CNS RWY15 EOSID

[Algol]

Can any Airbus driver who operates into CNS answer a quick question?
My companies EOSID for RWY15 is wrong. The SOP is to climb to MFRA 1,500'AAL and accelerate to Green Dot (cleaning up). At CNS the EFB tells us that there is a max speed to fly the escape manoeuver, and it is usually below Green Dot speed. This means if you follow the SOP you'll break the max speed for the escape manoeuver.
Before you ask - yes, I have pointed it out to management and they've done nothing. No reply.

So can any of you Airbus guys tell me what your own outfit does at CNS for EOSID?
Many thanks.

[morno]

MFRA?

Without seeing both EO procedures it's hard to give a straight answer. Such as where are the turns, what's the acceleration altitude on the EFB?

Good chance you could be interpreting it wrong.

morno

[Snakecharma]

Algol,

You are, I suspect, flying it incorrectly.

The speed restriction is to reduce the radius of turn so you don't hit the hills.

So cleaning up and flying it at green dot increases the turn radii, puts the hills to the south of 15 into the splay and invalidates the weight produced by the performance software.

You won't see it until you have an engine failure, when you are at the performance limited weight and the aeroplane performs like it will perform on one engine.

My advice is to stay within the EOSID speed limitations, even if it means staying at flap 1 and then accelerate once established wings level on the outbound track.

If you look at the EOSID does it have a minimum acceleration altitude?

It won't be an Airbus specific thing either.

[Algol]

MFRA is Minimum Flap Retraction Altitude! Acceleration Alt if you prefer. Basic knowledge surely?

How do you mean 'flying it incorrectly'? I've never 'flown it' - I've never had an engine failure. I'm querying other operators POLICIES.

Yes Yes! I would prefer to stay within the speed limitations, I don't need you to tell me WHY.
I'm asking for a genuine AB pilot to answer this, with the ACTUAL procedure his company uses, thanks. Anybody?

[Snakecharma]

Well smarty pants, you are talking to a "genuine" airbus (and ex Boeing and ex a couple of other jet manufacturer types) pilot and I am telling you that you don't accelerate to green dot! You are also talking a person with significant ops (performance) engineering background and experience. The tracking of the actual procedure is irrelevant and I didn't think added to the conversation BUT it turns you away from the terrain at a reduced speed and this requires you to NOT clean up all the way.

As for "flying it incorrectly" perhaps I incorrectly assumed you had flown it in the sim and this was the genesis of your question, however the bold assumption on your part that and I quote "the EOSID for RWY15 is wrong" is the most worrying part. Combine that with your statement that you would "prefer" to stay within the speed limit indicates, fairly clearly, that you don't understand the why.

Good luck!

[The Nemesis]

Boy, someone is a little touchy.

In a departure such as Cairns, with an engine out, you maintain takeoff flap until you reach the specified hdg or altitude, in the special procedure, whichever occures later.

[Capt Fathom]

MFRA is Minimum Flap Retraction Altitude! Acceleration Alt if you prefer.
Basic knowledge surely?

Doubtful !

[Algol]

This site is unfortunately populated with FlightSim pilots who need to be weeded out and ignored. Asking what MFRA or Accel Alt is would be a good giveaway.

Snakecharmer - you say '"I'm telling you that you don't accelerate to Green Dot". Well mate, that is EXACTLY what you do in an Airbus in our company, and in the FCOM, and the FCTM.
Now, if YOUR company does something different, that's what I'm asking. I'm not looking for flying lessons here, ok? Just SOP's, for comparison. Not your made up concepts - real airline SOPs.

Nemesis - is that your company SOP, or your own solution?
If its your Airbus Company SOP then I agree with it. unfortunately my company is not proposing this because they have a different SOP and are loath to think outside the box.

[morno]

Probably not the way to go about it, come on here and berate others who are trying to answer your question.

As stated above, you should not be accelerating until you're on the required heading anyway, regardless of your altitude.

I'm starting to think you don't understand the requirements that have to be met before you commence acceleration and clean up.

morno

[Snakecharma]

yes sorry I shouldn't post when I have had a long day and am tired :)

[Algol]

Morno - the company EOSIDs are designed by LIDO.
Have you heard of them? They're a subsidiary of Lufthansa: https://www.lhsystems.com/solutions-services/operations-solutions/lidoperformance

Now, as it happens, the company I worked for before this one applied the same SOP you seem familiar with. I preferred it too. But in the great big wide world of aviation you meet up with all sorts of operators, with all sorts of different policies, and in the one I work at right now this is their policy, and LIDO merely crunch the numbers to fit the customers SOP's it seems.

By the way - read the initial replies I got. "You're interpreting it wrong", "You're flying it incorrectly". Who needs that kind of abuse?

[Snakecharma]

Ok Algol,

Let's start from scratch.

Are you referring to 320, 330 or 340? Shouldn't make any difference but I only have 330 fcom, fctm.

Let me re read ours and give you specifics without mentioning company names, but I can assure you that our company has a specific acceleration altitude for each EOSID and you don't accelerate until you reach that MINIMUM altitude or roll wings level, whichever occurs later.

In relation to accelerating to green dot in your company, is there a distinction made in your manuals between the all engine case and one engine inop? If not then I am surprised.

And last point, i didn't ask about what MFRA meant and I don't think Morno did either. Neither of us asked what accel alt meant. What I did ask you is if your software nominated a minimum acceleration altitude on the performance data when it generates the info you use.

[Algol]

You're possibly confused.
Where did I say we accelerate before 1,500ft?

OK, once more with feeling,
You accelerate AT 1,500ft - to Green Dot (Clean up).
Thats their SOP.
The turn comes later at CNS....you go straight out for 11 miles!

There's a limit on the turn speed. Lets call it 200kts (its a fixed MAX speed).
Your Green Dot is 205kts (because of your weight on the day).
Now what?

[Algol]

The thread title says EOSID

[Algol]

Any CX A330 guys on here?

[megle2]

The thread title is CNS RWY15 EOSID

I'm confused, RWY 15 instructs a left turn not as you say straight out to 11 miles

Do you mean RWY33

[The Nemesis]

"You go straight out for 11 miles".

Not with an engine failure unless you are planning to do some mining !!!

SID's from RWY 15 have a 400' or DER turn to the north east. I've worked for a couple of airlines operating into CNS in both A320 and A330 and both had a specific E/O hdg to turn to and with both, you had to keep the T/o flap until reaching the heading.

Airbus just build the aircraft, they leave specific engine out procedures to your performance engineers.

[who_cares]

Hilarious ������

[Algol]

Nemesis, you're the only one here seems to have a clue.
The EOSID on RWY15 (I'm talking ENGINE OUT people, PLEASE RTFQ) is to go straight out for 11DME CS (the VOR), then make the turn (right) back to CS. The idea being (I presume) to put you in the valley out there and then start your manoeuvre back to CS within it.
If you operate an Airbus into CNS and the SOP is to delay accel until the turn is complete, what does your company tell you for an EOSID GA?
If making the approach in CONF FULL, the GA will be CONF3. They fly the whole thing in CONF3?

What about the 10min TOGA limit?

[Snakecharma]

You like insulting people don't you.

Most EOSID's that I have seen turn at departure end of the runway out over the water. This is, I think, where the confusion is setting in.

I have not seen, nor have I ever designed, an engine out contingency procedure that goes up the valley

[morno]

If that's the procedure with Cathay, shotgun never flying with Cathay out of Cairns!!! That's just plain stupid and scary!

The procedure we have is exactly as per the SID initially until established on track 030.

In the event of a go around, below the MDA we fly the EOSID, above the MDA we fly the published missed approach procedure. There are 2 MDA's on the ILS depending on your MA climb gradient.

As I said in my initial post Algol, without knowing what the actual EOSID you use is, how can anyone give you an answer? And I've never seen Minimum Flap Retract Altitude referred to as the MFRA. Where I work, we just call it the EO Acceleration Altitude.

morno

[Car RAMROD]

Please provide us with the chart, would be very interesting!

[Capn Bloggs]

The 15 RNP procedures Missed Approaches take you "down the valley" and then north east over the water, not left at the minima.

[Capt Claret]

The EOSID on RWY15 (I'm talking ENGINE OUT people, PLEASE RTFQ) is to go straight out for 11DME CS (the VOR), then make the turn (right) back to CS. The idea being (I presume) to put you in the valley out there and then start your manoeuvre back to CS within it.

In that case, every one's gona die! :uhoh:

[Arm out the window]

Perhaps stating the obvious here, but not having flown any of these big machines, don't you have engine out performance sufficient to make the minimum climb out gradient on the published SID? I was under the impression that the big jets would generally be able to make the minimums and not have to rely on special company procedures.

Just asking, don't start calling me names just yet please Algol!

[Capn Bloggs]

http://s26.postimg.org/ar8jx8ea1/RNPPCNS15_P2_copy.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/kbs6k43lx/full/)

don't you have engine out performance sufficient to make the minimum climb out gradient on the published SID? I was under the impression that the big jets would generally be able to make the minimums and not have to rely on special company procedures.
On the contrary, twins, especially heavy ones, can be gutless, and making 3.3% (or 4% to 600ft) at 25deg AOB can limit your takeoff weight. "Down the Valley" could drastically improve your uplift.

[Savage175]

Algol. Of the three A330 Airlines I have worked for, all specify a runway end turn to track 015 with a failure on Rwy 15. If your company maintains runway track for 11 miles, then whether you accelerate to green dot or not, the end result is going to be the same!!

[Arm out the window]

Thanks Cap'n Bloggs, makes sense.

PS, just another thought - that procedure would have to be premised on an engine failure in a very small window (after being able to stop on the runway but before commencement of the 400 ft / DER turn, wouldn't it? I'd assume that once the turn was started you'd continue onto the north-eastery SID track rather than reverse and head out down the valley ... again, just asking.

[morno]

Bloggsy that looks good if you're doing RNP, but Algol has given very little info AND is saying it's a RIGHT turn once at 11 miles. Guess they might be able to knock Mt Bellenden Kerr down a few feet.

morno

[Savage175]

Capn Bloggs, you have published a missed approach chart, which has no relevance to an EOSID. For starters an EOSID has to be based on MTOW, 50 feet above the upwind threshold - with an engine failed. A missed approach starts at the Missed approach point at MDA (and MLW). In an A330 that's around 50 tonnes lighter!!

[BleedingAir]

That's the RNP missed approach though, not a SID. Haven't seen any EO SIDs for CNS that didn't involve a sharp left at the end of the runway.

Very keen to see this procedure Algol is describing.

[Capn Bloggs]

Capn Bloggs, you have published a missed approach chart, which has no relevance to an EOSID.
I am well aware of that. A missed approach from .8nm at 200ft will be similar to an EOSID. I merely posted it to show that "down the valley" is doable. I assumed that the professionals on here would be able to work that out.

We shall now wait for our mate Algol to further detail exactly what it is that LIDO has come up with.

[Algol]

Well the conversation is becoming slightly more courteous now, and we're actually making progress.

I have no map to show you. We use an EFB (with LIDO Data) and the EOSID instructions are in text only.
Yes, I can read English. It REALLY says "Climb straight ahead to 11DME CS, Turn RIGHT back to CS, proceed outbound to UPOLO and Hold. DO NOT EXCEED 200KTS in the turn".

Now if you buggers think that's STUPID don't flipping blame me - I didn't design it, and I can't hardly believe they are telling us to do it. I agree, its mad, and that's why I asked what OTHERS are doing.

The BIG problem is - LIDO (a reputable providor) say this is indeed viable - and they stand by it.

[Capt Fathom]

Bloggs,
Out of interest, how many operators are approved to fly that RNP Engine Out Missed Approach?

[Snakecharma]

Unless you work for a very small operator, and from what is being said here I get the impression you work for Cathay, LIDO would just be the messenger. I.e. Your ops engineering department would have designed the procedure and sent it to lido for inclusion in the performance data package.

It should give you an engine out acceleration altitude which is different to the two engine acceleration altitude and varies from runway to runway.

As for the civility of the discussion a good hard look in the mirror might be in order as I found your initial response to my post ******* annoying to be blunt. And it got worse with comments like RTFQ!

As it turns out we were talking at cross purposes as you were looking at your EOSID and I (and most others) were looking at what is the common one described in a number of posts where you turn at the runway end, but we were not to know that.

As for what you have labelled abuse, re read the comments from Morno and myself. I said "I suspect" and Morno said "there is a good chance that" neither of us said you were, but suggested the possibility. If this is abuse then we have different interpretations of abuse.

And finally, if I didn't know better the EOSID you describe would be more fitting off 33, but I have not looked at cairns for some time so whether there is something to hit inside 11 DME to the north I can't remember. The only real way of finding out I suspect is to contact your ops engineering department - not flight ops - and ask them the question. Running a dummy departure off 33 and seeing what the EOSID text says might give a clue also. If it says turn left someone has cocked the two up!

[BleedingAir]

I agree, its mad, and that's why I asked what OTHERS are doing.

They're turning left at 2.6 DME.

[BuzzBox]

Algol,

We have a similar EO procedure for departures off 07L/R in HKG. That procedure requires us to continue on the SID (ie runway track) to 8DME, then turn right and track 190, with a maximum speed of 220kt until tracking 190 or above 2,500ft AAL. Green Dot will be above 220kt in a heavy aircraft, so we would fly it as follows:


Level acceleration to 220kt at 1,500ft AAL with flap retraction to Flap 1 (if required).
Continue climbing at 220kt with Flap 1
Once tracking 190 or above 2,500ft AAL, continue climbing, accelerate to Green Dot and clean up.

Could you not fly your company's EO SID out of CNS the same way (at 200kt of course!)?


Snakecharma,

CX does not use LIDO charts and the procedure Algol described does not belong to CX!

[Snakecharma]

Buzzbox, thank god for that!

I must admit I was surprised as it would I suspect be quite exciting in a heavy aeroplane with an engine failure at the most inopportune time!

[Capn Bloggs]

Out of interest, how many operators are approved to fly that RNP Engine Out Missed Approach?
Dunno.....

[Tankengine]

On the 737 QF used to do an RNP departure up the valley as a trial, then went back to left turn.
Airbus never went up the valley, one engine or two.
They also spent many millions of dollars trying to make LIDO work for them before giving up! ;)

[Deejaypee]

I suspect Algol may fly for an Hong Kong operator called Hong Kong Airlines? Perhaps!

[Snakecharma]

Thanks! Didn't know who flew into cairns these days , but what you say makes sense :)

[Capn Bloggs]

PS, just another thought - that procedure would have to be premised on an engine failure in a very small window (after being able to stop on the runway but before commencement of the 400 ft / DER turn, wouldn't it? I'd assume that once the turn was started you'd continue onto the north-eastery SID track rather than reverse and head out down the valley ... again, just asking.
Quite right. As Tank described for the QF trial procedure, you'd have to stick with one or the other: turn at the DER and if an engine fails just keep on the "SID" (which has now switched to the EO procedure), or go down the valley both all-engines or after a failure.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

ALGOL-

EK A380 TOPA Engine Out procedure for YBCS 15

EOP - NON- STD. At D3.5 CS turn LEFT to 360 deg (Max 161 KIAS during turn), intercept and follow R030 from CS to R030/D10 CS HP. R030/D10 D113.0 CS HP:Inbound 030 deg, LEFT turn.


I hope this helps.

We use LIDO

:ok:

[Good Business Sense]

Always good to question - I've got a Jepp chart of Bali were they transposed the spot heights of the two big mountains to the north - several thousand feet difference ... could ruin your day !!

Lots of chart errors out there

[donpizmeov]

Airbus getting to grips with performance describes how an engine out procedure is designed and should be flown.

[Vetical Limit]

It REALLY says "Climb straight ahead to 11DME CS, Turn RIGHT back to CS, proceed outbound to UPOLO and Hold. DO NOT EXCEED 200KTS in the turn"

This is without a doubt a procedure for RWY 33, albeit a poorly designed one.

[Buckshot]

FWIW, here's a clip of a dual engine failure after takeoff off RW15 at CNS in the VA Embraer sim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Klye2N40M

[Beer Baron]

Algol, in your original post you stated:My companies EOSID for RWY15 is wrong. That point is 100% correct and I am very glad that you have brought it to their attention.

The issue however has nothing to do with MFRA or green dot speed, the issue is the TRACKING. The instructions they have given you will steer you directly into one of several mountains! At 11Nm a right turn takes you immediately into a >4000' mountain range.

It is extremely worrying that any airline could be flying out of Cairns with such a gross error. Thank god no one has had the need to fly that manoeuvre as the consequences would be horrific.

Has no one at your company ever flown the procedure in a simulator?

[Capn Bloggs]

EK A380 TOPA Engine Out procedure for YBCS 15

EOP - NON- STD. At D3.5 CS turn LEFT to 360 deg
Why would you delay the left turn from the SID turn point?

[rockarpee]

There are some great CRM skills being displayed on this thread.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Hi Bloggs,
Why would you delay the left turn from the SID turn point?

I don't know what the SID says (I don't have access to it), but notwithstanding, our Flight Operations Performance engineers supply the EOPS's along with performance data and calculations. I daresay they would not ever look at the Air Services SID charts. Besides the SIDs are not designed around Terrain avoidance necessarily.

Cheers

[compressor stall]

Wild guess - they probably figured that in a 4 engine jet which (can) use much more of the runway than a twin and consequently be lower over the DER, it's safer to be another mile towards the high terrain - but still within limits - than starting a turn over the DER which many EOSIDS and standard SIDS have.

[topdrop]

Air France provided Cairns ATC with quite a bit of data for the occasions when they operated Concorde out of Cairns. Two of the ones I remember:
Depart RWY33 unless tailwind component was greater than 15KT.
Engine out departing RWY 15 continue straight ahead and turn left through Russell Heads (24DME) or until enough altitude to turn left over the terrain along the coast - only departed during daylight with a minimum cloud base.
To do a 180° right turn at 11DME there is probably enough room for a 3NM radius turn - not a good option in IMC. There are already enough aircraft parked on hills around Cairns, we don't want any more.

[Algol]

Concorde into CNS? Wow. I never heard of that. Interesting.

Capt.Bloggs, thanks for the RNP Chart, its useful to see that RNP procedure in relation to the terrain. Wish it showed more spot heights though, the contouring isn't really detailed.
To those saying its wrong to go straight out to 11dme - look at the RNP chart.
RNAV Waypoint CS528 is at 10.6DME. So our EOSID turn point (11DME) is .7NM past that. The valley is at its widest point right there, and a RIGHT turn takes you away from the nearest terrain to your left (not straight into it as some here declare).
Yes, you are turning toward another area of high terrain, but considering you've been climbing for the last 11 miles (hopefully!) you should have gained sufficient altitude to clear the closest stuff, and its now a matter of keeping the speed down to make the turn as tight as possible (as the EOSID dictates).
The success of this whole manoeuver depends a lot on accurate tracking in the initial climb. If you lose #1 and allow yourself to drift left - you could hit something.
BeerBaron, remember again - this procedure is LIDO approved! So I presume it satisfies all the legalities concerning tracking error (the cone) and turn radii.

The other option of the early left turn - at the departure end of the runway - is what a lot of other carriers seem to use, and it overcomes the issue about what flap or EOAA to use in order to stay below the max speed for the right turn at 11DME, thereby also avoiding any requirement to limit take-off/landing weight to stay below the limit speed after clean up.

[Snakecharma]

Algol,

Probably the easiest reference for terrain in that area is the 33 LOC chart.

That chart has an 11 DME point marked on the chart, which makes the comparison easy. Abeam the 11 DME point there is a spot height of 3602 ft and a little further to the north west is a spot height of 4289 ft.

11 DME is by my calculation about 8.4 nm from the end of the runway.

Minimum gross climb gradient for a twin on one engine is 2.4% (1.6% nett). 2.4% is about 144 ft/nm give or take a few feet.

If the aeroplane is climbing at 2.4% then in the 8.4 nm it covered to get to 11 DME it will have climbed about 1200 ft.

Now it will only be doing that if a number of planets align, but it is not inconceivable that the aeroplane loaded to max performance limiting take off weight would only be maybe 1200-1300 ft at around 11 DME.

This is why a lot of operators do the departure end of the runway turn and get the aeroplane away from the terrain and over the water.

To clarify one thing though, even though LIDO provide this info via their EFB, it isn't "LIDO approved" they are just the messenger.

I think you are right to question the procedure.

[compressor stall]

I've been looking at Google Earth. I calculated that your 11DME point on extended centerline is at -17.0232 145.815.

In nil wind, and assuming 200kts and 15°AoB your turning radius will be about 2.2nm. Double, obviously for the diameter.

Plotting this turn takes you to within 2nm of a 700m peak (read off the local 1:250K topo) - that's 2300'. (look for the rectangular mini housing estate, east of the highway, just north of Gordonvale)

I have made no allowance for wind in the turn, assumed an instantaneous turn at 11DME, and assumed that the outbound track from the DER was straight (and not blown to the right as RWY HDG was kept in a bit long as it was all going bang).

Now I fly planes better than I can design SIDs, but I'm guessing you have flown 8.6nm since the DER [NOT 11nm as that's the VOR which is well to the north of the airport], then another 5nm in the turn.

Maintaining the minimum gradient after takeoff, what height will you be?

I doubt it, but nevertheless, it MIGHT be legal with the buffers and 30kt omnidirectional winds and 6 second pilot turn reaction times (calculating this is beyond my level of expertise) but by christ it ain't smart.

[Algol]

Good work thanks to both of you - its worse than I thought.
All grist to the mill. I'll keep trying to get their attention.

[Snakecharma]

Algol,

Serious suggestion - when you go flying next run the software for a 33 departure and see what the EOSID text is. If that EOSID turns you left towards the terrain then there is an issue (or another issue depending on how you want to look at it!)

It may well be something as simple as someone, somewhere, has transposed the 15 and 33 text, which is why, when you tell the company about it they say and do nothing because they go and look at the raw data and say it is ok - thus ignoring your report/concerns.

It might not be that simple either, it could just be crappy procedure design, but it is another avenue of investigation to support your report

[OK4Wire]

I'm late to the discussion, so I hope I can add something useful.

We fly A330-300s out of CNS and have done for more than 20 years now.

Our procedures state that if we have already commenced the left turn when the failure occurs (in other words, we have reached 400' aal) then we keep the turn going.

If the failure happens before the start of the left turn, then we follow the EOSID which takes us straight down the valley.

I have no doubt that the aircraft will have adequate performance to keep us clear of the ground, but occasionally when the weather is a bit poor, we suggest to ourselves that we may "interpret" the start of the left turn and take what may be a better option with regards to terrain clearance. The handling aspects of the aircraft in a left turn at max weight could be challenging though (normal SID states 25 deg minimum AOB, but of course EO is max 15 deg AOB - so if one is late to start the turn one might end up a bit closer to terrain than is ideal).

edited to add: Half our departures are to BNE, so very light weight, the other half are to HKG. very close to max weight, so that can play a part of the decision making process.

[Savage175]

I am well aware of that. A missed approach from .8nm at 200ft will be similar to an EOSID. I merely posted it to show that "down the valley" is doable. I assumed that the professionals on here would be able to work that out.

I'm not sure what chart you use, but the one I have shows a lowest minima of 330 feet and a minimum missed approach climb gradient of 4.6%!!

The 'professionals' on here would be well aware that a 2.4(1.6)%/1.2(0.4)% gradient commencing nearly 3 nm past the missed approach point at 35 feet is well below the 4.6% missed approach gradient from 330 feet.

I would suggest to you that down the valley in a heavy or even not so heavy A330 is anything but doable.:eek:

[Capn Bloggs]

Savage, 4.6% is the All Engines MA (as shown on the chart). I didn't put up the EO MA chart as it was the lateral tracking that was of interest initially, which is the same as the AEMA.

For the sake of completeness, here are the other Airservices Australia (State) charts of interest.

ICN DME is collocated with CS DME (who's bright idea was that :{).

There is a reasonable amount of clear air down there at 11DME...
http://s26.postimg.org/hedl9dphl/CNS33_LLZ_copy.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

SID:
http://s26.postimg.org/6dduqm7ux/CNS15_SID_copy.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

As OK4wire has highlighted, the issue is as much about the decision point. It's all well and good having an EO SID down the valley, but what happens if you slot a donk 10deg into the SID turn? You can't go down the valley then, and your performance would have to cope with flying the SID track, at least until you were pointed out over the water.

[john_tullamarine]

A long time since I have flown out of CNS and, for other operators, done escape sums there, but I guess the hills haven't changed all that much.

Main problem with tiger country is tracking accuracy/reliability and the splays required by the rules .. which, of course, can vary somewhat. With that as the basis, one sets about designing a way for threading one's way through the hills.

A significant concern, of course, is that we need to keep it reasonably simple for other than FMS escapes so that the pilots, in a high workload situation, don't have to work wonders as this and that goes wrong along the way.

Standard departures without high accuracy GPS tracking need to be padded somewhat more for all the usual things which can go wrong .. hence the early turn .. which is a simple way of getting out of CNS15.

As a rule, I don't like going up a valley - unless there be no other option - as it limits all your options in the event of either FMS failure or other failures/problems. However, if the splay rules and tracking accuracies can be met, such an escape, philosophically and for risk considerations, is not much different to the risks associated with the usual V1 failure and similar low probability situations.

I recall with a bemused smile, years ago, Roger G - the then ops eng boss at AN, observing to some of the pilots who were being vocal about performance failure risks ... that, perhaps, they should also harass the structures guys in similar vein .. after all, it is not unheard of for wings to fail and fall off ...

I might add that AN had a very healthy tech services/flight ops culture and questioning was never (to my knowledge) suppressed (even if it might have been a PITA to tech service folks on occasion) .. If you are fortunate enough to work in such an environment, then do consider yourself particularly fortunate. Tales abound of less well-structured and healthy cultural flight organisations ...

As others have observed above ..

(a) AEO and OEI are quite different animals.

(b) SIDs may be less than useful for the OEI situation.

(c) AEO can become OEI at any point during the procedure .. which complicates matters to some extent. The operator whose ops eng support delves into this consideration routinely should produce more useful escape procedures than others .. I have heard that some organisations shrug their technical shoulders, do the regulated bits only, and leave it to the commander to sort out the non-prescribed out of left field situations. As we all should realise, that's somewhat easier said that done for the guy/gal in the LHS.

(d) TO and missed escapes are quite different animals due both to starting point and configuration/speeds. These differences may produce either similar or dissimilar escapes depending on the particular terrain/elevation/OAT/wind circumstances.

[compressor stall]

It's one thing to go up the valley for 25 miles and end up over waster, but it's another thing to do a 180 below the tops.

It sounds like some new grad performance engineer proving how he can make something work on paper, with scant thought to the secondary risks of such a procedure in case of errors....

[john_tullamarine]

.. but it's another thing to do a 180 below the tops.

Indeed .. especially when there is a much simpler option for CNS 15. Presuming that the valley escape is OK, technically - and this will depend on a multiplicity of considerations, my preference would be to schedule both, for pilot option. Clearly, the only sensible reason (at least, that I can come up with) for the valley is that it produces much higher RTOWs ... if it doesn't, why even contemplate the additional potential risks ?

.. with scant thought to the secondary risks of such a procedure in case of errors....

This is a concern with operations for which the ops eng support either has no operational experience or, alternatively, doesn't have a very close relationship with the flight ops organisation.

I can recall a few comments over the years by non-operational ops eng folk which raised my eyebrows ..

Indeed, well do I recall, as a then reasonably experienced ops engineer (and GA pilot), my early exposure to airline operations .. I distinctly recall an F27 takeoff from the north coast .. the end of the runway disappeared under the nose in a manner which quite caught my attention. As I gained experience on the line, my other life approach to ops eng progressively changed to become much more conservative.

As to whether the procedure under discussion might have been designed by a newchum or experienced engineer is not able to be divined from the procedure itself. However, one would hope that the organisational protocols involved appropriate checks and balances as part of the normal design QA approach to life.

[Algol]

Snakecharma

Algol,

Serious suggestion - when you go flying next run the software for a 33 departure and see what the EOSID text is. If that EOSID turns you left towards the terrain then there is an issue (or another issue depending on how you want to look at it!)

It may well be something as simple as someone, somewhere, has transposed the 15 and 33 text, which is why, when you tell the company about it they say and do nothing because they go and look at the raw data and say it is ok - thus ignoring your report/concerns.

It might not be that simple either, it could just be crappy procedure design, but it is another avenue of investigation to support your report

I ran the RWY33 numbers in the EFB and the RWY33 EOSID gives the logical RIGHT turn.
There's been no mistake of transposing the two EOSIDs as you theorise.

[Algol]

Hi JT, welcome aboard.


This is a concern with operations for which the ops eng support either has no operational experience or, alternatively, doesn't have a very close relationship with the flight ops organisation.

I think you can assume this is the situation.
That said, Flt Ops seems to me to be amazingly apathetic to the risk.
Perhaps it is indeed that an alternative to the valley route would penalise RTOW and nobody wants to open that can of worms.

[Capn Bloggs]

Algol, all engines operating, what departure do your bosses expect you to fly?

Also, is this EOSID in the FMS to be selected and flown in LNAV (or whatever you bus pilots call).

[Savage175]

The only other observation I will make is that all the published SIDs on R/W 15 CNS require a runway end turn towards the NE (even when the destination is to the South). If 'down the valley' is routinely achievable with OEI, why not publish AEO SIDs that track down the valley? Surely it would be more economical.

[Capn Bloggs]

Savage, we are attempting to assist Algol understand why his outfit wants them to go down the valley. I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that we do it that way on a normal SID (or EO for that matter). I suspect that you couldn't design one that way anyway unless you were RNP approved (as Tankengine pointed out earlier for QF). There is also the not-insignificant racket that would be imposed on everybody in Cairns Central every time there was a southerly departure.

[BuzzBox]

At the risk of causing Snakecharma another coronary, our EO procedure takes us 'down the valley' to D19 CS, then a left turn to track 130°. If the failure occurs after D2.6 CS (ie after the left turn on the SID), we continue on the SID. The procedure is available in the FMS as an EO SID. We normally operate the A330 through CNS and the ops engineers assure us the EO procedure meets all the requirements.

I suspect the early left turn on the SID is as much for noise abatement as terrain, as Bloggs stated above.

[Snakecharma]

Hi Buzzbox

I have no doubt the procedure you describe meets the requirements, when designing procedures in my day we didn't have the option of using lnav nor did we have the option of using a truncated splay, so as a consequence I and others were much more conservative, certainly the continuously expanding splay brought many more obstacles into play and as a result the weight was better for an immediate turn than going up the valley.

My preference, when designing escape procedures, was (as I don't do this stuff any more) to shift any turn as far as possible down the track on the basis that an engine failure will never happen on day 1 of a trip on a cavok day when you are completely rested, but sure as hell will happen at the end of a long trip, when you have had a crappy sleep the night before, when it is pissing down and night time, so the easier you can make the procedure whilst not penalising yourself too much in relation to payload, so that when you have the "oh ****" moment it doesn't turn to crap. This of course is exactly the opposite to my discussion re the CNS 15 departure and the preference for an immediate (DER) turn, but my misgivings re the ability of crews to maintain the appropriate tracking (remember we didn't have access to LNAV) whilst handling the emergency meant that my preference was to turn left and get out of dodge.

[Algol]

Capn Bloggs

Algol, all engines operating, what departure do your bosses expect you to fly?

Also, is this EOSID in the FMS to be selected and flown in LNAV (or whatever you bus pilots call).

Capn Bloggs, The normal (all engines) RWY15 SID we do is the Cairns2 Radar Departure, which is a left turn at 400' or 2.6D CS onto a NE radar heading.
We don't have RNAV EOSIDs in the box, so the OEI manoeuver would be pilot flown, with reference to the GA Track on the ND, and VOR/DME for the turn.

[swh]

Algol,

Lido have just given you a generic EOSID that will work in anything, 320, 330, 350. How you do that pilot stuff to get the aircraft to meet the requirements on the chart is up to the pilot, not the procedure designer.

Some types will have a green dot below 200 kts others will not, the procedure designer does not care.

What is stopping you from going to green dot and cleaning up, prior to 11 miles select flap 1 select 200 kts in the turn, complete the turn, clean up and green dot.

Am I missing something ? The bloke who taught me said turns are those bendy bits not the straight bits. 200 kts in the turn is not the same as 200 kts for the whole procedure.

Does Lido also say how to do a 180 on a runway without getting stuck, running off the runway, or taking runway lights out ? Or is that basic pilot stuff as well ?

[Algol]

SWH - do you fly for an airline?
Heard of SOP's?

We pilots don't get to make them up as we go along. Nor should we have to for Gods sake.
If there's a problem with the SOP its Managements job to fix it.

That said - I'm not going to kill myself following a stupid procedure when the SHTF for real. That's why I'm here, asking what other operators do.

[BuzzBox]

Hi Snakecharma,

'...so the easier you can make the procedure whilst not penalising yourself too much in relation to payload, so that when you have the "oh ****" moment it doesn't turn to crap.'

I absolutely agree. I think there's considerable potential for a f@#k up when continuing the SID after suffering an engine failure on the runway. A heavy aircraft would have to initiate the turn at very low altitude and any delay 'sorting the ****' potentially puts it very close to the terrain to the south-east.

[Capn Bloggs]

But Buzzbox, you're already planning to do the turn anyway so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise: just cope with the failure?

Out of interest, what's your EO acceleration altitude?

[BuzzBox]

...you're already planning to do the turn anyway so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise: just cope with the failure?

Bloggs,

I suspect that's easier said than done if you're tired, the weather's crap and it's nighttime, especially if you end up having to turn at very low level crossing the end of the runway while coping with a failure that Murphy dictates will occur at the worst possible time!

Our EO acceleration altitude is 1,500ft AAL.

[Algol]

Capn - just to interject - the methodology differs from one operator to the next. For instance at my last company (a rather more 'matured' organisation I may say) the SOP was NOT to accelerate on an EOSID until you were above the company EOAA AND had completed any TURN which was required in the EOSID. I much preferred it because where I am now we level off AND commence any turn AT the EOAA (unless a different point is explicitly specified). This often creates the situation where you are flying level - accelerating toward terrain! I think its bonkers - but who am I to say!

[FlightDetent]

Algol, what exactly is the EOAA? If you are using a LIDO product for obstacle database and EFP routings ... something in your descriptions does not add up.

[*Lancer*]

FWIW I believe Qantas had a RNP departure down the valley for the 737. Ran a trial for a while, but no longer in use due to noise abatement. Noise abatement is also what prohibits a visual departure down the valley.

Unlikely to be a OEI weight advantage, as the immediate 15 deg aob turn isn't really weight limiting.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Am I reading this right?? Post #19.
An engine out procedure at CNS of RW 15, where you go straight ahead to 11 DME, then turn RIGHT --- straight into the hills???
I have spent a lot of time in and out of Cairns over the years ( but not recently), but I don't imagine the hills have moved much in recent years.
Every procedure design, in which I have had some involvement, for Cairns, had ALL 15 departures turn out left over water.
Of course, I am not referring to any RNAV/RNP approvals -- which are thin in the ground.
Tootle pip!!

[amberale]

Agol, what are CS ATC expecting you to do?
I suggest phoning or emailing them with this question as they should have copies of your procedure if it is nonstandard and are the local experts on the terrain and Procedures.

[BleedingAir]

After initially commenting thinking Algol was talking about an immediate left turn (the "standard" OEI procedure), and then reading the rest of this discussion, I too have gone to Google Earth to see where the EOSID he describes would actually take you.

While I'd much rather be over the water, flying the extended centreline to 11 DME followed by a right turn back to the VOR doesn't now seem as monumentally crazy as I first thought, assuming sufficient maneuver/bank angle capability at 11 DME. The radius of that turn would be everything though.

[Snakecharma]

Amber ale, ATC don't normally keep copies of each operators contingency procedures and even if they did they wouldn't have them committed to memory so the first they would know of it was when you went and did it.

Cairns tower might be different, but wasn't in my day and across the country they don't keep copies of the procedures

[Algol]

Correct.
Same everywhere.
Telling an airline what EOSID it should fly is not their job. They wouldn't want it either I'd guess.

[topdrop]

I can confirm we don't hold any company's engine out procedures. Up to about 16 years ago we used to hold a number of airline standard operating procedures. e.g. which aircraft would do visual right base to RWY33 by day and by night. Which would circle from the 15ILS to 33 etc. We threw them out when airlines changed procedures and didn't tell us.

[*Lancer*]

Algol to answer your original question, its no different to any other departure with a speed constraint lower than Green Dot: keep Config 1 to meet the requirement and then continue accelerating after the turn.

[romeocharlie]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/250x250/52625803.jpg

After 9.5 years of operating in and out of Cairns, I appreciate the laugh. Good luck to you Algol on getting that EOSID changed, sounds like the person who designed it was on more drugs than the Russian swim team.

[Algol]

Of course it's 'different'! You're on one engine!
I'm ready to call this a day now, the loonies are getting out of hand.

[morno]

Was that your airline Algol that took off out of Cairns recently and forgot the turn at the DER?

I heard it was quite the scenic flight once the crew were hassled enough by ATC and eventually made a left turn and only just cleared those hills to the South East :ooh: !!

morno

[Capn Bloggs]

Buzz, I'm struggling with the concept of a crew having to take off with two completely different plans in their head, depending on what happens between V1 and the DER and then having to decide at the DER to do one or the other. That would be a operational issue supporting following the SID turn regardless of what happened. Besides, doesn't the airbii maintain whatever the PF has set, bank-wise, so if you slot one as you roll into the turn (the worst scenario) it won't go wobbly?

[mattyj]

Our single engine escape procedure out of Queenstown involves circling around a 2500' hump 2 miles to the south of the field until you reach a suitable altitude based on your weight then heading out over 10000' high hills to the west and then grinding over to Christchurch for departure alternate..that little 2500' bump 4 miles from the departure end of CNS looks TRULY terrifying sic

[Sue Ridgepipe]

Was that your airline Algol that took off out of Cairns recently and forgot the turn at the DER?
I don't see how you can just "forget" to turn when then FD is no doubt commanding you to turn at DER, unless they didn't load the departure into the FMGS correctly. Having said that, if it was HKA, nothing would surprise me.

[StudentInDebt]

To answer part of your original question Algol our EOSID policy says where a limiting speed is required to maintain a smaller turn radius maintain the flap setting achieved at the start of the turn - ie what Lancer said. Perhaps your performance manual has a similar entry?

[morno]

I agree Sue, but I have eyewitness accounts that saw it happen! And yes I believe it was said operator.

morno

[BuzzBox]

Originally posted by Capn Bloggs
Buzz, I'm struggling with the concept of a crew having to take off with two completely different plans in their head, depending on what happens between V1 and the DER and then having to decide at the DER to do one or the other.

Oh c'mon Bloggs, it's not that hard, surely? "If we have an engine failure before the turn, then we'll continue straight ahead. After the turn we'll continue on the SID". I reckon most of us could cope with that. The FMS detects the engine failure and automatically brings up the EO SID. To continue straight ahead, the PM only needs to select 'insert' and check the active waypoint is correct.

Why would you wait until DER to decide which way to go? If the failure occurs before DER, the decision is already made. If the failure occurs at DER, then it would probably be safer to continue straight ahead anyway, because you'd be well past the turn point by the time you got over the initial 'oh ****' and got things sorted.

Besides, doesn't the airbii maintain whatever the PF has set, bank-wise, so if you slot one as you roll into the turn (the worst scenario) it won't go wobbly?

Nice theory, not so good in practice. It still gets the wobbles, especially if the pilot makes any aileron input.

[topdrop]

Failure to turn at DER happens often enough (many different operators) to have us constantly watching for the turn. When the turn is not occurring a reminder is given by ATC.
The worst was a B707 tanker (no GPWS), arrived into Cairns at night and went out again a few hours later, still dark. Missed May Peak by about 50ft.

[Snakecharma]

Jesus, that would have been a spectacular splat!

I think people underestimate cairns, yes there are far more difficult environments in other parts of the world, but the Australian environment is reasonably benign and we tend to take it a bit for granted I suspect.

Out of interest were the crew oblivious to their impending doom?

[compressor stall]

Topdrop - didn't a SQ 747 do something similar in the early 90s?

[Ned Gerblansky]

Greetings all,

I hope you are all familiar with the terms "Warning", "Caution" and "Note". Failure to observe a "warning" may result in loss of life. In the SID off rwy 15 at YBCS is a warning to not delay the turn beyond DER due high terrain. The DER is 2.6 DME.

In the FMGS the SID is programmed to initiate the turn at 400'. This may not co-incide with the DER!! so watchout. (By the way it was a QF 747, not SQ.) So, to the unfamiliar operator, getting the auto-pilot on "nice and early" after take-off may be your un-doing. I always used to insist this departure is manually flown, at least until the turn is initiated. In the OEI situation, PANS-OPS will guarantee you 15' obstacle clearance - not much I admit, but it's not hitting. As to acceleration and clean-up, anything after the turn will suffice. I flew this departure nearly every day of my 6000 hr Airbus life, and it is challenging, but the key is that early turn.

If you are heavy - yet performance allows a B2 intersection departure - have a really good think about that, and recall the old wisdom about altitude above, fuel in the bowser and runway behind you. In the end it's up to you, I'll be on the train or ship.

'Bye

Ned

[john_tullamarine]

I'm struggling with the concept of a crew having to take off with two completely different plans in their head, depending on what happens between V1 and the DER and then having to decide at the DER to do one or the other

That ought not to present a problem. TO plan is to go to A then to B unless a failure occurs prior to A, in which case we go to A then to C, in lieu of B. However, much easier to have one story to remember in a high workload situation so I'm with you, good sir.

our EOSID policy says where a limiting speed is required to maintain a smaller turn radius maintain the flap setting achieved at the start of the turn

Unless the procedure discloses no requirement for speed control (which would be MOST unusual - other than for nil sig obstacle take offs, ie a positioning procedural turn rather than for obstacle separation), any turn should be considered as speed critical. Flap (sequence) must be prescribed and flown as prescribed to achieve the planned book climb figures. Ergo, there should be no crew discretion required or permitted other than in the case of a further out of left field emergency ... and then you are on your Pat Malone ..

One pegs the flap specified, including the sequence of flap retractions throughout the procedure, and you MUST remain within the prescribed speed band(s) for the procedure. Anything else is a fool's errand. Keep in mind that the speed/radius consideration may be either for rocks on the inside (min speed) OR the outside (max speed) of the turn ...

Unless you have actually designed some of these escapes for tiger country runways (ie you have seen the problems involved in such designs) I would urge considerable reflection and caution. Yes, there are some margins and pads involved .. but, on (frequent) occasion(s), we design with the edge of the splay running up the side of the mountain .. if you move more than planned laterally, it might just be all over bar the shouting and digging of the bodies out of the mud. This is especially the case for close-in turns.

In the OEI situation, PANS-OPS will guarantee you 15' obstacle clearance

Perhaps you might expand on this comment somewhat ?

[Wild blue yonder]

Algol. Of the three A330 Airlines I have worked for, all specify a runway end turn to track 015 with a failure on Rwy 15. If your company maintains runway track for 11 miles, then whether you accelerate to green dot or not, the end result is going to be the same!!
Haven't been into CNS for many years but flying down the valley EO was never an option. Blew an engine at rotate off 15 in an A300-B4 and flew the EO published SID procedure. Went well. Still here. Flying it versus simulating it are really two different animals.

[topdrop]

didn't a SQ 747 do something similar in the early 90sHadn't heard of that one- before I arrived Cairns.

Out of interest were the crew oblivious to their impending doom? 5th Sep 2016 14:24That is correct. Captain visited Approach later that day and said they didn't realise terrain like that was so close to departure path. They were at MTOW.
When QF had an Ops section in Cairns they used to provide briefings to US Military pilots operating out of Cairns. After this incident we asked them to specifically brief them on the importance of the SIDs left turn. Don't know who briefs them these days.