Responsibility for OEI procedures

[BOAC]

A discussion with a friend in a JAROPS airline has raised this question; primarily inside JAROPS but input from the venerable Old S and JT on 'forrin' procedures more than welcome.

An OEI proc is published for an airport. The 25 mile MSA is well above 1500' AAL, say 8500'. The OEI proc takes him to 1500' safely.

Whose responsibility is it to determine the procedure thereafter? No airfield charts are available to crew which show the controlling terrain, but only an en-route low-level chart with area 'grid' MSAs.

So, there my friend is, IMC at 1500' AAL and clean, with 7000' more to climb to be 'safe'. Should he expect a 'surveyed' route to either return him to the airfield (where circling minima are established) or to climb to 8500' (or en-route MSA) clear of the controlling terrain, or is he expected to 'make it up' - and, of course, 'get it right'?

I know which I would prefer, and I believe JAROPS 1.495(f) is fairly clear - but is it? I have expressed such to him.

Edit: JAROPS Ref Typo corrected. Thanks mbcxham

[FlapsOne]

Yes.

Following clean up I would expect a safe route to probably a hold facility where I could continue to climb till above MSA or VMC.

That JAROPS para is crystal clear so, if you can get en route climb in safety then that should be available.

The top option is the simplest I think.

[mbcxharm]

Whether this is relevant or not I'm not sure...

From JAR-OPS 1.495 Take-off obstacle clearance

(f) An operator shall establish contingency
procedures to satisfy the requirements of JAR–OPS
1.495 and to provide a safe route, avoiding obstacles,
to enable the aeroplane to either comply with the enroute
requirements of JAR–OPS 1.500, or land at
either the aerodrome of departure or at a take-off
alternate aerodrome (See IEM OPS 1.495(f)).

[john_tullamarine]

.. the venerable Old S and JT ..

The other John might be venerable ... I'm just old and dinosaurish ...

Without quoting regs, etc, sensible corporate risk management dictates that the operator is responsible for making sure that information sufficient to permit a safe OEI departure is provided to crews.

Two cases normally would be addressed -

(a) recovery to the departure aerodrome

(b) diversion in the case of below minima weather.

It follows that, for (b), an alternative is to prescribe higher takeoff weather minima to avoid the need for a diversion.

I would expect that some consideration be given to the out of left field emergencies (aerodrome closed due to disabled aircraft, for instance). Typically, this would involve a suitable location to hold and climb prior to recovery or diversion.

In all cases for nasty spots, it is essential to see what works sensibly for the particular combination of Type and aerodrome.

[Old Smokey]

The way that I address the problem, BOAC, is to design ALL OEI procedures, without exception, to terminate in a Holding pattern where continued climb to the MSA may take place. Sometimes (conveniently) the holding pattern used is a published one, but more often than not, one of my own design.

The intent is to provide full FAR25 (and other equivalents) obstacle clearance guarantees all of the way until the MSA is reached, whereafter the pilot may transition from the 'tighter' FAR25 requirements to normal PANS-OPS terrain separation. All of the procedures are notated "Obstacle clearance BEYOND the MSA is the Pilot's responsibility. The WAT limit for the associated RTOWs considers the FAR25 en-route climb requirements at the MSA.

It may sound snobbish, but I think that any OEI procedure designer who fails to give guarantees all of the way to MSA is falling down on the job. A performance snob I may be, but I sure sleep much better knowing that 'my' crews are protected all the way.

I've mentioned before that I don't do the P/E for the aircraft that I actually fly, and there's some horrendous CFIT possibilities built into the procedures employed (which stop short of MSA).

Over to you Mutt.

Regards,

Old Smokey

[BOAC]

Apolgies for the unavoidable absence and thanks for the replies. I have passed your thoughts on to my friend. Hopefully his company will take note.

[mutt]

The WAT limit for the associated RTOWs considers the FAR25 en-route climb requirements at the MSA

How exactly are you doing that?

I've mentioned before that I don't do the P/E for the aircraft that I actually fly, and there's some horrendous CFIT possibilities built into the procedures employed (which stop short of MSA).

Having met your colleagues in Seattle, I understand that they are using Boeings SCAP compliant takeoff chart program, this unfortunately is pretty limited in the sense that it cannot calculate data based on you returning to a holding point, climb to MSA and then provide a weight for FAR25 enroute climb requirements.

For a lot of larger companies, if the solution doesnt come from the manufacturer, it wont be done.

Around here, we attempt to bring all OEI's to a final holding point, the crew can then decide on their next course of action.

Mutt