EOSID when to follow?

[popay]

Dehavillanddriver,
First of all it’s just a discussion and not a firm statement.
You are right the aircraft is supposed to be cleaned up within 10 min.
Well, there are couple of problems:
1. ATC doesn’t have a copy of your EOSID and as I described before its required by JAR OPS and should be coordinated with local authorities. Could be a problem.
2. We have about 70 destinations for about 40 different countries. DO you really think its all been coordinated?
However, I have been drawn the attention on that while I was in the SIM with the technical chief pilot and actually been told that the only reason why we have EOSID for each and every airport and RWY is to enhance the commercial load. SO it’s a bit different from the usual concept, like to have EOSID incorporated for the airdromes, where it’s really needed. Like, I told you, home base departure RWY 34, DEP A 34 takes you over the sea and there are no obstacles at all, but there is still an EOSID, which will be needed if you comply with D34 DEP, which does take you over the obstacle and requires 4% climb gradient up to 900 ft.
There is a big performance difference if you perform take off with 180 000 kg TOW or 220 000 kg TOW as well if you depart in ISA conditions or ISA +25. The performance isn’t the same. Finally why do we have to evaluate whether to follow the EOSID or published go around for EO approach and actually decide on the basis of the given sheet (as mentioned above) whether to follow EOSID or the published missed? In other words if you will meet the required missed climb 2,5% performance you DON’T follow the EOSID during the go around. It appears a bit controversy to me.
However we don’t have the table allowing one the evaluation of the take off performance for the given weight and prevailing conditions, so in doubt follow the EOSID.
Cheers.

[popay]

Hi folks, I have done some research again and don’t really know if this tread is still interesting for you? It’s very interesting for me though, since I have two licenses JAR OPS and FAA. I remember somebody mentioned above that it would be nice to have uniform SID (approved by authorities and complied by operators) for particular airdrome and RWY for clearance avoidance, so the folks in the States seem to be a step ahead. This is an extraction from FAR’s and the link http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0502.html
5-2-6. Instrument Departure Procedures (DP) - Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODP) and Standard Instrument Departures (SID)
Instrument departure procedures are preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures which provide obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. There are two types of DPs, Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs), printed either textually or graphically, and Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs), always printed graphically. All DPs, either textual or graphic may be designed using either conventional or RNAV criteria. RNAV procedures will have RNAV printed in the title, e.g., SHEAD TWO DEPARTURE (RNAV). ODPs provide obstruction clearance via the least onerous route from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. ODPs are recommended for obstruction clearance and may be flown without ATC clearance unless an alternate departure procedure (SID or radar vector) has been specifically assigned by ATC. Graphic ODPs will have (OBSTACLE) printed in the procedure title, e.g., GEYSR THREE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE), or, CROWN ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV)(OBSTACLE). Standard Instrument Departures are air traffic control (ATC) procedures printed for pilot/controller use in graphic form to provide obstruction clearance and a transition from the terminal area to the appropriate en route structure. SIDs are primarily designed for system enhancement and to reduce pilot/controller workload. ATC clearance must be received prior to flying a SID. All DPs provide the pilot with a way to depart the airport and transition to the en route structure safely. Pilots operating under 14 CFR Part 91 are strongly encouraged to file and fly a DP at night, during marginal Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), when one is available. The following paragraphs will provide an overview of the DP program, why DPs are developed, what criteria are used, where to find them, how they are to be flown, and finally pilot and ATC responsibilities.
This is not complete document just an extraction. To see the complete DOC see http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0502.html
J. Tullamarine as you can see the law maker reverts to the rate of climb. However in my previous company we used to be stage 2 and PLC concept with 2 laptops. The computer program used for take off performance calculation was giving you all the necessary data like gradient in second and third segments. SO you will be able to see your climb performance with FLEX and TOGA for particular RWY a/c weight and conditions as well as any performance degradation due to MEL items.
Hope that was interesting somehow, sorry for getting to long.
Cheers.

[john_tullamarine]

Problem is ... one size does not fit all aeroplanes .... If one picks out half a dozen AFMs and runs the analyses for an interesting runway with several potential escape options ... consider

(a) third segment height ... 400ft to whatever the aircraft/engine combination is capable of achieving. Very useful to the ops engineer in juggling terrain problems.

(b) third segment distance. Very dependent on aircraft configuration.

(c) number of engines. WAT limit climb values differ with certification.

(d) how important is a particular aerodrome for a given operator ? If Bloggs Airlines makes the bulk of its profit from one hub, it is going to be far more interested in investing the dollars in terrain analysis for each runway at that aerodrome compared to Jones Airlines which runs through the location once or twice a week. Sometimes it just doesn't work out .. I can recall one runway for which I spent around two weeks work on terrain modelling .. eventually a ridge about 15 nm track miles on a convoluted escape path killed the one viable escape option and we ended up opting for straight ahead and living with the small ridge not all that far off the runway head ... was an interesting exercise nonetheless ...

(e) especially with twin jets having highlift devices, at WAT it is not unusual to see 40-50 nm track miles required to get the net path to 1500ft following a V1 failure.

(f) the calculation bits are the easy part .. the difficulty is getting the detailed terrain data .. and that can be a REAL pain for a difficult airport, especially when you consider that any published aeronautical data often is of very limited practical use to the escape design. Any fool with a bit of math background can set up a optimisation program to do the number crunching ... but it is all fairytale land if the terrain models are inaccurate ...


Not a simple matter to figure RTOW unless the runway is totally benign .. ie very long and the departure is over the ocean or a reasonably flat desert .....

Main thing is .. don't consider eyeballing it ... doesn't work and, as one poster suggested earlier in this thread, it just means that you have the terror of watching the hill you are going to crash into get bigger in the windscreen as opposed to not knowing what happened during the death process ...

Ops engineers are there to do the labour for you .. use them.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Popay,

Maybe we are getting some wires crossed as a result of language difficulties - if so I apologise.

However - the main aim of the performance engineer is to ensure that the aircraft can take off from airports in the route network with the maximum load that can reasonably be carried.

In many cases the straight ahead flight path doesn't allow this, therefore a EOSID is designed - call it what you may, escape procedure, contingency procedure, Special Departure procedure - whatever - the purpose of these is to get back the payload that the terrain takes away.

Unless you are flying privately one of the aims of the professional pilot is to maximise payload out of a different port thereby increasing revenue for our employer and hopefully ensuring our professional longevity and employment security.

We hope to do all this safely.

I accept that there are some big performance differences between a 180 tonne aeroplane and a 220 tonne aeroplane, however I maintain, and I suspect that John Tullamarine agrees, that as pilots we are NOT in a position to determine if we can or cannot clear the obstacles and safely maintain terrain clearance - regardless of whether it is VMC or not.

The big issue is that the limiting obstacle may not be immediately obvious and in many cases it isn't the close in obstacle that is limiting it is the one(s) further out - the ones that we wouldn't even think about as pilots because on 2 (or 4) engines we wouldn't even see them.

I wouldn't concern myself about whether or not the procedure has been coordinated with the authorities in various countries - that isn't a problem that should concern line pilots and in any case I'd just declare a PAN and fly the EOSID and let the ATC people worry about the rest of the traffic.

My concern as a member of the operating crew is to ensure that
in the event that we have a loss of performance that we can get the aeroplane on the ground at an appropriate airport (not necessarily the departure airport) without too much excitement.

Remember that the obstacle clearance following a loss of performance could be so little that it may well activate the GPWS -this is the tolerance that is applied to these situations - to eyeball the terrain clearance except in over water or desert takeoff's is foolish in the extreme in my opinion.

As John T says the Ops Engineer has taken a lot of time and trouble figuring out a flight path to follow - don't second guess him/her - it may well be a decision that you don't live to regret!

[FlexibleResponse]

John Tullamarine and De Havilland Driver,
I thought your posts were excellent.

For some reason Popay seems to be worried about other people doing their jobs properly and possibly (and worryingly) at the expense of doing his correctly. For some reason he thinks that ATC doesn’t know about EOSIDs of individual airlines. He may well be right for his airline.

However, I might just note for what it is worth, that I believe that any reputable airline’s Navigation/Planning/ Performance/Fight Ops or whatever Department will ensure that each and every ATC facility at each and every Port will have the full details of that reputable airline’s EOSIDs (and special EOSIDs if applicable) for each runway and aircraft type operated by said reputable airline.

I was trained and I subsequently trained my poor subjects that in the event of an engine failure on departure, after ensuring control of the aircraft is established and the immediate actions is accomplished, to notify ATC of the emergency status of the aircraft and add such words as “…engine failure, we are following the EOSID”. ATC can then carry out whatever actions that might be necessary to facilitate the EOSID such as get rid of any conflicting traffic.

Also, ATC having full knowledge of the consequences of an engine failure including EOSID rerouting on departure will allow for those factors before issuing a takeoff clearance.

The rules of flying have been very elegantly designed to protect pilots as the result of intensive and extensive thought processes in the light of thousands of man-years of experience, including the analysis of many incidents and accidents over many years.

But we as pilots must follow the rules to enjoy that protection.

[popay]

Guys thanks for the respond.
First of all I’m not against the idea of following the EOSID. As I mentioned before and according to the company DOC. If in doubt follow it. However I am trying to understand the concept and more the reason “why on one side to evaluate whether to follow the EOSID or published missed, based on aircraft performance (and that’s the official procedure) during the go around, which might occur immediately after take off, if you come back for landing, as you well know. I have mentioned it in my previous posts and not to do it for take off? If anyone could just answer me that question, that might clear it. Please just answer that question without big polemic.

john_tullamarine, yeap i agree it’s different for various aircraft types. I haven’t considered that one. I thought it would be polled for the particular fleet.

Dehavillanddriver, I have to disappoint you a bit, according to the company manual, as posted by cavelino rampante above
''In VMC conditions provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are adequate the pilot may

-Accept radar vectoring by ATC or
-Follow the departure route or
-Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield

If unable to insure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be adpoted'' in VMC you have the option to fly visually actually assessing whether you can make it? Quite a risky business though, I agree. Whether the pilot is able to do so or not, it’s another question.
AS, I told you departing from home base VMC, where you have 1 building, well known, and having engine fire, one for sure wont follow the EOSID, but maintain Flap 1 and come back and land. That’s what we brief as well. However it a very simplified scenario. Have you ever operated parallel RWY operation or took of from uncontrolled airdrome? Well, if you take off from Minneapolis in the States or Chicago O’Hare, you will receive the clearance e.g. “having the United 777, taking of parallel on your left, in sight, you are cleared for take off” Which means, you fly absolutely parallel to the departing a/c with min. lateral distance required, of course, guess what is your only option, in case of engine failure? Well, if your EOSID says turn left and so on, bad luck I guess, you actually will have to avoid the obstacles by visual means, initially at least.
If you have clicked on the previous link, there are departures in the USA, requiring pilot to asses his climb performance based on 40/1 rule.
Example “Climb in visual conditions so as to cross X airport northbound at or above 7000 ft, then proceed to …..” Aren’t you going to depart? That’s all reality.
FlexibleResponse, not for some reason, but for a concrete reason, in particular I spoke to ATC in FRA and they have no clue about it. ATC said, well do you know how many airlines are flying to FRA? Do you expect us to know every and each EOSID from each operator? DO you know how many airlines we serve per day?
Well, than what you going to do, if you hear airline x following EOSID? We will, of course, give him priority and try to arrange the traffic flow and thanks god there is still min. separation between departing and arriving traffic applicable.
What about, if you start parallel RWY operation? Hmm, he smiled and siped the coffee. Well I don’t doubt the good work of our engineering department, but I just have a reasonable portion of healthy scepticism in how the whole system really works.

[mealie puddins]

Flex, sorry disagree, i have worked for three pretty good airlines and the brief was to inform atc of what we are doing They where not aware of our routeing.

[alf5071h]

I agree with the opinions / advice about flying the engine out departure – always follow your procedures.
As we have seen from many past accidents and indications from several currently under investigation, the problem of human error is underestimated.

The performance engineer has solved the difficult aspects; the pilot does not have to reassess or make judgement, just a confirming decision to follow the procedure. Even in VFR, the limitations of human vision and judgement can easily contribute to error, and some of the terrain clearances may appear very small.

Engine failures in modern aircraft are rare, especially those occurring at a critical point during the take off or in limiting conditions; the crew will be surprised, shocked; even fearful. The best course of action is to fly the aircraft accurately, maximising the safety margins in obstacle clearance, dealing with other surprising events (EPWS alert or EGPWS terrain popup). For failures after V1 the situation is always better, but the crew may not be able to judge by how much. Good procedure design will specify the last point of applicability e.g. start of the emergency turn; if the engine fails after that, then the normal procedure will be safe. However, in very difficult terrain there may be conditional procedures with branch points – see some of the operations out of Lugarno!

Refer to the PSM+ICR reports, especially for the turboprop causes of accidents that show that loss of control was the dominat factor after an engine failure. Rule 1, fly the aircraft (following procedures), don’t get smart and try to out think people and procedures, this is when you make mistakes.

EOSID – there is nothing ‘standard’ about this. The procedure may be an emergency turn or emergency routing, it is an emergency. At an appropriate time after engine failure and completing essential drills, communicate with ATC to ‘tell’ them what your intentions are; this does not have to be very detailed – you are the one who requires assistance, and the one who has the overall responsibility for safety and the authority to fly a safe route. Don’t forget that ATC can also get excited and in being over-helpful with radar steers or advice they can give you misleading and possibly dangerous information.

Airbus operators should refer to the excellent publication “Getting to Grips with Performance” issued by Flt Ops Support in Toulouse, which explains many of the technical concepts discussed above.

[FlexibleResponse]

popay,

It is beneficial for a pilot in having healthy skepticism as it can sometimes help uncover hidden flaws in the system. But I am sure that we pilots all agree we should be careful not to seize upon “good ideas” and use them as justification to ignore or vary SOPs until such time as these good ideas are fully validated and a decision is taken to amend the SOPs accordingly.

Without a doubt your research and discussion on this forum has made us all think a little deeper about the topic.

mealie puddins says that his training from three pretty good airlines in the event of engine failure was to inform ATC of what they are doing as ATC was not aware of his airline’s EOSID routing.

My reading of JAR-OPS indicates that it is the operator’s responsibility to ensure performance during SIDs including in the case of an engine inop. If the specified performance criteria cannot be met by following the SID with an engine inop, then it becomes the operator’s responsibility to design a new procedure (EOSID) and submit it to the relevant state for approval.

But perhaps alf5071h’s comment that “EOSID – there is nothing ‘standard’ about this” might hold the clue. It is a contingency procedure for emergency use only and so may not need special state approval in advance.

In any case, it would appear from popay’s conversation with FRA ATC that they cannot be sure of the EOSID that a particular airline might fly in an actual engine inop departure due to the large number of operators and corresponding large number of EOSIDs.

So that would seem to leave us with the prospect that ATC either does or doesn’t know about your airline’s EOSIDs and in any case will not be able to remember them on the day? In which case mealie puddins’ and alf5071h’s advice to tell ATC your routing and intentions would seem to be the way to go.

[mealie puddins]

Hi flex, yes what you are saying is correct, however, as someone pointed out do you really think that ATC will have that to hand for each individual operator.

[None]

Copy of Engine Out Page

Every station we fly into has an Operations department. Every Operations department forwards a new copy of our company's "special pages" to the Air Traffic Control facilities as they are revised (infrequently...perhaps once every two years).

Each set of "special pages" includes the engine out profile for each runway, if one has been constructed.

[popay]

Hey folks, well just came from the sim. We have tried a take off from the RWY with special EOSID with 231 000 t A 330-200 TOGA 41 Deg C, engine cut at V1. We kept going straight and didn't clear the imaginary obstacle by about 110 ft. Although RTOM chart was giving that RTOW and according to the assumptions we should have cleared all obstacles by 35 ft, well we didn't. We hardly did 200 ft/min climb at TOGA.
Just wanted to share it with you, was quite interesting to see the buildings passing on the side.
Cheers.

[mutt]

didn't clear the imaginary obstacle by about 110 ft

Ouch.......

Back to the drawing board..

Mutt

[BOAC]

popay - the figures assume perfect handling technique, no over/under rotation, correct speeds etc. None of us are perfect and...................

200fpm is not unusual (hopefully + ).

[john_tullamarine]

Having just re-read the thread, there are two comments needing comment ..

(a) if you are in a twin and lose one, you end up with half the net thrust, NOT half the AEO performance ... more likely around 10-15 percent ....

(b) if management states that the EOSID is there to improve payload, doesn't that suggest something about going the other way ?

[springbok449]

It seems quite apparent from some of the above posts that many people confuse an EOSID and an emergency turn procedure they are totally different things.

You have to follow an emergency turn procedure in order not to plant yourself into a hill or something (ZRH for example) however the EOSID can be disregarded at Captains discretion if a few factors are met...

My company use to have an EOSID for BCN RWY 20 of climb straight ahead then proceed to VNV to hold...Now why would you on one engine and at a busy time fly towards high terrain when you have miles of sea in front of you where the MSA is reasonable...Ofcourse it was perfectly acceptable in the TO brief to say in the event of...climb straight ahead 3000ft sort the problem out over the water...
The reason the above EOSID was so is because the people that provided our performance insisted that the EOSID ended over a holding pattern...

An emergancy turn however is different as it needs to be followed...

[popay]

springbok449, that's absolutely right. There's a word play in here with us. EOSID has got the purpose just to reposition you for the immediate return, whereas Special EOSID (Emergency turn) presumes avoidance of obstacle due to lack of performance.
However the discrepancy in here is that the RTOM CHART gave us 233 T RTOW with the data above, which supposed to take care of everything on take off, as the name suggests, namely clearance of the obstacle by 35 ft. Remind you that this 231 T weight is a obstacle limited RTOW with codes 4/4, with the RTOM CHARTS assumption of engine failure at most critical stage.
That's the basis of RTOM charts:
The JAA Certification rules determine the take-off procedures for the Airbus A330. They ensure that in the event of an engine failure during take-off, it shall be possible either to abandon or continue the take-off with full safety, having regard to the length of the runway, stopway, clearway, second segment climb and obstacles in the take-off flight path, for the prevailing wind, temperature and pressure altitude.

So theoretically according to the description above we should have been able to clear it, as we took of with the RTOW of 231 T,in the SIM we didn't. Not even a chance. Since there was a special EOSID (emergency turn), we need to follow it, for sure.
That's the only confusing thing for me.
Anyway, it was good to see it.
Cheers.

[FlightDetent]

My bus performance course was in Toulouse and I must admit I never understood how they managed to split RTOW chart data from the departure track. I.E. I believe it is not possible.

To me RTOW data applies only for a given ground track over which the terrain clearence is guaranteed. Popay, while I agree with lot of your posting I frankly don't see the point of trying to prove otherwise.

We asked, look, there is no EFP/EOSID for this calculation, does it mean we just keep the runway track? How far is it safe 25, 30, 50NM? Reaching MSA - how do you calculate MSA? Answer: sure, but why would you, just stick to the SID. WHAT??? How do you know what departure will I get? A: doesnt matter, all obstacles are projected onto extended runway track line for worst case sceanrio and performance is validated over these. Q: Now that is hugely ineffective, what for a closed valley airport, where the only departure is to one-side turn for downwind track, you want me to fly straight ahead to the ridge and believe the performance is factorized? How do you project onto extended centerline the obsacles on downwid and on the other side of airport? Q: nou nou, for such a case there would be an EOSID. A: Are not all airfields like this? Well if not, hell how do I tell if I need one, how do the engineerig people know?

So OF COURSE we needed EFP/EOSID for all runways but that was no news.

[captain_jeeves]

Emergency Turns, EOSID's, & GA's

I have a question for the Jury to deliberate.

First, a short preamble before I get to my question...

If cleared to depart from an airport via a specific SID, you fly that specific SID, UNLESS, you experience an engine loss. Then you would fly either:

The current SID,
An applicable EOSID,
Radar Vectors, or
Possibly, visually return if conditions would allow, and it was appropriate.

Similarly, if cleared to arrive at an airport, you may be cleared via a STAR, or any other means until established on an Instrument Approach Procedure.

Then, you would fly that Instrument approach procedure until either of two things happened:

A landing, or
A go-around.

If a go-around became necessary, you would - in the absence of an ATC instruction, etc - fly the published missed approach procedure…or would you?

(Assume a CAT I approach, and go-around from CAT I minimums)

Here’s the question…

If an EOSID existed for the runway you just missed on, and you suffered an engine failure during the Go-around, would you fly the published missed approach, or, would you fly the EOSID.


I know what I would do, but I’m curious what others may think or believe.

[FlightDetent]

Long story short: Every G/A has a gradient, if not specifically stated 2,5 % i think. You are supposed to know your sinle engine performance and not exceed the gradient weight - how is it done - a different story. So if G/A from applicable MDA DA - fly go around track. If G/A is initiated below DA MDA or past MAPt you're lost in woodwork, unless you have an EOSID which you are familiar with and follow it. On the other hand some reasonable assumptions can be made such as approach to CAT III (g/a routing from the deck published) runway and you use CAT I minima with engine out. At 100' you need to do a G/A - either you use EOSID or if the G/A procedure is identical to CAT III you may as well fly it. Technically you are not flying the G/A for CATI which no longer protects you because you are already below DA, but you choose to fly another (albeit identical) procedure which provides protection - you are above DH/A and before MAPt.