EO Contingency procedure used as All Engine Operating SID

[TOGA Tap]

Question for the performance / regulations people in the know :

Is it possible to publish an All-Engine-Operating SID - duty of the state aviation authority - which would used by operators as an Engine-Out Contingency procedure?

Contingency procedures are duty of the operator, not duty of the state, I understand this.

Both procedures, SID and Contingency, would follow the same ground track but obviously in All Engine Operating case climb gradients would be much greater.

By flying this SID the operator would be automatically in compliance with the requirement to provide its crew with the instructions on what to do in case of an engine failure on take off.

Are there any regulatory or practical difficulties in this solution?

[sonicbum]

Question for the performance / regulations people in the know :

Is it possible to publish an All-Engine-Operating SID - duty of the state aviation authority - which would used by operators as an Engine-Out Contingency procedure?

Contingency procedures are duty of the operator, not duty of the state, I understand this.

Both procedures, SID and Contingency, would follow the same ground track but obviously in All Engine Operating case climb gradients would be much greater.

By flying this SID the operator would be automatically in compliance with the requirement to provide its crew with the instructions on what to do in case of an engine failure on take off.

Are there any regulatory or practical difficulties in this solution?

If the Operator can satisfy the requirements of the given SID in OEI conditions given a set of conditions then there is no need to establish a OEI contingency departure.

[safetypee]

As I recall, a long time ago, there was a procedure departing from Lugano which might address your question.
Taking-off to the NE required a right 180 to climb taking advantage of the valleys. The initial procedure was the same for EO and All Engines. However, there were contingencies for an engine failure during the climb which required a turnoff from the main climb route (SID?) depending on aircraft type, performance, and position. The procedure was applied according to altitude-range constraints where the standard routing would not assure adequate clearance over distant terrain.
I recall three option points. Two required a turn after engine failure to take advantage of the valleys to the SE.
The third, after passing the second option point was where the engine failure performance was sufficient to continue the SID.

As for approval, I don’t know. At that time the local Swiss authority were somewhat independent, approving operational procedure as required, based on the operators justification; similar to drift down routing.
I only saw local Crossair (‘Swiss’) charts, not the authoritative Swiss AIP; the implication was that the procedure was a special, limited to that operator only

[unitedabx]

Hong Kong departures require a OEI procedure for RW07L/R. Local carriers have their own approved procedures. Anyone else ?

[Skyjob]

Is it possible to publish an All-Engine-Operating SID - duty of the state aviation authority - which would used by operators as an Engine-Out Contingency procedure

It is NOT possible as there are too many variations in aircraft performance with the variety of aircraft types.
Aircraft performance is based on too many factors for an authority to be aware of in regards of all operational types into/out of airports.
A minimum selected performance may be too restrictive for many modern airliners, whereas could become marginally capable for some older types.
Equally this capability is weight dependent, as many aircraft can operate at a huge range of weights with a large variety of engine settings.
It would add too much complexity to be authority based, hence the onus is with the operator, flying only a small subset of aircraft available, who know their type of configuration and performance capabilities.

Some airports do have imposed turn requirements, but these are local and must then be implemented by the airline before operating into the field.

[underfire]

Adding to Skyjob, there is no public criteria for EO. EO is an emergency condition not a standard condition.
There are quite a few RNP tailored procedures that do account for EO. The myriad of factors, settings, weights, and temperatures are accounted for. Even within a single carrier, the fleet parameters can vary wildly with engine types between models.

There are a few tailored EO departures that are designed only to address temperature issues, John Wayne comes to mind, and a few others.

There are a few published EO DEP, but it is still up to the operator to determine if that particular aircraft can meet the performance gradients. The folks that are doing the loading plan take care of this, and start pulling off weight as the temperatures rise, to make sure that you can use the SID under EO conditions, or use the published EO dep.

You should run this through your chain of command to see what your individual company uses as the conditions for the load plan, and see how they are dealing with EO and the SID. I am fairly certain that this is being taken into account already.

[AerocatS2A]

A company could certainly produce RTOW charts that reduce take-off weight sufficiently that the SID can be flown with one engine inop. This wouldn't usually be commercially viable though.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I believe too expensive in terms of RTOW ....leave it to the performance experts

[TOGA Tap]

Airfield in question requires visual conditions until 7000 ft or climb gradient of 8%.
I suppose that traffic load at 35 deg C OAT would be too restrictive for commercial purposes for typical twin engine jet.

So each operator must develop its own tailored EO SID if they want to operate any conditions lower than 7000 ft cloud base and VMC bellow that including night ops. Competent authority which issued the AOC to operator shall during its regulatory oversight look into the EO SIDs too and rise a finding if they think that procedures are not adequate.
So competent authority is involved but not directly.

This EO SID would be mandatory in IFR / Night departures as the only one available.

In situations when daylight and ceiling is above 7000 ft and VMC below they could still use visual departures if cleared by ATC of course.

If the EO SID procedure contains RF legs it would be classified as an RNP-AR procedure requiring prior direct approval by the competent authority of the country where the airport is located and indirectly as stated above by authority of the state which issued the AOC to operator.

Any comments are appreciated!

[swh]

It is NOT possible as there are too many variations in aircraft performance with the variety of aircraft types.

It is possible to publish a SID that meets the twin engine FAR 25 minimum S/E performance gradients over an assumed range of conditions

[aterpster]

It is possible to publish a SID that meets the twin engine FAR 25 minimum S/E performance gradients over an assumed range of conditions

At a mountain-area airport the optimal design will maximize payload. That optimal design might not be constant across the flight; in fact, often isn't.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Also, what about horizontal obstacle clearance? Runway Geometry etc? Turn it over!

Edit..Again who will bear the responsibility? Although I can also say "Great idea" if you don't take any fuel or payload.:}

[underfire]

It is possible to publish a SID that meets the twin engine FAR 25 minimum S/E performance gradients over an assumed range of conditions

That procedure would be so restrictive, with the combination worst case factors, it would be unusable. The chart would have so many caveats, you would need 3 pages to publish the chart.

The RNP-AR EO DEP designs have every single factor added. Worst engine in the fleet or class, all the bleeds on, icing on, engine wear/dirt, every drag factor possible on the engine and ac, and MTOW. The result is that many times, you have double digit climb rates, especially when you get up around 30 or 35 C. Add a 737-700 to the fleet with 20K engines and see where it all goes.