Anybody knows the airport that has single engine missed app procedure?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Korea
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody knows the airport that has single engine missed app procedure?
Because I have never seen one.
they say it's on jepp page 10-7, 20-7 ...
but I couldn't find one.
they say it's on jepp page 10-7, 20-7 ...
but I couldn't find one.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A sunny island
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a few years back some airlines were using customized jepp plates for one engine out departure procedure . Now it's usualy included in the route / performance / runway analysis manual . For the one engine out missed approach, i guess if no time permit to check climb gradient compliance, you could always followed the one engine out departure procedure . Inform ATC before .
Take care.
dj
Take care.
dj
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take Glasgow.
The Emergency turn (from the performance manual) required a Left turn, but the Let Down Plate, following a go-around (engine out or not) required a Right turn!
Voyage Report ended up in cyber-space as many did!
The Emergency turn (from the performance manual) required a Left turn, but the Let Down Plate, following a go-around (engine out or not) required a Right turn!
Voyage Report ended up in cyber-space as many did!
Can you elaborate, Bluepilot? I've just been through the AIP for both ILS and NDB procedures at Leeds and it doesn't mention a different G/R for S/E that I can see.
Also Plainsoul, I assume you mean a procedure for S/E aircraft, as a procedure for a twin suffering an engine failure would be too specific a case.
Also Plainsoul, I assume you mean a procedure for S/E aircraft, as a procedure for a twin suffering an engine failure would be too specific a case.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Mainland Europe
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has always been my understanding that under the terms of ICAO Annex 6, it is the operators responsibility to assess each airport that it operates into and produce contingency procedures (if required) in the event of an engine failure on departure or missed approach. Obviously aircraft types and therefore performance e.g. climb gradient, speed and maximum permitted angle of bank and therefore turning radius in the event of engine failure during T/off or missed approach mean there are too many variables to be considered by the PANS-OPS procedure designer.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NL
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodpecker,
I'm not familiar with Glasgow, but an explanation for this difference could be that in general an emergency turn procedure assumes clearing the DER at 35 feet and the missed approach starts at the MAP which would normally be well before the landing treshold.
Ziggy
I'm not familiar with Glasgow, but an explanation for this difference could be that in general an emergency turn procedure assumes clearing the DER at 35 feet and the missed approach starts at the MAP which would normally be well before the landing treshold.
Ziggy
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ziggy,
I understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day the emergency turn shoud be the same hwether the single engine climb started at 100 feet on the approach or just after take off.
How about a totally different tack.
757 dispatch with a booster pump u/s. MEL requires minimum fuel for approach ( to make sure remaining pump has positive supply at approach attitude) to be increased AND the crossfeed cock to be opened for approach (again to preserve positive fuel pressure).
However, if the pump fails during flight (with less fuel in the tanks compared with above) the QRH requires that you do NOTHING.
Reports to the company resulted in the following from Boeing. "We see no reason to change the procedures. The MEL and QRH procedures are totally different and should not be compared"???
Why did I bother??
I understand where you are coming from, but at the end of the day the emergency turn shoud be the same hwether the single engine climb started at 100 feet on the approach or just after take off.
How about a totally different tack.
757 dispatch with a booster pump u/s. MEL requires minimum fuel for approach ( to make sure remaining pump has positive supply at approach attitude) to be increased AND the crossfeed cock to be opened for approach (again to preserve positive fuel pressure).
However, if the pump fails during flight (with less fuel in the tanks compared with above) the QRH requires that you do NOTHING.
Reports to the company resulted in the following from Boeing. "We see no reason to change the procedures. The MEL and QRH procedures are totally different and should not be compared"???
Why did I bother??
Registered User **
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: poll position
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your despatch landing go around performance should be analysed for each airport, factored and if limiting would result in those ldg weights and special trg/instructions being published. otherwise you should make it upto max ldg wgt.
Emerg turns are invalid as they are formulated from different perf info/criteria.
Emerg turns are invalid as they are formulated from different perf info/criteria.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dicks suggests...
Emerg turns are invalid..
The real world out here is that, when it all goes wrong, "emergency turns" keep you (hopefully) away from the granite.
My point was that at airfield like Glasgow it seems daft to have an "emergency turn" (after passing the reciprocal OM) going at 180 degrees to the "standard Go-around".
Why not reduce the workload in a go-around, especially in the engine out case, by making the routing the same until terrain is not an issue
Emerg turns are invalid..
The real world out here is that, when it all goes wrong, "emergency turns" keep you (hopefully) away from the granite.
My point was that at airfield like Glasgow it seems daft to have an "emergency turn" (after passing the reciprocal OM) going at 180 degrees to the "standard Go-around".
Why not reduce the workload in a go-around, especially in the engine out case, by making the routing the same until terrain is not an issue
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any of you operate into HKG, have a look at the climb gradient required on 07L for the missed approach. It's about 7% by memory, quite hard for any twin to carry out that sort of climb at heavy weights on one engine.
Last edited by RaTa; 10th Jan 2005 at 23:33.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelowna
Hi fellas;
Kelowna, British Columbia CYLW has very specific and complex single engine go-around procedures. They are in fact labelled by Jeppeson as 10-7 (rwy 16) and 10-7B (rwy 34). Kelowna is deep in a mountain valley and the single engine procedure is designed to keep you out of the hills that surround it. The gist of both procedures is to turn up the valley , level off over a very long lake, retract flaps , set MCT and then continue the climb through another valley. MSA within 25 nm varies from 7800-8700 ft, depending on the direction.
If anyone can tell me how to attach a jpeg to my posting, I'll post up the plates for all to examine.
Interestingly, Okanagan Lake, for which said valley is named, is similar in composition to Loch Ness...long and deep surrounded by high mountains. Most interesting though is the existense of its' very own monster (plesiosaur), named Ogopogo.
It's too cold (-31c) to skate or ski today, so I can put up the plates as soon as I figure out how.
McDoo
Kelowna, British Columbia CYLW has very specific and complex single engine go-around procedures. They are in fact labelled by Jeppeson as 10-7 (rwy 16) and 10-7B (rwy 34). Kelowna is deep in a mountain valley and the single engine procedure is designed to keep you out of the hills that surround it. The gist of both procedures is to turn up the valley , level off over a very long lake, retract flaps , set MCT and then continue the climb through another valley. MSA within 25 nm varies from 7800-8700 ft, depending on the direction.
If anyone can tell me how to attach a jpeg to my posting, I'll post up the plates for all to examine.
Interestingly, Okanagan Lake, for which said valley is named, is similar in composition to Loch Ness...long and deep surrounded by high mountains. Most interesting though is the existense of its' very own monster (plesiosaur), named Ogopogo.
It's too cold (-31c) to skate or ski today, so I can put up the plates as soon as I figure out how.
McDoo
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bern, Switzerland, LSZB
Very easy one. Look on the back of the IAL charts 11-1 etc.
Simply higher minima for OEI if you cannot make the gradient.
(Check the difference between normal and special gradients
)
Very easy one. Look on the back of the IAL charts 11-1 etc.
Simply higher minima for OEI if you cannot make the gradient.
(Check the difference between normal and special gradients
)
The normal operations PANS-OPS missed approach climb gradient is 2.5%. If this has to be increased for any reason, it is a requirement to also publish amended minima for the nominal 2.5% gradient.
For reasons already stated, it is impossible to design procedures for every OEI situation.
For reasons already stated, it is impossible to design procedures for every OEI situation.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dublin Ireland
Age: 51
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One engine out
Yes indeed , Fat n grey is correct, it is the responsibility of the operator , to ensure dispatch performance.According to the regulations all SID's as with missed approach require a minimum climb gradient or 3.1% , however this can be down graded to 2.4%.Example Zurich requires a climb gradient of about 6%, not 100% of exact figure , Lufthansa has a special proceedure for this , whish requires an emergency turn and a definitive lateral track to follow.Whatever aircraft you fly , if you check the climb gradient path in the aircraft manual.However there are differences when it comes to approach to landing climb and approach to climb and there relationship to Vs .
