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.

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!!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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

morno

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.

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

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.

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?

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