SID, RNP and Engine Out during SID
Guest
Posts: n/a
SID, RNP and Engine Out during SID
Hi guys,
just a couple of question for you
:
1) The ICAO DOC.8168 says for the Turning Departure that the bank used to build the procedure is 15°. But is this a max or a min? (I guess a min; I've never been limited by my instructors to 15° bank but looking the document I got the doubt).
2) RNP. I know that the RNP enroute is RNP5 and in Terminal Area is RNP1 (SID and STARs).
The SID and arrival procedures headed "RNAV" should be flown with PRNAV equipment, the RNP5 could be flown with basic VOR/DME and ADF.
If an ATS route has an RNP different from 5 is indicated on the Enroute Jeppesen (if Jepp, or another mark).
Is that correct?
3) You are in a SID with high gradient, in IMC, just passed the 1 Eng out procedure chance, and the engine fail, the airplane is heavy (just near the RMTOW), no radar control (only procedural), the MSA is not so low. How do you manage the situation? Go for a direct to a holding fix (but remember, no radar control and MSA high, so out of protected areas) or other solutions? As you know the SID is based on 2 Eng. operating.
Regards
Davide
just a couple of question for you
:1) The ICAO DOC.8168 says for the Turning Departure that the bank used to build the procedure is 15°. But is this a max or a min? (I guess a min; I've never been limited by my instructors to 15° bank but looking the document I got the doubt).
2) RNP. I know that the RNP enroute is RNP5 and in Terminal Area is RNP1 (SID and STARs).
The SID and arrival procedures headed "RNAV" should be flown with PRNAV equipment, the RNP5 could be flown with basic VOR/DME and ADF.
If an ATS route has an RNP different from 5 is indicated on the Enroute Jeppesen (if Jepp, or another mark).
Is that correct?
3) You are in a SID with high gradient, in IMC, just passed the 1 Eng out procedure chance, and the engine fail, the airplane is heavy (just near the RMTOW), no radar control (only procedural), the MSA is not so low. How do you manage the situation? Go for a direct to a holding fix (but remember, no radar control and MSA high, so out of protected areas) or other solutions? As you know the SID is based on 2 Eng. operating.
Regards
Davide
Last edited by Dmax; 21st December 2006 at 17:43.
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 90
QUOTE]1) The ICAO DOC.8168 says for the Turning Departure that the bank used to build the procedure is 15°. But is this a max or a min? (I guess a min; I've never been limited by my instructors to 15° bank but looking the document I got the doubt).
[/QUOTE]
It is a MIN figure - for designing the procedure. If a higher AOB is actually used, then the aircraft will remain within the designed obstacle protection area. Doc 8168 is not intended to lay down aircraft operatiing limits, only procedure design critera - but it is, of course, useful to know this.
RNP requires RNAV, so forget your ADF. RNP can be any figure, as determined by the relevant authorities. RNP5 is a European determination. RNP0.3 may be required for SID/STAR in some parts of the world.
[/QUOTE]
It is a MIN figure - for designing the procedure. If a higher AOB is actually used, then the aircraft will remain within the designed obstacle protection area. Doc 8168 is not intended to lay down aircraft operatiing limits, only procedure design critera - but it is, of course, useful to know this.
2) RNP. I know that the RNP enroute is RNP5 and in Terminal Area is RNP1 (SID and STARs).
The SID and arrival procedures headed "RNAV" should be flown with PRNAV equipment, the RNP5 could be flown with basic VOR/DME and ADF.
If an ATS route has an RNP different from 5 is indicated on the Enroute Jeppesen (if Jepp, or another mark).
The SID and arrival procedures headed "RNAV" should be flown with PRNAV equipment, the RNP5 could be flown with basic VOR/DME and ADF.
If an ATS route has an RNP different from 5 is indicated on the Enroute Jeppesen (if Jepp, or another mark).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Claw your way to msa as soon as possible then talk to ATC. Vectors and a safe outcome!Too much going on at a critical moment. Trust me! Above MSA then you and pax are safe!
Cheers and have a great Christmas and all the very best for 2007!
Cheers and have a great Christmas and all the very best for 2007!
RNP requires RNAV, so forget your ADF. RNP can be any figure, as determined by the relevant authorities. RNP5 is a European determination. RNP0.3 may be required for SID/STAR in some parts of the world.
But, I like to know details on various sides of my passion.Thanks
Davide
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: N33 24.7 E36 30.8 E 36 30.8
I think the essential is to get to a safe altitude by any means available..i would dump fuel immediately if ground contact is an issue
then talk to atc and get to a protected area..i.e holding and sort my problems according to priorities and go back to land
merry christmas and a happy new year..to all
then talk to atc and get to a protected area..i.e holding and sort my problems according to priorities and go back to land
merry christmas and a happy new year..to all
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: singapore
bflyer, while u plan to dump fuel, might as well order a coffee. U are on take off. If i remember correctly, eng fail charts does not apply in 2nd segment. SID would have eng fail factored in, with climb rates clearing MSAs.
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
SID would have eng fail factored in
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Thanks OzExpat, that pretty much said it. One of the major areas of concern in designing OEI escape routes is the scenario where the engine fails AFTER that point in the flight where the SID and the OEI Special Procedure deviate, and obstacle clearance is not yet ensured.
The solution that I apply to the problem in those departures where obstacles during the SID are excessive is to devise 2 sets of RTOWs for the same runway, one to follow the SID, and the other commited to the Special Procedure.
(1) If the Actual Takeoff Weight is at or less than that which would comply with engine failure during the SID, then fine, accept the SID.
(2) If the Actual Takeoff Weight EXCEEDS that for compliance with the SID (but obviously at or less than that for the Special Procedure), advise ATC that the SID is not acceptable, and advise of your requirement to follow the Special Procedure routing until MSA is reached.
That's the data that I give to 'my customers', others may do it differently, Mutt, John_T?
Regards, and Compliments of the Season,
Old Smokey
The solution that I apply to the problem in those departures where obstacles during the SID are excessive is to devise 2 sets of RTOWs for the same runway, one to follow the SID, and the other commited to the Special Procedure.
(1) If the Actual Takeoff Weight is at or less than that which would comply with engine failure during the SID, then fine, accept the SID.
(2) If the Actual Takeoff Weight EXCEEDS that for compliance with the SID (but obviously at or less than that for the Special Procedure), advise ATC that the SID is not acceptable, and advise of your requirement to follow the Special Procedure routing until MSA is reached.
That's the data that I give to 'my customers', others may do it differently, Mutt, John_T?
Regards, and Compliments of the Season,
Old Smokey
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks OzExpat, that pretty much said it. One of the major areas of concern in designing OEI escape routes is the scenario where the engine fails AFTER that point in the flight where the SID and the OEI Special Procedure deviate, and obstacle clearance is not yet ensured.
The solution that I apply to the problem in those departures where obstacles during the SID are excessive is to devise 2 sets of RTOWs for the same runway, one to follow the SID, and the other commited to the Special Procedure.
(1) If the Actual Takeoff Weight is at or less than that which would comply with engine failure during the SID, then fine, accept the SID.
(2) If the Actual Takeoff Weight EXCEEDS that for compliance with the SID (but obviously at or less than that for the Special Procedure), advise ATC that the SID is not acceptable, and advise of your requirement to follow the Special Procedure routing until MSA is reached.
That's the data that I give to 'my customers', others may do it differently, Mutt, John_T?
Regards, and Compliments of the Season,
Old Smokey
The solution that I apply to the problem in those departures where obstacles during the SID are excessive is to devise 2 sets of RTOWs for the same runway, one to follow the SID, and the other commited to the Special Procedure.
(1) If the Actual Takeoff Weight is at or less than that which would comply with engine failure during the SID, then fine, accept the SID.
(2) If the Actual Takeoff Weight EXCEEDS that for compliance with the SID (but obviously at or less than that for the Special Procedure), advise ATC that the SID is not acceptable, and advise of your requirement to follow the Special Procedure routing until MSA is reached.
That's the data that I give to 'my customers', others may do it differently, Mutt, John_T?
Regards, and Compliments of the Season,
Old Smokey
Many friend of mine pilots replied to my question with "hey guy, it's a Liner, it always stay within the gradients of the SIDs...." (that is not the reply I was waiting for...)
Thanks
Davide
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
That's the data that I give to 'my customers', others may do it differently
.. sounds like a good strategy to me ... main thing is to get the message across to the folks that the SID is AEO and he who thinks otherwise is a CFIT waiting for a hill to happen along on the wrong day ...
.. sounds like a good strategy to me ... main thing is to get the message across to the folks that the SID is AEO and he who thinks otherwise is a CFIT waiting for a hill to happen along on the wrong day ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree. Many pilots think that with the Takeoff analysis tables (or runway tables) you got the RTOW and you are ok for every problem....
The SID gradient is based on All engines operating and it's not related to the RTOW given in the Takeoff Analysis (except if the Dispatch Program used gives the facility to obtain the RTOW for the SID as said by Old Smokey).
The fact is that almost in each area we have the Radar control and the MVA that usually are lower than the MSA. But, even if I live in Italy, my city airport, Alghero Fertilia LIEA in Sardinia island has still the Procedural Approach (with the help of Rome ACC that covers with Radar till about FL100)...
Regards
Davide
The SID gradient is based on All engines operating and it's not related to the RTOW given in the Takeoff Analysis (except if the Dispatch Program used gives the facility to obtain the RTOW for the SID as said by Old Smokey).
The fact is that almost in each area we have the Radar control and the MVA that usually are lower than the MSA. But, even if I live in Italy, my city airport, Alghero Fertilia LIEA in Sardinia island has still the Procedural Approach (with the help of Rome ACC that covers with Radar till about FL100)...
Regards
Davide
