pre EASA) when talking to a performance guy was that this is not allowed and the procedure has to assume you are IMC just after take-off.

I am sure someone here can provide a more complete answer.

[Checkboard]

Why would you need a procedure to avoid obstacles when you are avoiding obstacles visually?? You follow the engine out terrain clearance procedure if IFR, If you are not you follow it anyway or look out the window and choose a better option visually.

[BizJetJock]

AMC3 CAT.POL.A.210 (b) allows an operator to use reduced lateral obstacle clearance if the crew can adequately track visually.
Obviously, to use this requires weather minima to allow visual navigation, so no operator is going to base their operation on it unless there is no other option since it is restrictive. They will normally publish a standard IMC OEI procedure to be followed regardless.
Ones that i have seen include LSGS & TNCM, where fairly ovious bits of mountain are involved.

[john_tullamarine]

Australia, since forever, has permitted a visual departure for F27 weights and below.

However, I always have had the view that, for the shallow angles achievable, the pilot is not competent to weave his/her way around the rocky bits at low level .. ergo, it's a fool's errand.

[MAAZ]

Hello guys, tnks for your reply :ok:

As Max Angle said..
"I'm asking whether EASA allow an emergency turn that relies on visually avoiding terrain rather than a prescribed procedure that assumes you are IMC".

and EASA allows it as per AMC3 CAT.POL.A.210 (b)(2) as correctly BizJetJock said:

[MAAZ]

..so if, due to an abnormal situation (not only engine failure), you wanna fly a fast back track to the landing runway avoiding wasting time for the IMC departure or one engine out IMC track course procedure, EASA says that your Company should give you all the information about visual track separation from ostacles and minimum weather minima to perform that "action" in VMC.

For any of our airport network my company doesn't give those needed info so teorically we cannot fly visually any departure even if in emergency. Other stuff is that the PIC decides what is the best to do for safety as CaptainProp said, but that is another practical question.
What about your Company?

[BizJetJock]

Yes, I agree. It amazes me what people think they would be able to judge.
The intent of the rule is that it is still a preplanned escape manouevre, just using visual navigation for the horizontal path.

[MAAZ]

So please, what about your Companies guys?
As pilots.. do they allow you to fly a visual take off?

tks

[RAT 5]

Why would you need a procedure to avoid obstacles when you are avoiding obstacles visually?? You follow the engine out terrain clearance procedure if IFR, If you are not you follow it anyway or look out the window and choose a better option visually.

Let's get practical, from a B737 point of view. I flew loan contract, for a summer season, for an European airline in 80's before their XAA imposed RTOW tables. They used QRH performance tables for thrust & speeds = balanced field. They used visual avoidance techniques. My host airline had RTOW tables & emergency turns. It raised my eyebrows somewhat, and confused me. A year later their 'local XAA' imposed the same sort of rules as my host airline.
I was curious how a visual avoidance manoeuvre was executed. As the nose rises through 10 degrees attitude the horizon, over the nose, is invisible. The rotation continues until 15 degrees and earth beneath and in front of you disappears. How can you visually avoid something you can not see? No answer.
Other a/c types might have shallower climb out angles, but not any major jet airliner I've seen or flown.