Go around Climb Gradient with Single Engine

[extricate]

Hi there,

May I ask in the event of a single engine GA, does the climb gradient pertaining to local charts say VHHH 7% apply? OR we just have to meet the discontinued approach climb gradient of 2.5% (EU OPS)

Thanks

[Capn Bloggs]

Please post a chart of the approach.

[extricate]

https://www.hkatc.gov.hk/HK_AIP/supp/A14-09.pdf

Page 10

[OPEN DES]

You must comply with the charted MACG both for OEI and AEO cases, unless your company has a OEI contingency procedure for that specific IAP.
Only exception would be where a MACG is specified for ATC/airspace reasons only, prior coordination with ATC required.

[Capn Bloggs]

My (out of town) take: doesn't matter how many engines you have going. If you can make 7%, use the 222ft/122ft minimums. If you can only make 2.5%, then you have to use the 1332ft minimum (as shown in the Missed Approach procedure text). Those gradients merely provide suitable obstacle clearance. How you achieve them on 1, 2, 3, or 4 engines is entirely up to you/you company.

"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?

[extricate]

I see, I thought as long as we abide by the 2.5%, we'll have satisfied the regulation portion of it. Guess the 7% is under the regulatory requirements too.

[pineteam]

On A320 and I believe on all modern airliners you are never climb gradient limited with all engines running. So you can always use the lowest minima applicable to your aircraft. When you do the landing performance computation, it will give you the climb gradient in case of engine out. If in your case, if it’s below 7%, you still use the lowest minima but you have to mention that in the very unlikely case of an engine failure below 1332 feet and you have to perform a go around then you must follow the EOSID and not the standard missed approach from the chart. The only reason to use the DA of 1332 would be if you had an engine failure before starting an approach and you don’t have an EOSID for HK which is very unlikely. In HK, it’s better to request 07R in case of engine failure for landing if you are climb gradient limited as it’s 4% instead of 7%. The EOSID for 07L is a total mess.

[I.want.to.retire]

regulations require missed approach climb gradients to be achieved with one-engine-inoperative.

therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.

it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.

the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)

[pineteam]

That’s why we have EOSID. We never use the highest minima in normal conditions. =)
I’m not based in HK but we use it daily as alternate and that’s what we were told.

[vilas]

I think EOSID and OEO missed approach is getting mixed up. It is quite possible that their paths may be different and they are not same. When the required OEO missed approach gradient cannot be met then that restricts the RTOW at departure airport and it may not be commercially viable. To avoid this a OEO missed approach is designed.

[pineteam]

Yes what I mean is EO missed approach procedure even tho in our Flysmart it’s written as EOSID and is the same path as EOSID. In our home based the missed approach climb gradient is 5.4% minimum with only one published DA.
So it’s common use for us to mention when we are heavy and the climb gradient is less than 5.4% on the performance calculation in case of engine out we will follow the EO missed approach ( which is exactly the same as the EOSID) and not the standard missed approach published on the chart.

[JRFD]

My (out of town) take: doesn't matter how many engines you have going. If you can make 7%, use the 222ft/122ft minimums. If you can only make 2.5%, then you have to use the 1332ft minimum (as shown in the Missed Approach procedure text). Those gradients merely provide suitable obstacle clearance. How you achieve them on 1, 2, 3, or 4 engines is entirely up to you/you company.

"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?

OCA/.H (Obstacle Clearance altitude/height) are published by the procedure designer. These have to be converted to DA/H. Using height: you compare the OCH to the system minima. So if OCH is 160ft and system minima for ILS is 200ft, then you use 200ft. If the OCH is 250 and system minima is 200ft, then you use 250ft.


Jeppesen and other companies do this for you, AIP's do not!

[poldek77]

regulations require missed approach climb gradients to be achieved with one-engine-inoperative.

therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.

it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.

the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)

not exactly. If you are not able to climb with 7% or more then you can still descend to lower minimum but you are not allowed to execute published missed approach procedure. In order to make it safe (and legal) your company must provide you another procedure - with sufficient terrain/obstacle clearance - to be used in engine out situation (the obstacles in front will not move but you may fly in a different direction). It may be the same routing as EOSID but may be another one as well.