EOSID when to follow?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
"Every G/A has a gradient"..."You are supposed to know your sinle engine performance and not exceed the gradient weight...".
My appologies, I should have previously stipulated the example as a CAT I approach, and the go-around from CAT I minimums, for that example.
However, since you bring it up, let's assume another example. The approach is a CAT IIIB, and a published missed approach existed (As it would). At 50 feet (Published Minimums - DH) you go-around (Reason is not relevent). The engine fails upon selection of TOGA. Published Missed, or EOSID?
(Assume an EOSID exists for this runway)
Now, assume a hypothetical CATIIIC. Again, with a published missed approach. This time you go-around from 0 feet. (Minimums are 0 feet and RVR per FOM). The engine fails upon selection of TOGA. Published Missed, or EOSID?
(Assume an EOSID exists for this runway)
I would agree that a go-around after "landing" does leave you "...lost in woodwork..." regarding the engine failure during that go-around. One of the issues would include when the engine actually fails. Agree, or disagree?
Furthermore, I am aware of at least two airlines FOM's (One that I worked for, and one that a peer worked for) that stipulate that the EOSID will be considered for both Take-off and Go-around, and considering that, I can make some assumtions regarding this subject.
All of that said (Please read this carefully), it would seem - following a go-around - that if flying below 1500 feet AGL(All initial climb segments not completed, thus not into the enroute climb phase), AND,
a positive EO "Required" climb gradient is not achievable (see quote above!!!), AND/OR,
if below the MSA, MOCA or MORA (as applicable), AND/OR,
the EO "Required" climb gradient can not be achieved (again, see quote above!!!), AND,
the "EOSID" can gaurantee terrain separation, AND,
FOLLOWING THE ENGINE FAILURE you are able to fly that "EOSID" procedure, from the place where the engine failed , then the answer to this question would appear obvious.
Agree, or Disagree?
Last edited by captain_jeeves; 17th Jul 2006 at 09:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain_jeeves, hi there. I was away for quite a while and couldn't expect the subject to be brought up again. Meanwhile we use LPC octopus software for both take off and landing performance including go around which makes it much more easier to have an idea about your performance. Despite the fact that its possible to have very accurate take off performance calculation with actual data and prevailing conditions including manual insertion of the most limited close in obstacle (the reason why in most cases we fly special EOSID) the SOP does stipulate the necessity to follow special EOSID in IMC in any case. In the example before we tried max TOW possible and didn't clear the obstacle but after insertion on the obstacle in to the take off calculation module the RTOW was limited to 210 tons A332 taking off with, one would clear the obstacle as required. In order not to have an unpleasant discussion with the lawyer better just fly EOSID. None the less its essential to have an idea about your aircraft performance in places like CDG where the simultaneous parallel RWY operation is in use and special EOSID tells you to turn in to the active RWY not a very brilliant idea though.
Regarding the go around its determined using the same software for the actual landing performance required including go around climb out gradient for normal ops 2.1% for CAT III 2.5% which tells you according to your landing data if you are limited or not. As general guideline if the landing weight is above max landing weight follow EOSID if below follow go around.
Cheers.
Regarding the go around its determined using the same software for the actual landing performance required including go around climb out gradient for normal ops 2.1% for CAT III 2.5% which tells you according to your landing data if you are limited or not. As general guideline if the landing weight is above max landing weight follow EOSID if below follow go around.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by popay
captain_jeeves, hi there. I was away for quite a while and couldn't expect the subject to be brought up again.
Originally Posted by popay
Meanwhile we use LPC octopus software for both take off and landing performance including go around which makes it much more easier to have an idea about your performance.
Originally Posted by popay
Despite the fact that its possible to have very accurate take off performance calculation with actual data and prevailing conditions including manual insertion of the most limited close in obstacle (the reason why in most cases we fly special EOSID) the SOP does stipulate the necessity to follow special EOSID in IMC in any case.
Originally Posted by popay
In the example before we tried max TOW possible and didn't clear the obstacle but after insertion on the obstacle in to the take off calculation module the RTOW was limited to 210 tons A332 taking off with, one would clear the obstacle as required.
Originally Posted by popay
In order not to have an unpleasant discussion with the lawyer better just fly EOSID.
Originally Posted by popay
None the less its essential to have an idea about your aircraft performance in places like CDG where the simultaneous parallel RWY operation is in use and special EOSID tells you to turn in to the active RWY not a very brilliant idea though.
Originally Posted by popay
As general guideline if the landing weight is above max landing weight follow EOSID if below follow go around.
You lost me here. "...if landing is above max landing weight..."
Are you talking Structural, or performance limited?
And, why would you be landing at this weight? (I accept that there are numerous possibilties to why)
???
Last edited by captain_jeeves; 17th Jul 2006 at 09:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain_jeeves the performance calculation is always based on the worst case scenario namely engine out at Vef its a requirement from the law maker JAR or FAA doesn't matter.
When is single engine go around usually a problem? Well, if you come for the approach shortly after take off with one engine inop, correct? Because the aircraft is above max landing weight. Therefore you have to make sure that the go around performance is met. Here is some extraction from our manual:
The published missed approach is the preferable procedure to fly in the event of missed approach. The following paragraphs define a procedure to allow the pilot decide whether the constraints of the published missed approach are met in the single engine scenario. The standard published missed approach is based on a climb gradient of 2.5% to a specified final altitude. It does not include a level off segment for acceleration and clean up. TOGA thrust is available for 10 minutes, and the aircraft must level off and clean up within these 10 minutes).
The following table presents the maximum altitude that can be reached during a single engine missed approach at maximum landing mass. It accounts for maintaining at least 2.5% climb gradient to a level-off altitude; acceleration and configuration clean up within the 10-minute TOGA limitation at that altitude.
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (187,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.
The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria is not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircraft's climb performance. • In Kathmandu. When following the published missed approach, the engine out acceleration altitude is the level-off altitude or MSA, which ever is lower.
there's a table giving you max level off alt which will allow you to determine the max alt you can reach and maintain in case of single engine. Your go around level off alt must obviously be below.
Cheers.
When is single engine go around usually a problem? Well, if you come for the approach shortly after take off with one engine inop, correct? Because the aircraft is above max landing weight. Therefore you have to make sure that the go around performance is met. Here is some extraction from our manual:
The published missed approach is the preferable procedure to fly in the event of missed approach. The following paragraphs define a procedure to allow the pilot decide whether the constraints of the published missed approach are met in the single engine scenario. The standard published missed approach is based on a climb gradient of 2.5% to a specified final altitude. It does not include a level off segment for acceleration and clean up. TOGA thrust is available for 10 minutes, and the aircraft must level off and clean up within these 10 minutes).
The following table presents the maximum altitude that can be reached during a single engine missed approach at maximum landing mass. It accounts for maintaining at least 2.5% climb gradient to a level-off altitude; acceleration and configuration clean up within the 10-minute TOGA limitation at that altitude.
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (187,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.
The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria is not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircraft's climb performance. • In Kathmandu. When following the published missed approach, the engine out acceleration altitude is the level-off altitude or MSA, which ever is lower.
there's a table giving you max level off alt which will allow you to determine the max alt you can reach and maintain in case of single engine. Your go around level off alt must obviously be below.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by popay
captain_jeeves the performance calculation is always based on the worst case scenario namely engine out at Vef its a requirement from the law maker JAR or FAA doesn't matter.
I know, my question "...performance information is based on the loss of an Engine..." was intended as rhetorical
Originally Posted by popay
When is single engine go around usually a problem? Well, if you come for the approach shortly after take off with one engine inop, correct? Because the aircraft is above max landing weight. Therefore you have to make sure that the go around performance is met.
Good enough, I just needed you to clarify the intent of your earlier statement.
Originally Posted by popay
The published missed approach is the preferable….
To follow the published missed approach, the following criteria must be met:
• Below maximum structural landing mass (187,000kg)
• Missed Approach Final altitude or MSA is lower than the maximum altitude specified in the following table.
• Published missed approach does not have a climb gradient greater than 2.5%
• There are no positional constraints. I.e. must reach altitude X by position Y.
The EOSID must be used whenever:
• Any one of the above criteria is not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircraft's climb performance.
Exactly!
Remember what I said earlier (Sorry, I don't have a set of manuals close-by to quote from, so I shot from the hip on this).
...
All of that said (Please read this carefully), it would seem - following a go-around - that if flying below 1500 feet AGL(All initial climb segments not completed, thus not into the enroute climb phase), AND,
a positive EO "Required" climb gradient is not achievable (see quote above!!!), AND/OR,
if below the MSA, MOCA or MORA (as applicable), AND/OR,
the EO "Required" climb gradient can not be achieved (again, see quote above!!!), AND,
the "EOSID" can gaurantee terrain separation, AND,
FOLLOWING THE ENGINE FAILURE you are able to fly that "EOSID" procedure, from the place where the engine failed , then the answer to this question would appear obvious.
a positive EO "Required" climb gradient is not achievable (see quote above!!!), AND/OR,
if below the MSA, MOCA or MORA (as applicable), AND/OR,
the EO "Required" climb gradient can not be achieved (again, see quote above!!!), AND,
the "EOSID" can gaurantee terrain separation, AND,
FOLLOWING THE ENGINE FAILURE you are able to fly that "EOSID" procedure, from the place where the engine failed , then the answer to this question would appear obvious.
Unless I've overlooked something, I haven't found anyone in this forum disputing this. However, I have heard some pilots on the line comment that it is not an acceptable procedure.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captain_jeeves, well fair enough. So now we have agreed that a pilot does have a choice upon executing a go around. Why not to have a choice upon a take off? It wasn't possible while using the RTOW charts, I agree, but after introducing the performance software one is certainly capable of just punching in the required data and see if you can make it? If you have read the previous posts you might have noticed that the execution of special EOSID was a must regardless of performance data. In other words no matter whether the take off performance is met or not follow the special EOSID in case of engine failure and IMC. Apart from legal aspects its not always the safest solution like in CDG where one will face much bigger problems turning into active parallel RWY. It only makes sense of course if in advance the PIC has made sure that he can follow the SID in case of single engine. This capability is given throughout the new software tool but we aren't using it. Why? don't know? Unless the obstacle is temporarily man made its been there for while isn't it? In case of man made obstacle one has got to punch it in anyway, like i recall the case in LGW with protruding aircraft tails.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by popay
Why not to have a choice upon a take off?
I think that the answer to this is in the fact that – during take-off (and climb phases until the enroute climb phase) – we know where the engine has failed, or for performance planning, where it is assumed to have failed.
During the GA, we have to consider where the actual failure occurs, as the go-around procedure can be somewhat lengthy and not necessarily near the EOSID procedure. Does the failure occur upon the selection of TOGA, or at a later stage in the procedure? This is the “Split Second” decision that we get paid for.
Fly safe, I’m outta here.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just curious if someone would post there EOSID's for any airline, for any airport's rwy- though I' love to see some for LGA or JFK. 
many thanks
rhov
Davies' books says (in paraphrase) if an engine is lost after V1 "NOW WASH OUT OUT OF YOUR MIND the AEO procedure and switch to the clearance to the 'overshoot beacon' and follow the net flight path". if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
many thanks
rhov
Davies' books says (in paraphrase) if an engine is lost after V1 "NOW WASH OUT OUT OF YOUR MIND the AEO procedure and switch to the clearance to the 'overshoot beacon' and follow the net flight path". if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.
If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career.
Last edited by captain_jeeves; 18th Jul 2006 at 19:37.
Moderator
... thoughts ..
(a) the ops engineers do the sums in detail but there is a lot of variation in policy amongst airlines
(b) if AEO, the thrust is generally driven by maximising payload, while avoiding any overly high terrrain
(c) if OEI then the need is to get to a safe height and recover.
Two generic considerations ..
(i) basic calculation is V1 style failure and escape .. not really a problem if the track is the same as the AEO departure
(ii) often the more interesting is the post V1 failure .. if the V1 OEI case involves an escape turn .. and the real failure occurs after that OEI turn point.
For those airlines which consider this case, the pilot has only to follow the decision flowchart and the sums have all been done ...
For those airlines which don't worry about this case .. the crew is ON THEIR OWN beyond the planned OEI turn .. and best of British luck to you, good sir !!
It is germane for the captain to know which philosophy is adopted by his/her particular airline, I suggest ...
(a) the ops engineers do the sums in detail but there is a lot of variation in policy amongst airlines
(b) if AEO, the thrust is generally driven by maximising payload, while avoiding any overly high terrrain
(c) if OEI then the need is to get to a safe height and recover.
Two generic considerations ..
(i) basic calculation is V1 style failure and escape .. not really a problem if the track is the same as the AEO departure
(ii) often the more interesting is the post V1 failure .. if the V1 OEI case involves an escape turn .. and the real failure occurs after that OEI turn point.
For those airlines which consider this case, the pilot has only to follow the decision flowchart and the sums have all been done ...
For those airlines which don't worry about this case .. the crew is ON THEIR OWN beyond the planned OEI turn .. and best of British luck to you, good sir !!
It is germane for the captain to know which philosophy is adopted by his/her particular airline, I suggest ...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).
This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.
If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE
ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).
This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.
If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE
ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).
This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.
If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE
ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
if I ever have the opportunity to fly as a pro and that particular situation arises, then that's what I'd do plain and simple.
I was going to give you several examples of places where that attitude would lead to disaster, but decided not to waste my time. Nonetheless, LGA and JFK are a joke compared to HKG,RIO, CAN (That's Hong Kong, Rio, and Guangzhou, China for the student pilots).
This topic exists because, flying "...As Pros..." (25 years to date) these decisions are never, "...plain and simple..." To the contrary, they involve a great number of variables which require the commander to look back on countless hours of experience, in order to make split-second; potentially life threatening decisions, and, make those decisions correctly each time.
If you really believe that this sort of decision is "...plain and simple..." go back and read all the variables, then choose a different career. QUOTE
ok captain_jeeves I'll ignore the book's advice[written by a test pilot on 180 types] and on your word alone.
if were a "pro" and I were too lose and engine: I'll just Keep in my head the AEO procedure while trying my danmdest to also maintain the AEO gradients, and have a nice CFIT. Remember, Fate IS a Hunter
I think you should read what I posted on this subject. Then, comment!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Just Around The Corner
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EOSID
Hi there,
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick 1
Hi there,
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.
in my company we have EOSID published in a book , we must folllow these escape ,in case of EO , and advise ATC.
In simulators session , during EO ,go around and missed approach , we must follow the paper EO escape , and disregard the publisched missed approach procedure.
For the second, if, as I suspect, you are following the Takeoff EOSID for the missed approach case, presumably your Performance Engineering provider has calculated the splay for the procedure commencing at the Missed Approach Point
This means that, for a Cat 1 (200 ft minima) at 863 M from the runway end of a 2000 M runway, lateral obstacle obstacle consideration must be 358.3 M (1175.6 ft) either side of the runway as you pass the end of the runway. The Takeoff lateral consideration of obstacles upon which EOSIDs are created, comes nowhere near this. You're in No man's land!
Much better to ensure Missed Approach OEI Net climb performance at 2.5% gradient (or more if specified), and follow the published Missed Approach Procedure, accepting 100 feet vertical clearance from obstacles
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Jeeves your other posts were great and wise 
but you can't assume I don't understand the huge conglomerate of variables involved in 'slipping the surly bounds of earth' in any craft be they: Jets, props, choppers, airships, hot air balloons or whatever. every thing is risk/benifits. and we are all Guests in the air.
I understand the dillemma of being in a no mans land, on an OEI special procedure - thanks Old Smokey for the correct term- but I was commenting on only the post directed at me.
In A No-man's-land situation, well fate is THE hunter- and your experience obviously will allow you too think outside the box, and hopefully reconcile the situation - and dodge the Arrows and missile shot forth by fate.
Safe flying, keep the brown down,
may the words: Flt 123, ABC tower, monitor ground on point-six to the ramp
always follow you
rhovsquared
but you can't assume I don't understand the huge conglomerate of variables involved in 'slipping the surly bounds of earth' in any craft be they: Jets, props, choppers, airships, hot air balloons or whatever. every thing is risk/benifits. and we are all Guests in the air.
I understand the dillemma of being in a no mans land, on an OEI special procedure - thanks Old Smokey for the correct term- but I was commenting on only the post directed at me.
In A No-man's-land situation, well fate is THE hunter- and your experience obviously will allow you too think outside the box, and hopefully reconcile the situation - and dodge the Arrows and missile shot forth by fate.
Safe flying, keep the brown down,
may the words: Flt 123, ABC tower, monitor ground on point-six to the ramp
always follow you
rhovsquared
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
but you can't assume I don't understand the huge conglomerate of variables involved...
In all other points regarding this issue, I think everyone is somewhat in agreement.
.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a twin, the OEI Escape manoeuvre/emergency turn procedure is calculated to ensure obstacle clearance at all available weights for the aircraft up to the maximum weight/temperature combination on that particular RTOW chart - ie to ensure obstacle clearance at each of those weight/temperature combinations.
It doesnt matter a whit whether you're IMC or VMC - with proper average piloting technique (and without using TOGA thrust) you will clear the obstacle(s) that limit the takeoff. (it also helps to get the gear up!!) If taking off with Reduced/Flex thrust, going to TOGA will provide an additional level of obstacle clearance but is not mandatory in order to clear the obstacle.
If some pilots imagine that in VMC they are going to construct their own escape manoeuvre and visually keep themselves away from terrain they are sadly mistaken, and I hope I'm never in the back of their aircraft in a limiting takeoff with OEI. As someone said earlier, all that will do is to ensure you see the mountain get bigger in the windscreen.
However, IMHO, you should always tell ATC exactly what your company ETP is, as they will probably not have it to hand even if your airline is one that informs ATC of such manoeuvres. At least that way they can work in advance to clear other traffic out of your path.
Another point worth mentioning is that an ETP for takeoff is not necessarily required for the go-around case due to different points of application of TOGA thrust and different heights for that application (CAT 1 200 vs zero feet on the ground plus the fact that the go-around is initiated at a point further back (from the obstacle). The baulked landing is a different case and may be required for places such as Innsbruck in Austria.
If an ETP is required for the G/A case it should be stated in your performance/Ops manual. In any case it is up to each company but especially each pilot, to ensure he's up to speed on the exact details of his company's procedures.
Additionally, you should ensure that you fully understand the basis on which the ETP is constructed. Is it based on continuing to keep the aircraft climbing at between V2 and V2 + 10 in the climb/turn, or is it one of those (rare) procedures that allow you to level off at the usual single-engine acceleration altitude and simply turn as directed ( much wider radius of turn bringing more distant obstacles into play and thus limiting the takeoff weight even more).
In my experience, most ET procedures involve CLIMBING turns where there is no level off until the turn is complete. However, I believe a handful of airlines do use the other type which will usually be far more limiting on the available weight that can be lifted.
In every case:
1. Know your own company's procedures
2. Apply them in all conditions - VMC or IMC
3. Don't attempt to second-guess the performance engineers who constructed the engine-out procedure in the cold light of day using the aircraft manufacturer's performance programme.
It might just keep you (and me) alive one day.
It doesnt matter a whit whether you're IMC or VMC - with proper average piloting technique (and without using TOGA thrust) you will clear the obstacle(s) that limit the takeoff. (it also helps to get the gear up!!) If taking off with Reduced/Flex thrust, going to TOGA will provide an additional level of obstacle clearance but is not mandatory in order to clear the obstacle.
If some pilots imagine that in VMC they are going to construct their own escape manoeuvre and visually keep themselves away from terrain they are sadly mistaken, and I hope I'm never in the back of their aircraft in a limiting takeoff with OEI. As someone said earlier, all that will do is to ensure you see the mountain get bigger in the windscreen.
However, IMHO, you should always tell ATC exactly what your company ETP is, as they will probably not have it to hand even if your airline is one that informs ATC of such manoeuvres. At least that way they can work in advance to clear other traffic out of your path.
Another point worth mentioning is that an ETP for takeoff is not necessarily required for the go-around case due to different points of application of TOGA thrust and different heights for that application (CAT 1 200 vs zero feet on the ground plus the fact that the go-around is initiated at a point further back (from the obstacle). The baulked landing is a different case and may be required for places such as Innsbruck in Austria.
If an ETP is required for the G/A case it should be stated in your performance/Ops manual. In any case it is up to each company but especially each pilot, to ensure he's up to speed on the exact details of his company's procedures.
Additionally, you should ensure that you fully understand the basis on which the ETP is constructed. Is it based on continuing to keep the aircraft climbing at between V2 and V2 + 10 in the climb/turn, or is it one of those (rare) procedures that allow you to level off at the usual single-engine acceleration altitude and simply turn as directed ( much wider radius of turn bringing more distant obstacles into play and thus limiting the takeoff weight even more).
In my experience, most ET procedures involve CLIMBING turns where there is no level off until the turn is complete. However, I believe a handful of airlines do use the other type which will usually be far more limiting on the available weight that can be lifted.
In every case:
1. Know your own company's procedures
2. Apply them in all conditions - VMC or IMC
3. Don't attempt to second-guess the performance engineers who constructed the engine-out procedure in the cold light of day using the aircraft manufacturer's performance programme.
It might just keep you (and me) alive one day.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesnt matter a whit whether you're IMC or VMC
Mutt
Moderator
.. caveat .. depends on the jurisdiction .. in Oz, VMC-predicated departures are limited to smaller Types. Originally up to 50,000 lb which, unfortunately, was metricated to 20T .. which excluded the F27 and 748 .. although I note that it was then changed back to 22.7T to give back that which was taken ... Quite amazing .. I argued with CASA and precedent organisations until I was blue in the face and got nowhere .. obviously somewhere along the line someone in the organisation came along with a bit more attentiveness to the history ..
