CNS RWY15 EOSID
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
SID:
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.
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...
SID:
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.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 3rd Sep 2016 at 03:00. Reason: Firewire...
Moderator
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.
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.
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....
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....
Moderator
.. 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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
There's been no mistake of transposing the two EOSIDs as you theorise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JT, welcome aboard.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Also, is this EOSID in the FMS to be selected and flown in LNAV (or whatever you bus pilots call).
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
I suspect the early left turn on the SID is as much for noise abatement as terrain, as Bloggs stated above.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 3rd Sep 2016 at 08:37.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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.
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 ?
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 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Hi Snakecharma,
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.
'...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.'
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?
Out of interest, what's your EO acceleration altitude?
...you're already planning to do the turn anyway so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise: just cope with the failure?
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.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 3rd Sep 2016 at 22:18.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Only half a speed-brake
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.