EOSID when to follow?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EOSID when to follow?
Hi there, would like to elaborate on the following issue: when do we have to follow the special EOSID on take off and go around for JAR OPS operators?
We have the RTOW charts indicating for each airdrome the airline operates, associated special EOSID. Automatically people assume that we have to follow it in case of EO, but I have been told that special EOSIDs have been published to enhance commercial load for take off performance obviously at higher take off weights, low, pressure altitudes, airfields. What is the design purpose of the special EOSID, avoiding the obstacles, laterally (deviating from original SID), on the regular SID, which can’t be avoided vertically. Another words, there is a problem with clearing the obstacles during the climb out on the departure if one engine fails. Well to start with, when do I need to follow the normal SID in case of EO?
1: if there is no climb gradient higher than standard (4,2% two & 2,5 % one engine) required and the aircraft will meet one engine standard climb out gradient.
2: if the initial turn on SID has been initiated
3: the aircraft one engine climb out performance will meet the required climb gradient, even if it’s higher than standard (e.g. light take off weight or high pressure altitude airfield).
However the book doesn’t specify when to follow special EOSID, so there are a lot of discussions whether to follow special EOSID or not. For the go around there is a table showing the max. pressure altitude can be reached single engine flaps 3. Following the logic if that pressure
Altitude is above the MSA or SE acceleration alt, than follow the published missed approach. If that PA is below MSA or SE acceleration alt, than followspecial EOSID.
I understand, it might sound a bit complicated, but that’s the way it is.
Appreciate your comments.
Cheers.
We have the RTOW charts indicating for each airdrome the airline operates, associated special EOSID. Automatically people assume that we have to follow it in case of EO, but I have been told that special EOSIDs have been published to enhance commercial load for take off performance obviously at higher take off weights, low, pressure altitudes, airfields. What is the design purpose of the special EOSID, avoiding the obstacles, laterally (deviating from original SID), on the regular SID, which can’t be avoided vertically. Another words, there is a problem with clearing the obstacles during the climb out on the departure if one engine fails. Well to start with, when do I need to follow the normal SID in case of EO?
1: if there is no climb gradient higher than standard (4,2% two & 2,5 % one engine) required and the aircraft will meet one engine standard climb out gradient.
2: if the initial turn on SID has been initiated
3: the aircraft one engine climb out performance will meet the required climb gradient, even if it’s higher than standard (e.g. light take off weight or high pressure altitude airfield).
However the book doesn’t specify when to follow special EOSID, so there are a lot of discussions whether to follow special EOSID or not. For the go around there is a table showing the max. pressure altitude can be reached single engine flaps 3. Following the logic if that pressure
Altitude is above the MSA or SE acceleration alt, than follow the published missed approach. If that PA is below MSA or SE acceleration alt, than followspecial EOSID.
I understand, it might sound a bit complicated, but that’s the way it is.
Appreciate your comments.
Cheers.
Last edited by popay; 1st Sep 2005 at 16:12.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See your Ops Specs?
The Ops Specs for my company specifically list "Departure Priorities."
For Engine-Out, the priorities are listed as:
1. Special Pages for engine-out departure
2. IFR departure procedure (Obstacle DP)
3. straight-ahead until flaps retracted or safe maneuvering speed is reached.
In following these priorities, and with an engine failure departing LSZH runway 16 using the WIL 1R, I would advise ATC that I would be following my company's special engine-out departure procedure, which they have a copy of. The procedure abandons the WIL 1R, taking an entirely different route.
The engineering dept has worked up similar procedures for each airport where E/O performance required further analysis. It allows operations at higher weights, and this means more money. Without this info, one would have to determine if aircraft performance would allow an acceptable level of safety at a particular weight.
For Engine-Out, the priorities are listed as:
1. Special Pages for engine-out departure
2. IFR departure procedure (Obstacle DP)
3. straight-ahead until flaps retracted or safe maneuvering speed is reached.
In following these priorities, and with an engine failure departing LSZH runway 16 using the WIL 1R, I would advise ATC that I would be following my company's special engine-out departure procedure, which they have a copy of. The procedure abandons the WIL 1R, taking an entirely different route.
The engineering dept has worked up similar procedures for each airport where E/O performance required further analysis. It allows operations at higher weights, and this means more money. Without this info, one would have to determine if aircraft performance would allow an acceptable level of safety at a particular weight.
Moderator
Company procedures should specify the when and what.
However, consider that, if the escape is necessary for a V1 cut ... at what point does the standard flightpath become OK to have a failure without compromising the terrain clearance ?
My view is that, in the absence of specific instructions to the contrary, one should follow the escape procedure regardless of whether or when the failure might occur ...
I have had several of my ops eng colleagues opine that their responsibility ends at the V1 case and, for later failures, it's a problem belong pilot ...
However, consider that, if the escape is necessary for a V1 cut ... at what point does the standard flightpath become OK to have a failure without compromising the terrain clearance ?
My view is that, in the absence of specific instructions to the contrary, one should follow the escape procedure regardless of whether or when the failure might occur ...
I have had several of my ops eng colleagues opine that their responsibility ends at the V1 case and, for later failures, it's a problem belong pilot ...
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 2nd Sep 2005 at 00:07.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our GWCs will - where required - split the emergency turn procedure into several segments.
If failure occurs in segment A, continue to limiting DME, then follow procedure A. If past A, but before passing B, continue on the SID to the next limiting DME, then follow procedure B.
If the failure occurs after the limiting DME for procedure B - you are OK, follow the SID. Also, our Part C states that where no notes are made on GWCs, the chart assumes a climb straight ahead to the MSA.
The question then begs - if you have initiated a turn on the SID (no notes on GWC) and then get a failure - what to do? Our perf. department till haven't come up with anything better than "Turn back to intercept the runway QDR". But we all know that this procedure is not adviseable at all airports.
Solution - prohibit GWCs with "No notes" stated (and triple the cost - I know)...
Any ideas?
Brgds fm
Empty
If failure occurs in segment A, continue to limiting DME, then follow procedure A. If past A, but before passing B, continue on the SID to the next limiting DME, then follow procedure B.
If the failure occurs after the limiting DME for procedure B - you are OK, follow the SID. Also, our Part C states that where no notes are made on GWCs, the chart assumes a climb straight ahead to the MSA.
The question then begs - if you have initiated a turn on the SID (no notes on GWC) and then get a failure - what to do? Our perf. department till haven't come up with anything better than "Turn back to intercept the runway QDR". But we all know that this procedure is not adviseable at all airports.
Solution - prohibit GWCs with "No notes" stated (and triple the cost - I know)...
Any ideas?
Brgds fm
Empty
Keep It Simple S... (KISS).
EOSIDs are designed to ensure terrain clearance for the case of engine failure and reduced performance on departure.
Therefore, if you have an engine failure on departure and follow the EOSID you will live.
On the other hand, if you have an engine failure on departure and don't follow the EOSID you may die.
Who really gives a rat's .... about anything else?
EOSIDs are designed to ensure terrain clearance for the case of engine failure and reduced performance on departure.
Therefore, if you have an engine failure on departure and follow the EOSID you will live.
On the other hand, if you have an engine failure on departure and don't follow the EOSID you may die.
Who really gives a rat's .... about anything else?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with last post!
IF there is a EOSID published/produced then use it! IF you choose to do otherwise and something goes wrong, then what will you say to the CAA/NTSB when they ask "Why did you NOT follow the approved company procedure??
Any other views??
/CP
IF there is a EOSID published/produced then use it! IF you choose to do otherwise and something goes wrong, then what will you say to the CAA/NTSB when they ask "Why did you NOT follow the approved company procedure??
Any other views??
/CP
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't we all sing form the same hym sheet. Whichever airport, take most limiting jet, performance wise, and follow the same EOP. Do the same for turbo props. As i see it at the moment with different operators stipulating different EOP's, ATC are slightly out of the loop. For sure we give a mayday, brief mention of problem then ask them to standby. Might then be a few minutes before we can get back to them to actually specify what we are doing routeing wise. I believe that you can also get these EOP's on charts, never actually seen those in the three airlines i have worked for but seems a great idea.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maight be a good idea,however....Having worked in 4 different countries and four different outfits I would like to say that it would be almost impossible! Very different ways of looking at these broblems in different parts of the world....
Charts are not realy nessecary on the bus, after EO you will get prompt (on our buses anyway) to insert EOP as active flightplan. So activate and manage NAV and off you go!
/ CP
Charts are not realy nessecary on the bus, after EO you will get prompt (on our buses anyway) to insert EOP as active flightplan. So activate and manage NAV and off you go!
/ CP
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NL
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe going slightly off the exact topic here.....
What if there's no EOSID published and you have a V1-cut?
1. Follow the normal SID
2. Climb straight ahead until MSA (off course notifying ATC)
My company says option 2 in all cases!!!
That raises the question: Untill what point is my company's perfomance engineer responsible for terrain clearance?
The answer I get to that one is: Untill the take-off section ends.....at 1500 feet!
So what if the MSA is higher than 1500' (as always)???
Any thoughts on this?
What if there's no EOSID published and you have a V1-cut?
1. Follow the normal SID
2. Climb straight ahead until MSA (off course notifying ATC)
My company says option 2 in all cases!!!
That raises the question: Untill what point is my company's perfomance engineer responsible for terrain clearance?
The answer I get to that one is: Untill the take-off section ends.....at 1500 feet!
So what if the MSA is higher than 1500' (as always)???
Any thoughts on this?
Moderator
A few concerns to me in this thread -
(a) in most jurisdictions, the operator and pilot have a joint responsibility to meet whatever the local regulatory requirements are.
(b) generally, in the absence of terrain constraints, the takeoff, as such, is considered to terminate at 1500ft above ARP/runway level.
(c) if the terrain so dictates, the obstacle clearance must be continued until the aircraft is in a position to adopt cruise terrain clearance requirements
(d) one ought not to consider other aircraft Types for establishing an escape profile due to the differences in EACH segment which might compromise such a strategy .. especially the third segment distance in respect of distant obstacles.
(e) if the operator does not schedule an escape, then duty of care would normally require guidance in the manual as to whether the various (or some) SIDs are covered, or whether the scheduled RTOW is based on straight ahead .. or, whatever .. whichever might be the case, the company performance data provided for pilot guidance MUST declare the story.
(f) be VERY wary of assuming anything as different companies and ops engineers have varying policies and interpretations of what the regulatory processes might require.
(g) if there is doubt, and there is no company published guidance, negotiate with ATC to fly the published V1 cut escape until a suitable circling height is achieved AEO, then manoeuvre to the departure track. If you get a later failure during the takeoff, you are in front of the action. The only occasion when this might not be appropriate is for a runway from an aerodrome for which there are no obstacle problems.
Anything else is a bit like putting your head in the lion's mouth, methinks ..
(a) in most jurisdictions, the operator and pilot have a joint responsibility to meet whatever the local regulatory requirements are.
(b) generally, in the absence of terrain constraints, the takeoff, as such, is considered to terminate at 1500ft above ARP/runway level.
(c) if the terrain so dictates, the obstacle clearance must be continued until the aircraft is in a position to adopt cruise terrain clearance requirements
(d) one ought not to consider other aircraft Types for establishing an escape profile due to the differences in EACH segment which might compromise such a strategy .. especially the third segment distance in respect of distant obstacles.
(e) if the operator does not schedule an escape, then duty of care would normally require guidance in the manual as to whether the various (or some) SIDs are covered, or whether the scheduled RTOW is based on straight ahead .. or, whatever .. whichever might be the case, the company performance data provided for pilot guidance MUST declare the story.
(f) be VERY wary of assuming anything as different companies and ops engineers have varying policies and interpretations of what the regulatory processes might require.
(g) if there is doubt, and there is no company published guidance, negotiate with ATC to fly the published V1 cut escape until a suitable circling height is achieved AEO, then manoeuvre to the departure track. If you get a later failure during the takeoff, you are in front of the action. The only occasion when this might not be appropriate is for a runway from an aerodrome for which there are no obstacle problems.
Anything else is a bit like putting your head in the lion's mouth, methinks ..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, thanks for your contributions to the issue.
john_tullamarine,
I 100% agree with you about the responsibility of the commander and if any doubts arise just follow the EOSID. As well do I agree about the responsibility of the ops performance people and the joint responsibility of operator and the commander, although it does depend on the law. However the book differs between the standard EOSID which is basically straight ahead until 1500 ft above AGL clean up and proceed to specific nav. aid in order to return to the field and special EOSID which contains specific lateral escape route in order to clear the obstacles and of course to return back. The problem is that for each and every airdrome we operate there is either EOSID or special EOSID for the commercial reason (mentioned above) and there is no description when or under which conditions we have to follow it. The preamble only says, that EOSID and special EOSID guarantee the obstacle clearance. However it only becomes relevant if you can’t meet 3,3 % standard climb gradient or higher gradient required by SID. So, in average we are talking about 1000 ft/min climb rate, which corresponds to 5% climb gradient for the average speed of 200 kt. on the departure. That’s my criteria to decide, whether I will meet the requirements or not, in other words if I can maintain 1000 ft climb rate for the given conditions, than I will clear all the obstacle for the departure with max. 5% climb gradient. If I can’t, I will follow EOSID dependable on the airdrome, of course. E.g. departure takes you over the water, no need to follow the EOSID, although its there, or departure takes over the city with high, man made, obstacles, consider to follow EOSID again dependable on the performance. The actual problem stars with the coordination of following the special EOSID with ATC (ATC doesn’t have a copy of the EOSID), what I mean is for instance parallel runway operation in the States. Sometimes your EOSID conflicts with the departing and arriving traffic, so the question is, what is more dangerous to follow the SID or the OESID?
As a conclusion, I would say, dependable on the airdrome, conflicting traffic and prevailing conditions like your take off weight atmospheric conditions and obstacle clearance restrictions, required climb gradient, the decision whether to follow or not the EOSID or special EOSID rests with the commander.
Hope I am right somehow.
Cheers.
john_tullamarine,
I 100% agree with you about the responsibility of the commander and if any doubts arise just follow the EOSID. As well do I agree about the responsibility of the ops performance people and the joint responsibility of operator and the commander, although it does depend on the law. However the book differs between the standard EOSID which is basically straight ahead until 1500 ft above AGL clean up and proceed to specific nav. aid in order to return to the field and special EOSID which contains specific lateral escape route in order to clear the obstacles and of course to return back. The problem is that for each and every airdrome we operate there is either EOSID or special EOSID for the commercial reason (mentioned above) and there is no description when or under which conditions we have to follow it. The preamble only says, that EOSID and special EOSID guarantee the obstacle clearance. However it only becomes relevant if you can’t meet 3,3 % standard climb gradient or higher gradient required by SID. So, in average we are talking about 1000 ft/min climb rate, which corresponds to 5% climb gradient for the average speed of 200 kt. on the departure. That’s my criteria to decide, whether I will meet the requirements or not, in other words if I can maintain 1000 ft climb rate for the given conditions, than I will clear all the obstacle for the departure with max. 5% climb gradient. If I can’t, I will follow EOSID dependable on the airdrome, of course. E.g. departure takes you over the water, no need to follow the EOSID, although its there, or departure takes over the city with high, man made, obstacles, consider to follow EOSID again dependable on the performance. The actual problem stars with the coordination of following the special EOSID with ATC (ATC doesn’t have a copy of the EOSID), what I mean is for instance parallel runway operation in the States. Sometimes your EOSID conflicts with the departing and arriving traffic, so the question is, what is more dangerous to follow the SID or the OESID?
As a conclusion, I would say, dependable on the airdrome, conflicting traffic and prevailing conditions like your take off weight atmospheric conditions and obstacle clearance restrictions, required climb gradient, the decision whether to follow or not the EOSID or special EOSID rests with the commander.
Hope I am right somehow.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of London
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popay,
There is no Commanders discretion with an Engine Out SID. If the engine fails and an Engine Out SID is provided , it must be followed.
Also, it says in the Jeppesen blurb which stems from Pans Ops (Part 11, 2.5 Contingency Procedures) that Operators are responsible for the developement of contingency priocedures, and that in the case of an Engine failure, the normal action is to follow the SID where terrain and obstacles permit.
I hope this clears up the muddy waters somewhat,
Regards,
CK.
There is no Commanders discretion with an Engine Out SID. If the engine fails and an Engine Out SID is provided , it must be followed.
Also, it says in the Jeppesen blurb which stems from Pans Ops (Part 11, 2.5 Contingency Procedures) that Operators are responsible for the developement of contingency priocedures, and that in the case of an Engine failure, the normal action is to follow the SID where terrain and obstacles permit.
I hope this clears up the muddy waters somewhat,
Regards,
CK.
Popay,
You use 1000ft/min if I read your post correctly.
How do you guarantee obstacle clearance over the entire distance to LSA ? Can you calculate the distance covered in the clean up where the aeroplane is not climbing at 5%?
One of the problems is that immediately obvious obstacles may well not be the limiting ones.
By following the EOSID you are ensuring that you meet all of your regulatory requirements as well as ensuring that you live.
By not following the EOSID, regardless of the justification, you are unable, in my opinion, to guarantee that you can meet those obligations.
One area where I believe that C & T has done the general flying community disservice is doing sims at "training weights" how often do you do a sim at limit weight on a terrain limiting airport? Most of the sims I have done over the past 15 odd years have been done at reasonably light weights - or at least weights tonnes under the limit weight.
I think as a result of that we often have an unreasonable expectation of what the jet will do in an engine out case - a dark and stormy night isn't the appropriate place for a surprise when the jet doesn't do what we expected!
You use 1000ft/min if I read your post correctly.
How do you guarantee obstacle clearance over the entire distance to LSA ? Can you calculate the distance covered in the clean up where the aeroplane is not climbing at 5%?
One of the problems is that immediately obvious obstacles may well not be the limiting ones.
By following the EOSID you are ensuring that you meet all of your regulatory requirements as well as ensuring that you live.
By not following the EOSID, regardless of the justification, you are unable, in my opinion, to guarantee that you can meet those obligations.
One area where I believe that C & T has done the general flying community disservice is doing sims at "training weights" how often do you do a sim at limit weight on a terrain limiting airport? Most of the sims I have done over the past 15 odd years have been done at reasonably light weights - or at least weights tonnes under the limit weight.
I think as a result of that we often have an unreasonable expectation of what the jet will do in an engine out case - a dark and stormy night isn't the appropriate place for a surprise when the jet doesn't do what we expected!
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: italy
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popay
In the airline you work for its very clear in the performance handbook
''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''
Hope that answers your question.
In the airline you work for its very clear in the performance handbook
''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''
Hope that answers your question.
Moderator
How does the pilot ensure that the aircraft performance is adequate without a pile of charts and other terrain data and sufficient time to do the analysis .. ie, the things the ops engineer does for you ?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My outfit uses either Std n-1, straight ahead speed-up/clean-up @ 1500ftAAL, or E/O SID
if option 1 is not possible due terrain .We are not allowed to use the E/O SID from the database (MD11).But I think a SID is your best option
when in doubt, or when you've passed your first turning point.And I really get the impression that ATC doesn't know about E/O SID's, so get on the phone early....
if option 1 is not possible due terrain .We are not allowed to use the E/O SID from the database (MD11).But I think a SID is your best option
when in doubt, or when you've passed your first turning point.And I really get the impression that ATC doesn't know about E/O SID's, so get on the phone early....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
Here some search regarding the issue.
JAR-OPS 1.230 Instrument departure and
approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument
departure and approach procedures established by the
State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) An operator shall ensure that operations are
conducted in accordance with any restriction on the
routes or the areas of operation, imposed by the
Authority.
(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) above, a
commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate
from a published departure or arrival route, provided
obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full
account is taken of the operating conditions. The
final approach must be flown visually or in
accordance with the established instrument approach
procedure.
(c) Different procedures to those required to be
used in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above
may only be implemented by an operator provided
they have been approved by the State in which the
aerodrome is located, if required, and accepted by the
Authority.
JAR–OPS 1.570 Take-off Obstacle
Clearance
(a) An operator shall ensure that the take-off
flight path with one engine inoperative clears all
obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft plus
0•01 x D, or by a horizontal distance of at least
90 m plus 0•125 x D, where D is the horizontal
distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of
[the take-off distance available. For aeroplanes with
a wingspan of less than 60 m a horizontal obstacle
clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m,
plus 0.125 x D may be used.]
(b) The take-off flight path must begin at a
height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the
take-off distance required by JAR–OPS 1.565(b) or
(c) as applicable, and end at a height of 1 500 ft
above the surface.
(c) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, an operator must take account
of the following:
(1) The mass of the aeroplane at the
commencement of the take-off run;
(2) The pressure altitude at the
aerodrome;
(3) The ambient temperature at the
aerodrome; and
(4) Not more than 50% of the reported
head-wind component or not less than 150% of
the reported tail-wind component.
(d) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, track changes shall not be
allowed up to that point of the take-off flight path
where a height of 50 ft above the surface has been
achieved. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is
assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more
than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater
than 15°, but not more than 25° may be scheduled.
Adequate allowance must be made for the effect of
bank angle on operating speeds and flight path
including the distance increments resulting from
increased operating speeds.
(e) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do not
require track changes of more than 15°, an operator
need not consider those obstacles which have a
lateral distance greater than:
(1) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 600 m, for flights under all other
conditions.
(f) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do require
track changes of more than 15°, an operator need
not consider those obstacles which have a lateral
distance greater than:
(1) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 900 m for flights under all other
conditions.
(g) An operator shall establish contingency
procedures to satisfy the requirements of JAR–OPS
1.570 and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles,
to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the enroute
requirements of JAR–OPS 1.570, or land at
either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off
alternate aerodrome
Here is the extraction from performance manual
2.9.3 Engine failure in VMC Conditions
Provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are
adequate, the pilot may:
o Accept radar vectoring by ATC
o Follow the departure route
o Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield
If unable to assure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be
adopted.
2.2.3 Take-off Flight Path – Engine failure at V1
Regulations demand that the actual take-off mass must permit minimum regulatory climb
gradients to be complied with to reach 1500 AAL, or higher for obstacle clearance. The
different phases of this take-off flight path are called segments.
The regulatory take-off flight path, in case of an engine failure extends:
o From the point the aircraft passes through the screen height.
o Up to 1500 feet above the take-off surface or higher for obstacle clearance.
Well, taking all this in to consideration there are two options for EO in IMC:
1. Follow standard or special EOSID regardless of prevailing conditions or possible conflicting traffic and confusions caused to ATC. As an example see chart FRA 25R, the EOSID takes you left to CHARLI VOR and you will cross active flight path of RWY25L and RWY18 and the ATC will be very surprised to hear what you do.
2. Follow the SID provided the performance of the aircraft allows the PIC to reach MSA based on TOGA for not more than 10 min with the climb gradient required (standard SID 3,3% or as defined) for given conditions. In other words, if PIC can reach MSA with remaining engine on TOGA for not more than 10 min, maintaining at least 1000 ft (5% for average 200 kt), PIC can remain on the SID initially levelling off at MSA and after coordination with ATC accept further instructions afterwards.
The best example for that is the procedure for decision making whether to follow the EOSID on the published missed approach.
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 (182,000kg)
• 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 are not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircrafts 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 you look for a max landing mass of 182000 kg for conf 3&2 and elevation of 0 ft for ISA+25 C you can reach 5300 ft. SO all you do is just to have a look what is your landing mass, the atmospheric conditions and Level off or MSA. So let’s say your LW is 180000 and you land at airport elevation of 0 ft and the T is 40 C. The level off altitude is 2000 ft, MSA is 1800 ft, and consequently you follow the standard missed levelling off at 1800 ft.
However we don’t have a similar table for take off performance, giving one the idea of performance of the aircraft for specific weight, airdrome conditions and configuration. That’s why I reverted to the rate of climb; because that’s the only criteria you have available.
Sorry it’s got a bit too long and boring to read and hopefully somehow you could bring up my idea a bit closer.
P.S.
cavelino rampante,
as an example DEP A 34 takes you over the water and there are clearly no obstacles at all, consequently following the SID and levelling off at 1600 ft (EOSID ACC ALT) cleaning up and coming back will not jeopardize the safety in any way and you will stay clear of obstacles. On the other hand the EOSID says at 4 DME RT HDG 010 climb to 1600 ft RT to the VOR and must be followed even in VMC on the hot day with OAT about 41 C and take off weight of more than 200 tonnes, because you wont meet the required climb gradient of 4% up to 900 ft if you loose an engine. Whether you turn away visually or follow the EOSID you still aim the same goal, avoiding the obstacle on the RWY course.
john_tullamarine, I asked my self the same question. How do I ensure I will meet the performance? Well, how about to use your FMS and see what your climb performance will be like, it takes all the data into consideration except the wind on take off. Lets say you will see 5000 ft after 10 NM, that means 8% climb gradient so if one engine fails you will only have half 4%. Than you decide is that enough?
I understand its all a bit theoretical and if any doubts just follow the EOSID, however it might bring you in bigger troubles in certain places.
Cheers.
Here some search regarding the issue.
JAR-OPS 1.230 Instrument departure and
approach procedures
(a) An operator shall ensure that instrument
departure and approach procedures established by the
State in which the aerodrome is located are used.
(b) An operator shall ensure that operations are
conducted in accordance with any restriction on the
routes or the areas of operation, imposed by the
Authority.
(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) above, a
commander may accept an ATC clearance to deviate
from a published departure or arrival route, provided
obstacle clearance criteria are observed and full
account is taken of the operating conditions. The
final approach must be flown visually or in
accordance with the established instrument approach
procedure.
(c) Different procedures to those required to be
used in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above
may only be implemented by an operator provided
they have been approved by the State in which the
aerodrome is located, if required, and accepted by the
Authority.
JAR–OPS 1.570 Take-off Obstacle
Clearance
(a) An operator shall ensure that the take-off
flight path with one engine inoperative clears all
obstacles by a vertical distance of at least 50 ft plus
0•01 x D, or by a horizontal distance of at least
90 m plus 0•125 x D, where D is the horizontal
distance the aeroplane has travelled from the end of
[the take-off distance available. For aeroplanes with
a wingspan of less than 60 m a horizontal obstacle
clearance of half the aeroplane wingspan plus 60 m,
plus 0.125 x D may be used.]
(b) The take-off flight path must begin at a
height of 50 ft above the surface at the end of the
take-off distance required by JAR–OPS 1.565(b) or
(c) as applicable, and end at a height of 1 500 ft
above the surface.
(c) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, an operator must take account
of the following:
(1) The mass of the aeroplane at the
commencement of the take-off run;
(2) The pressure altitude at the
aerodrome;
(3) The ambient temperature at the
aerodrome; and
(4) Not more than 50% of the reported
head-wind component or not less than 150% of
the reported tail-wind component.
(d) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above, track changes shall not be
allowed up to that point of the take-off flight path
where a height of 50 ft above the surface has been
achieved. Thereafter, up to a height of 400 ft it is
assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more
than 15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater
than 15°, but not more than 25° may be scheduled.
Adequate allowance must be made for the effect of
bank angle on operating speeds and flight path
including the distance increments resulting from
increased operating speeds.
(e) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do not
require track changes of more than 15°, an operator
need not consider those obstacles which have a
lateral distance greater than:
(1) 300 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 600 m, for flights under all other
conditions.
(f) When showing compliance with subparagraph
(a) above for those cases which do require
track changes of more than 15°, an operator need
not consider those obstacles which have a lateral
distance greater than:
(1) 600 m, if the pilot is able to maintain
the required navigational accuracy through the
[obstacle accountability area (See AMC OPS
1.570(e)(1) & (f)(1)); or]
(2) 900 m for flights under all other
conditions.
(g) An operator shall establish contingency
procedures to satisfy the requirements of JAR–OPS
1.570 and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles,
to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the enroute
requirements of JAR–OPS 1.570, or land at
either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off
alternate aerodrome
Here is the extraction from performance manual
2.9.3 Engine failure in VMC Conditions
Provided terrain clearance is not in doubt, and airplane mass and climb performance are
adequate, the pilot may:
o Accept radar vectoring by ATC
o Follow the departure route
o Remain visually in the vicinity of the airfield
If unable to assure the above conditions, the published EOSID or special EOSID should be
adopted.
2.2.3 Take-off Flight Path – Engine failure at V1
Regulations demand that the actual take-off mass must permit minimum regulatory climb
gradients to be complied with to reach 1500 AAL, or higher for obstacle clearance. The
different phases of this take-off flight path are called segments.
The regulatory take-off flight path, in case of an engine failure extends:
o From the point the aircraft passes through the screen height.
o Up to 1500 feet above the take-off surface or higher for obstacle clearance.
Well, taking all this in to consideration there are two options for EO in IMC:
1. Follow standard or special EOSID regardless of prevailing conditions or possible conflicting traffic and confusions caused to ATC. As an example see chart FRA 25R, the EOSID takes you left to CHARLI VOR and you will cross active flight path of RWY25L and RWY18 and the ATC will be very surprised to hear what you do.
2. Follow the SID provided the performance of the aircraft allows the PIC to reach MSA based on TOGA for not more than 10 min with the climb gradient required (standard SID 3,3% or as defined) for given conditions. In other words, if PIC can reach MSA with remaining engine on TOGA for not more than 10 min, maintaining at least 1000 ft (5% for average 200 kt), PIC can remain on the SID initially levelling off at MSA and after coordination with ATC accept further instructions afterwards.
The best example for that is the procedure for decision making whether to follow the EOSID on the published missed approach.
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 (182,000kg)
• 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 are not met.
• Whenever the commander has doubt about the aircrafts 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 you look for a max landing mass of 182000 kg for conf 3&2 and elevation of 0 ft for ISA+25 C you can reach 5300 ft. SO all you do is just to have a look what is your landing mass, the atmospheric conditions and Level off or MSA. So let’s say your LW is 180000 and you land at airport elevation of 0 ft and the T is 40 C. The level off altitude is 2000 ft, MSA is 1800 ft, and consequently you follow the standard missed levelling off at 1800 ft.
However we don’t have a similar table for take off performance, giving one the idea of performance of the aircraft for specific weight, airdrome conditions and configuration. That’s why I reverted to the rate of climb; because that’s the only criteria you have available.
Sorry it’s got a bit too long and boring to read and hopefully somehow you could bring up my idea a bit closer.
P.S.
cavelino rampante,
as an example DEP A 34 takes you over the water and there are clearly no obstacles at all, consequently following the SID and levelling off at 1600 ft (EOSID ACC ALT) cleaning up and coming back will not jeopardize the safety in any way and you will stay clear of obstacles. On the other hand the EOSID says at 4 DME RT HDG 010 climb to 1600 ft RT to the VOR and must be followed even in VMC on the hot day with OAT about 41 C and take off weight of more than 200 tonnes, because you wont meet the required climb gradient of 4% up to 900 ft if you loose an engine. Whether you turn away visually or follow the EOSID you still aim the same goal, avoiding the obstacle on the RWY course.
john_tullamarine, I asked my self the same question. How do I ensure I will meet the performance? Well, how about to use your FMS and see what your climb performance will be like, it takes all the data into consideration except the wind on take off. Lets say you will see 5000 ft after 10 NM, that means 8% climb gradient so if one engine fails you will only have half 4%. Than you decide is that enough?
I understand its all a bit theoretical and if any doubts just follow the EOSID, however it might bring you in bigger troubles in certain places.
Cheers.
Last edited by popay; 6th Sep 2005 at 20:54.
Popay,
The FMC does not take into consideration the clean up.
The flaps are supposed to be up at the end of the 10 minutes - not fly for 10 minutes in the takeoff configuration at takeoff N1 and then clean up.
I don't believe that you have any option BUT follow the EOSID and I also believe that you cannot GUARANTEE that you can meet the SID climb gradients on one engine when you consider the level segment to retract the flaps.
Why is it that hard? Engine failures don't happen everyday, if you follow the EOSID everytime there isn't that delay where you decide what you are going to do - that delay may well kill you and your fellow crew and passengers.
The FMC does not take into consideration the clean up.
The flaps are supposed to be up at the end of the 10 minutes - not fly for 10 minutes in the takeoff configuration at takeoff N1 and then clean up.
I don't believe that you have any option BUT follow the EOSID and I also believe that you cannot GUARANTEE that you can meet the SID climb gradients on one engine when you consider the level segment to retract the flaps.
Why is it that hard? Engine failures don't happen everyday, if you follow the EOSID everytime there isn't that delay where you decide what you are going to do - that delay may well kill you and your fellow crew and passengers.