Minimum Acceleration Height
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Africa
Age: 38
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Acceleration Height
Good Day All,
The question I got is the following:
Now, we always use 400' on our B190's and the performance manuals state the same, but I can't find it anywhere in the CAR's. I had a look in CAR 121.08.3, but I can't find anything there. Either that, or I need a new pair of specs more than I realise!
Any references to the regulations will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Prop Job
The question I got is the following:
On the go-around from minima, on a Part 121 aircraft, what is the engine-inoperative minimum acceleration height?
Any references to the regulations will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Prop Job
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Africa
Age: 38
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Intruder.
We operate under South African CAR's.
If my understanding is correct, FAR 23/25 is only for airworthiness standards and not operating legislation, such as Part 91, 121 and 135. Basically how I understand it is in order to achieve the performance they achieved during certification, I need to follow the procedures laid down in FAR 23 or 25, whichever one applies.
The search continues...
Prop Job
We operate under South African CAR's.
If my understanding is correct, FAR 23/25 is only for airworthiness standards and not operating legislation, such as Part 91, 121 and 135. Basically how I understand it is in order to achieve the performance they achieved during certification, I need to follow the procedures laid down in FAR 23 or 25, whichever one applies.
The search continues...
Prop Job
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure there is one?
In this country, whatever it takes such that you can make good a net 2.5% climb gradient and make the missed approach altitude by the end of the procedure then that would be it.
In this country, whatever it takes such that you can make good a net 2.5% climb gradient and make the missed approach altitude by the end of the procedure then that would be it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Africa
Age: 38
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waren9, I think you're right. It's the same with the South African Regulations.
I think the reason we use 400' is because that's what the manufacturer used during certification to achieve the required 2.5% climb gradient.
Prop Job
121.8.8 Landing at destination and alternate aerodromes
-Landing weight must be within limits
-A missed approach from a landing where the decision heights are below 200 feet must allow for a gradient of 2.5%
-Landing weight must be within limits
-A missed approach from a landing where the decision heights are below 200 feet must allow for a gradient of 2.5%
Prop Job
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reason we use 400' is because that's what the manufacturer used during certification to achieve the required 2.5% climb gradient.
The manufacturer determinds the accceleration height during flight testing...with a minimum of 400 feet.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North America
Age: 64
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop Job,
If I have misunderstood your question I apologize beforehand.
Given an engine failure, on the runway after V1, one is obligated to fly to the company mandated minimum acceleration height speed up, clean up achieve the “target speed” in the proper configuration and then climb to 1,500’ above the runway.
However, on the go around from a missed approach there is no requirement to level off anywhere other than the assigned missed approach altitude. On the go around from a missed approach there is no engine failure acceleration height.
In comparing the two scenarios; on the runway engine failure after V1 and loosing the engine on the approach or go around, you have more altitude and momentum in flight. I’m not aware of any profile on the missed approach that is going to have you level off at an intermediate altitude then clean up, prior to climbing to the missed approach altitude. This is why approach climb limits are important, if you are heavier than the approach climb limit for the conditions present you will not have the performance to achieve the required climb.
So I think the answer is there isn’t any minimum acceleration height on the go around from minimum for Part 121 Certified aircraft.
Respectfully,
Northbeach
If I have misunderstood your question I apologize beforehand.
Given an engine failure, on the runway after V1, one is obligated to fly to the company mandated minimum acceleration height speed up, clean up achieve the “target speed” in the proper configuration and then climb to 1,500’ above the runway.
However, on the go around from a missed approach there is no requirement to level off anywhere other than the assigned missed approach altitude. On the go around from a missed approach there is no engine failure acceleration height.
In comparing the two scenarios; on the runway engine failure after V1 and loosing the engine on the approach or go around, you have more altitude and momentum in flight. I’m not aware of any profile on the missed approach that is going to have you level off at an intermediate altitude then clean up, prior to climbing to the missed approach altitude. This is why approach climb limits are important, if you are heavier than the approach climb limit for the conditions present you will not have the performance to achieve the required climb.
So I think the answer is there isn’t any minimum acceleration height on the go around from minimum for Part 121 Certified aircraft.
Respectfully,
Northbeach
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If my understanding is correct, FAR 23/25 is only for airworthiness standards and not operating legislation, such as Part 91, 121 and 135. Basically how I understand it is in order to achieve the performance they achieved during certification, I need to follow the procedures laid down in FAR 23 or 25, whichever one applies.
If an airline's OpSpecs and training program are approved to meet higher criteria (e.g., the 800' min accel height instead of the 400' basic regulatory min), then you are obligated to operate in accordance with those rules and training. There should NEVER be a case where the OpSpecs or Training Manual has looser criteria than regulatory minimums, except if a specific waiver is in force.
