far part 25 aircraft - OEI FLIGHT PATH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: RSA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
far part 25 aircraft - OEI FLIGHT PATH
far part 25 aircraft - OEI FLIGHT PATH
HI ALL
does a OEI FLIGHT PATH allow for any turns / track changes ?
the question is respect of far part 25 aircraft ?
thanks
HI ALL
does a OEI FLIGHT PATH allow for any turns / track changes ?
the question is respect of far part 25 aircraft ?
thanks
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does a OEI FLIGHT PATH allow for any turns / track changes ? - Absolutely, positively, definately it does allow for it. Countless OEI "Special Procedures" REQUIRE that to ensure lateral and vertical obstacle clearance, turns / track changes are frequently required. In numerous airports that I operate from, maintaining runway track would be CERTAIN death.
There are defined criteria, e.g. Bank angle not more than 15°, vertical obstacle clearance of the net flight path increased from 35 to 50 feet etc., but I suspect that any further qualification is beyond the scope of your original question.
As a psychic, I rate about 1 point in 1000, but I get the hunch that you've been given the "Absolutely must maintain runway track" routine by someone - just guessing.
Regards,
Old Smokey
There are defined criteria, e.g. Bank angle not more than 15°, vertical obstacle clearance of the net flight path increased from 35 to 50 feet etc., but I suspect that any further qualification is beyond the scope of your original question.
As a psychic, I rate about 1 point in 1000, but I get the hunch that you've been given the "Absolutely must maintain runway track" routine by someone - just guessing.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
If I may add to Old Smokey's observations
(1) a presumption is that the escape path is reasonably "flyable" .. not much point in an already high operational workload scenario to load the crew up to the point of excess overload
(2) while most runways can be addressed by a simple turn, some require moderately complex procedures which present a number of design problems, quite apart from considerations of crew workload. These might includes things like
[list=a][*] the need to define the centre of the turn radius[*]suitable lead .. how does the pilot determine this point ?[*]what radius of turn do we need ... bank less than 15 deg ? allowance for radius variation throughout the V2 range.[*]how do we achieve the required track ? aid errors ? DR ?[*]allowance for wind, aid and tracking error vs sensible expansion of the obstacle trapezoid[*]the additional trapezoid complexity and associated problems with defining which obstacles are inside the area of interest[*]obstacle data reliability, errors .. do we need to do a separate survey ? .. are there other than the normal sources of data avalable ?[/list=a]
The list goes on and on ... hence the usual desire for KISS.
So far as maintaining extended centreline might be concerned, it is VERY important that the crew do their absolute best to maintain the centreline of the presumed tracking trapezoid .. while the rules vary a bit according to which regulatory document is relevant, NONE of the trapezoids is wide enough to cater for slack crew attention to tracking.
(1) a presumption is that the escape path is reasonably "flyable" .. not much point in an already high operational workload scenario to load the crew up to the point of excess overload
(2) while most runways can be addressed by a simple turn, some require moderately complex procedures which present a number of design problems, quite apart from considerations of crew workload. These might includes things like
[list=a][*] the need to define the centre of the turn radius[*]suitable lead .. how does the pilot determine this point ?[*]what radius of turn do we need ... bank less than 15 deg ? allowance for radius variation throughout the V2 range.[*]how do we achieve the required track ? aid errors ? DR ?[*]allowance for wind, aid and tracking error vs sensible expansion of the obstacle trapezoid[*]the additional trapezoid complexity and associated problems with defining which obstacles are inside the area of interest[*]obstacle data reliability, errors .. do we need to do a separate survey ? .. are there other than the normal sources of data avalable ?[/list=a]
The list goes on and on ... hence the usual desire for KISS.
So far as maintaining extended centreline might be concerned, it is VERY important that the crew do their absolute best to maintain the centreline of the presumed tracking trapezoid .. while the rules vary a bit according to which regulatory document is relevant, NONE of the trapezoids is wide enough to cater for slack crew attention to tracking.
