Engine Failure Go-around - MAP Vs Obstacle Clearance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Failure Go-around - MAP Vs Obstacle Clearance
Curious to all out there -
What does your company teach you to follow if you have to carry out a Go-around/Missed Approach with an Engine Failure?
Consider a published Missed Approach Procedure Vs Obstacle Clearance Requirements?
Thanks!
What does your company teach you to follow if you have to carry out a Go-around/Missed Approach with an Engine Failure?
Consider a published Missed Approach Procedure Vs Obstacle Clearance Requirements?
Thanks!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a Company thing but an ICAO (PANS OPS 8168) thing and therefore its a requirement.
When carrying out a missed approach follow the published missed approach procedure.
The MAP will require a gross climb gradient of 3.3% which is 2.5% net. The a/c Approach Climb Limit should ensure the aircraft can maintain a 2.5% net gradient in the event of a single engined go-around.
When carrying out a missed approach follow the published missed approach procedure.
The MAP will require a gross climb gradient of 3.3% which is 2.5% net. The a/c Approach Climb Limit should ensure the aircraft can maintain a 2.5% net gradient in the event of a single engined go-around.
Moderator
Careful, chaps.
With an engine failure at other than (relevant to the aircraft) lowish weights all bets are off.
Unless your ops eng people have addressed the OEI overshoot obstacle situation specifically, the pilot is on his own and ought to feel very, very lonely.
... and keep in mind that such considerations may well involve either a significantly higher minimum and/or a different overshoot plan, arrived at in a manner similar to OEI takeoff analyses. The latter is relevant to the FAR25 type of machine. If yours is a light aircraft, however, then you are in a predicament ....
There have been some detailed discussions in the past year in the tech forum on this subject and a search will pick up some quite interesting reading.
[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]
With an engine failure at other than (relevant to the aircraft) lowish weights all bets are off.
Unless your ops eng people have addressed the OEI overshoot obstacle situation specifically, the pilot is on his own and ought to feel very, very lonely.
... and keep in mind that such considerations may well involve either a significantly higher minimum and/or a different overshoot plan, arrived at in a manner similar to OEI takeoff analyses. The latter is relevant to the FAR25 type of machine. If yours is a light aircraft, however, then you are in a predicament ....
There have been some detailed discussions in the past year in the tech forum on this subject and a search will pick up some quite interesting reading.
[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Gypsy:
I have to disagree with you: the Missed App Climb Gradient is 2,5 % GROSS and and not 3,3 %. Also no reduction of 0,8 % to arrive at a NET Gradient is required. You are obviously mistaking the Takeoff calculations for the Missed App calculations.
When initiating the Missed App, the 2,5 % GROSS gradient starts after a 15 sec. level flight segment with 10 kts tailwind and clears all obstacles by 98 ft in the intermediate phase and 164 ft in the final phase.
Like in any other serious airline, we are provided with runway tables that give us approach climb limited landing weights. Therefore under normal circumstances we follow the published Missed App procedure.
However if we start the Missed App below Minima and/or past the Decision Point (=Balked Landing) or in case of the landing weight being in excess of the limiting weight (=immediate relanding in case of emergency) we follow the Escape Procedure which is also provided for every runway we operate into.
I have to disagree with you: the Missed App Climb Gradient is 2,5 % GROSS and and not 3,3 %. Also no reduction of 0,8 % to arrive at a NET Gradient is required. You are obviously mistaking the Takeoff calculations for the Missed App calculations.
When initiating the Missed App, the 2,5 % GROSS gradient starts after a 15 sec. level flight segment with 10 kts tailwind and clears all obstacles by 98 ft in the intermediate phase and 164 ft in the final phase.
Like in any other serious airline, we are provided with runway tables that give us approach climb limited landing weights. Therefore under normal circumstances we follow the published Missed App procedure.
However if we start the Missed App below Minima and/or past the Decision Point (=Balked Landing) or in case of the landing weight being in excess of the limiting weight (=immediate relanding in case of emergency) we follow the Escape Procedure which is also provided for every runway we operate into.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks John,
Would appreciate the info you can get. We are in the process of evaluating this as well, as the Engine Failure on TO procedures (discussed earlier). Do you have any information on how your airline presents this to their pilots? You can email me at [email protected]
Regards.
Would appreciate the info you can get. We are in the process of evaluating this as well, as the Engine Failure on TO procedures (discussed earlier). Do you have any information on how your airline presents this to their pilots? You can email me at [email protected]
Regards.
