That reference is in our part B. Its not from the part A. Its in all our part B's because they were copied from a Citationjet part B and nobody ever bothered to change it even though I pointed it out on all three types I have flown for the company. The Citationjet is certified with a 400 foot platform in the event of an engine failure at V1. Thats why its there.

The point thats been raised about "concentrating on a smooth climb out" and "potentially moving the wrong lever" are only valid if you modify your procedures to leave the gear down until then and change your ops manual to not allow a go-around under 400 feet because the argument just isn't consistent otherwise. Height has nothing whatsoever to do with flaps. Only speed. If you have lost thrust and can't climb at the same time as accelerating you climb first and then use a certified or agreed platform to accelerate then you raise the flaps. This is badly taught, you clearly don't understand it, and neither do quite a lot of others. Some aircraft are actually certified to continue to accelerate to flap retraction in the event of an engine failure (Hawker 4000) but its never taught like that. This means that the pilots lose out on the extra performance gained. Aircraft climb better clean. Aircraft get off the ground in a shorter distance and at a lower speed with flaps. Once away from the ground it is desirable to get rid of the drag and climb. I don't know how to make it any simpler!

My suggestion is absolutely compliant with noise abatement. In a noise abatement climb I hold V2+10to20 therefore I don't raise the flap. At 800 feet I reduce power. At 3000 feet I accelerate through V2+20 and retract the flaps.

Absolutely consistent with every post I have made. Retract the flaps at V2+20. What is your justification for blasting through V2+20 on a noise abatement climb and leaving the flaps down? Body angle? Then reduce the power! Climbing against the excess drag is contrary to the spirit of the noise abatement rules. If you are going to ignore the rules on the basis that body angle and therefore safety is compromised, reduce the power early which will at least reduce the noise and keep with the spirit of the legislation. Everything I am suggesting we do is in the operators manuals, and is supported by the NADP1 and 2. What is your justification for exceeding V2+20 when its clear in the regs and in the ops manual?

Tom, don't get me wrong but aren't you just spending all your energy and momemtum at re-inventing hot water ?

Perhaps.

But think about this. I'm not trying to re-invent anything. I am suggesting that we do what is in the manual for the aircraft we fly.

I have a concern that current noise abatement procedures are not appropriate for some of the aircraft that we all fly and that many of us do not adhere to the regulations when flying a noise abatement departure. I don't blame the pilots for that at all - the relatively high power to weight of many business jets gives resultant performance which simply does not allow practical adherence to the regulations.

It is abundantly clear even from this thread but also from having worked as a line trainer for many years that the majority of pilots do not understand performance. It is not explicit in flight manuals what actions a pilot should take in the event of an engine failure above flap retraction speed whether the aircraft is clean or still has take off flap selected and many pilots have never even thought about it. I completely accept that I don't know whether it has ever been a factor in an accident but I don't think that's a reason not to consider it. Even discussing it seems to raise a high level of aggression in the responses and I think this is because I am questioning the actions of what pilots do every day. Everyone has got comfortable doing something that I think is flawed - they have been badly taught and do not clearly understand what is going on during the early part of an all engines operating take off. Exceeding the flap retraction speed by a significant amount degrades the take off path performance. This manifests itself as increased noise footprint when operating with all engines or as a degraded flight path in the event of a failure above the flap retraction speed.

I started this thread because I have been flying for an operator who has attempted to mandate climbing to 1500 feet holding the take off flap setting whilst accelerating to near Vfe. Quite clearly this is bonkers but in trying to get this situation changed I became aware of how deeply ingrained the idea that a flap retraction height controls the retraction of flaps is.

There is no such thing as a flap retraction height. This idea is actually dangerous. Acceleration altitudes exist which allow you to accelerate the aircraft should you require it in order to retract the flaps but a pilot does not retract the flaps because they are at a specific altitude. The flaps are retracted because the aircraft has achieved a specific speed.

My argument is that you do the SAME THING with regard to the flaps regardless of whether you lose an engine at V1, V2, V2+20, V2+50, on a noise abatement departure, on a normal (non noise) departure. I am certain that this is what is intended by manufacturers and it fits all the written legislation.

I am astonished that so many pilots have come back with initially fierce arguments without even beginning to carefully consider what we are really talking about. Its been clear that some pilots think you keep the flap set at take off and climb to 1500 feet, some think you can retract the flaps at 400 feet but have not been specific about what data they are using for this. Very few have been specific about their actions in the event of a failure above V2+20 and where they have done so I believe those actions are not supported by the flight manual.

So that's why I'm bothered about it. I've met too many pilots who don't really know what they would do in that phase of flight and don't understand the noise implications and fuel implications should everything go to plan. Worse than that, I've met trainers who will positively teach the wrong thing simply because they don't really understand it. And it all goes back to how they were taught in the first place.

Lots of pilot actions on the flight deck are based on motor actions, ie rehearsed items repeated again and again with the smooth professional grace that all of us use to operate aircraft.

What I was tying to suggest was de-linking the action of retracting the gear along side retracting the flap would be a good thing. If you take off safe in the knowledge that you have excess performance and in the knowledge that you can normally retract the flaps as soon as the gear is up, thats what you will start (subconsciously) doing. How do you then know that on a go-around you won't retract gear and flaps (entirely) at the same time? This is human factors and where I was coming from with my first post, a long time ago.

In our operation on the go around, gear and flaps are de linked with SOP's. We perform G/A actions (power+pitch), then move flaps, then check the aircraft has entered correct modes, then raise gear. Nothing is done in a rush...

Lets face it, gear up is normally 2-3 seconds after take off. If you climb at (guess mode) 4000 fpm, it will take you 6 seconds to get to 400'. Why are you in such a hurry to get anything done in that 6 seconds? Maybe, your 1500' operator just simply wants concentration on the initial climb ensuring stability over a rushed operation and in doing so they have made a choice of safety over outright efficiency...

BTW, from a purely performance perspective, I can't disagree with anything you are suggesting. From a flight safety one I most certainly do... And that's my opinion! :p

gents I certainly don't mean to offend anyone by saying that we've been taught badly. I think there is a systemic fault in the training of pilots which tends towards teaching the minimums. Its an exam passing mentality that's becoming worse the more the industry relies on individuals to pay for their training. Even once we've passed and got jobs the emphasis of training is only to repeat the standard we achieved the day we scraped through the IR. And for subsequent courses there is a massive amount of repetition - how many courses have you sat through that are exactly the same stuff you sat through the year before. The emphasis should always be on continual learning rather than an annual LPC hurdle. Most pilots are expected to learn all the periphal information by osmosis. Ask most guys where do download OPS1 or how to look at ICAO 8168 or what it even is and you'll end up with a blank look. How EASA is supposed to work, what comes under the remit of the DFT, the list of things we could actually learn about is endless.

I also think that various bits of legislation are invented without real consideration to operational practicality (noise being one). I have 5 years experience as an acoustic engineer and I understand enough about noise and vibration to know that the current rules are daft. I don't even know who sit's round a table and makes these rules up. Where did the "land within 60% of the LDA" for turbo jets come from and whats the maths behind it? Why is it 70% for turboprops? I just don't understand the maths and the logic.

Anyway, I thought I'd start with this and your suggestion of talking to SRG is a good one so I'm happy to end the rather pointless bickering on here and let you know how I get on.

Cheers all

Tom

You´re mixing up me and the majority. IIRC I was the only to say that I have never thought about it really.

dood, you're definitely a minority.. ;)

Tommie, I think you've won the argument, but there are some vociferous posters who will never accept anything unless it's quoted in the regs that they seem so anxious to quote.

If you have the charts to back up your knowledge that the airplane will make a better gradient with the flaps retracted should an engine quit, in my opinion it makes good sense to retract the flaps as soon as you gain the known advantage. Doing so may even reduce the noise footprint, but even if it doesn't one could surely argue that you are enhancing the performance of your aircraft as a preemptive safety measure to increase the obstacle clearance margin should an engine quit. Who could possibly argue with that?

On the other hand it isn't really fair to criticise those who like to highlight obscure, non performance related regulatory text - these posters, in the main, are likely to be the product of a training regime that prioritises the teaching of regulatory compliance above the practicalities of "real world" aircraft operations. Unfortunately we live in a blame culture bubble, and its quite easy to see why the regulators have to cover their backsides too.

Rules are for the guidance of the wise, and the obedience of fools.

It's so disheartening to discover that, after 20,000hrs, I am one of the fools that have been doing it all wrong by climbing out on the recommended vertical profile.

Of course! I should have ignored the AFMs, the test pilots, the company SOPs and those stupid regulatory authorities, and listened to these real experts on pprune.

It must be pure bloody luck that I haven't hit that mountain on climb out.

6

Reg 6, I concur.

All this pontification on the nebulousness of criteria bandied about, which confuses that established by aviation authority and the manufacturer of any given platform. I just hope the new guy reading all this doesn't try to inject this philosophical banter when executing a time critical emergency procedure.

Bingo

PS - give it up dudes.

Simples questions
 

If you are departing an airfield with high terrain/elevation and very tight turns at low speeds, when would you retract flap?