Doc 8168 - no acceleration segment
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doc 8168 - no acceleration segment
ICAO Document 8168 not longer provide an acceleration segment for missed approach procedures. Some operators performs acceleration when reaching go-around altitude. What is your SOP.
Thanks for reply.
Thanks for reply.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Where am I today?
Age: 39
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good moning Savi,
I think that your are talking about the acceleration in the go around in case of an engine failure.
Of course is very important to acelerate the plane so about that i can say you that some operators make the acceleration just where itīs written in the SOP of each airport but when i made my type rating (A320) i knew some instructors that said me to acelerate the plane at the altittude that is written in the SOP but others said me to acelerate the plane in the MSA in order to use those 10minutes of TOGA (Maximum thrust) so....i donīt know, i think that we can easily find many opinions about this...what do you thing? anyone wants to tell us about this?
thank you
I think that your are talking about the acceleration in the go around in case of an engine failure.
Of course is very important to acelerate the plane so about that i can say you that some operators make the acceleration just where itīs written in the SOP of each airport but when i made my type rating (A320) i knew some instructors that said me to acelerate the plane at the altittude that is written in the SOP but others said me to acelerate the plane in the MSA in order to use those 10minutes of TOGA (Maximum thrust) so....i donīt know, i think that we can easily find many opinions about this...what do you thing? anyone wants to tell us about this?
thank you
Guest
Posts: n/a
Level acceleration
A litttle history - the level accelerations segment was added to the PANS-OPS missed approach and departure criteria as a result of input from the Airworthines Committee back in the mid 70s. However, it quickly became apparent that it was unrealistic from an operational perspective. It resulted in the departure from Frankfurt being limited by the Alps and the inability to operate at all out of Aukland. It took four years and support from Mike Cowley (Performance Manager from NZ) to get the criteria removed from PANS-OPS. It was then that the statements were added that PANS-OPS covered normal operations, and that contingency procedures were the responsibility of the operator.
The requirement for the Type C chart was also added to Annex 4. Unfortunately no State produced that chart, leaving the operator on his own and without obstacle data from the State. Despite pressure at various ICAO meetings, nothing has changed - perhaps the combination of legal liability and cost is the reason.
There are also other anomalies - for departures, one group of States require assessment of an engine failure at any point after V1, another only at V1.
Also, there is no ICAO guidance on how to take benefit from the lower OCA/H promulgated by Some States for aircraft capable of missed approach gradients above 2.5%. This is left to States and operators to negotiate between themselves. A proposal was made at OCP/13 for an appropriate body to provide guidelines on the treatment of the missed approach critera. Unfortunately it seems to have got lost in the works - perhaps because it is so aircraft type specific.
If that is not enough, there is the long standing difference in missed approach between the FAA 3.3% expanding margin and the PANS-OPS 30m/50m stepped margin. Likewise the FAA Airmans Handbook requires the whole missed approach track to be followed, whereas PANS-OPS caters for protection of an early turn in the missed approach.
The final word? Be happy if you have a good performance engineer behind you.
The requirement for the Type C chart was also added to Annex 4. Unfortunately no State produced that chart, leaving the operator on his own and without obstacle data from the State. Despite pressure at various ICAO meetings, nothing has changed - perhaps the combination of legal liability and cost is the reason.
There are also other anomalies - for departures, one group of States require assessment of an engine failure at any point after V1, another only at V1.
Also, there is no ICAO guidance on how to take benefit from the lower OCA/H promulgated by Some States for aircraft capable of missed approach gradients above 2.5%. This is left to States and operators to negotiate between themselves. A proposal was made at OCP/13 for an appropriate body to provide guidelines on the treatment of the missed approach critera. Unfortunately it seems to have got lost in the works - perhaps because it is so aircraft type specific.
If that is not enough, there is the long standing difference in missed approach between the FAA 3.3% expanding margin and the PANS-OPS 30m/50m stepped margin. Likewise the FAA Airmans Handbook requires the whole missed approach track to be followed, whereas PANS-OPS caters for protection of an early turn in the missed approach.
The final word? Be happy if you have a good performance engineer behind you.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite pressure at various ICAO meetings, nothing has changed - perhaps the combination of legal liability and cost is the reason.
DCA soon fixed that little problem. The obstruction charts provided to the DCA Flying Unit were withdrawn and for years the Flying Unit aircraft operated unprotected - responsibility for obstruction clearance being foisted on to the pilot. On one occasion, DCA "borrowed" the obstacle clearance chart for Alice Springs from one of the domestic operators manual and quietly slipped it into their F27 (DCA) Operations Manual. Copyright was disregarded. For several years this chart was used by DCA until someone pointed out that the chart had been cancelled a few days after initial publication in the airline manual due to a major mistake in the design of the chart.
