Special Engine failure departure
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversely, how thick will the ATCO's book of emergency turns be?
Given that different fleets within one operator may have different ETs, I'm struggling with the notion of the ATCO, having just received a Pan or Mayday call, having to look up what will happen next in an uncontrolled document, perhaps a very thick one.
However, now that there is a little more meat on the bone, I wonder whether, in fact, you have been passing this information to airport authorities, but it has not then been transmitted to ATCUs..?
It strikes me that emergency turns are a bit like met reports... They should be centrally decided and widely published. Then, for example, all the biz jet operators who do nothing whatsoever about obstacles in the NTOFP would be able to, and ATCOs and airport authorities would know what was going to happen...
Given that different fleets within one operator may have different ETs, I'm struggling with the notion of the ATCO, having just received a Pan or Mayday call, having to look up what will happen next in an uncontrolled document, perhaps a very thick one.
However, now that there is a little more meat on the bone, I wonder whether, in fact, you have been passing this information to airport authorities, but it has not then been transmitted to ATCUs..?
It strikes me that emergency turns are a bit like met reports... They should be centrally decided and widely published. Then, for example, all the biz jet operators who do nothing whatsoever about obstacles in the NTOFP would be able to, and ATCOs and airport authorities would know what was going to happen...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same here.
just we call them EOSID (Engine Out SID).
and we are advised to call ATC and state intentions because they don't know where we are going and there is no time to look it up somewhere.
just we call them EOSID (Engine Out SID).
and we are advised to call ATC and state intentions because they don't know where we are going and there is no time to look it up somewhere.
About a third of my compny's destinations are into airfield with terrain as a performance factor. We have EOSIDs for all of these. ATC are usually aware of these, but if I fly one, I will fully expect to have the added comlication of explaining what we are doing.
Two approaches in our network also have EO Go Around procedures. At our home base!
Two approaches in our network also have EO Go Around procedures. At our home base!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a great idea to give all your EOSIDs to ATC at every port you operate to. But what will they do with them? Put it in a filing cabinet.
I'm still going to tell ATC what I'm doing and the good guys there will hopefully keep everyone else out of my way while I stagger out along my EOSID.
Anything else is impractical. Even the same type operated by different companies will have different ETPs depending on which company has drawn them up.
I'm still going to tell ATC what I'm doing and the good guys there will hopefully keep everyone else out of my way while I stagger out along my EOSID.
Anything else is impractical. Even the same type operated by different companies will have different ETPs depending on which company has drawn them up.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have Engine-Out Standard Instrument Departures (EOSIDS) for EVERY runway at EVERY airport that we operate from. That's every runway without exception
I'm sure of that because I'm the person who produces them, and have had written into the AOC "Operations are forbidden from Runways from which there are no published OESIDs". I sleep better that way.
There are numerous runways for which there are no significant obstacles for a straight-ahead track following engine failure, BUT, after acquiring MAA, cleaned up, and reduced to MCT, then what? Turn-back to the departure airport, or diverting to alternate inevitabely means encountering some of John_T's rocky bits, so, all OEISIDs I produce provide lateral tracking and vertical obstacle clearance contained within 25 nm, assuring FAR 25 obstacle clearance until the MSA is reached. Inevitably, as 2nd and 3rd segment distances often exceed 30+ miles, the procedure enters a holding patter for further climb to MSA.
In doing it this way, every pilot using the procedures have a guarantee of obstacle clearance for every runway, all the way thrrough to where MSA is reached, and normal (PANS-OPS) clearance is assured. That's why I sleep better at nights.
To answer another aspect of the questions raised, for each procedure developed, I do not allow it's release until after a personal visit to the local ATC units to provide them with the "this is what we're going to do following engine failure" procedures. Usually, they're fairly surprised by the visit. In this way, neither the pilots, nor ATC are guessing "what next?" after engine failure.
For those who do know me, and know my regular flying job, I don't have the luxury of such complete assurance in my day to day flying. I do the work for one of our subsidiaries (we have 3). (No Mutt, our procedures out of Hong Kong don't require continued flight to the Philippines, but the cr@ppy procedures we're stuck with in THAT operation might imply so
)
That's the way that one operator does it.
Best Regards, Nice to be back,
Old Smokey
I'm sure of that because I'm the person who produces them, and have had written into the AOC "Operations are forbidden from Runways from which there are no published OESIDs". I sleep better that way.
There are numerous runways for which there are no significant obstacles for a straight-ahead track following engine failure, BUT, after acquiring MAA, cleaned up, and reduced to MCT, then what? Turn-back to the departure airport, or diverting to alternate inevitabely means encountering some of John_T's rocky bits, so, all OEISIDs I produce provide lateral tracking and vertical obstacle clearance contained within 25 nm, assuring FAR 25 obstacle clearance until the MSA is reached. Inevitably, as 2nd and 3rd segment distances often exceed 30+ miles, the procedure enters a holding patter for further climb to MSA.
In doing it this way, every pilot using the procedures have a guarantee of obstacle clearance for every runway, all the way thrrough to where MSA is reached, and normal (PANS-OPS) clearance is assured. That's why I sleep better at nights.
To answer another aspect of the questions raised, for each procedure developed, I do not allow it's release until after a personal visit to the local ATC units to provide them with the "this is what we're going to do following engine failure" procedures. Usually, they're fairly surprised by the visit. In this way, neither the pilots, nor ATC are guessing "what next?" after engine failure.
For those who do know me, and know my regular flying job, I don't have the luxury of such complete assurance in my day to day flying. I do the work for one of our subsidiaries (we have 3). (No Mutt, our procedures out of Hong Kong don't require continued flight to the Philippines, but the cr@ppy procedures we're stuck with in THAT operation might imply so
)That's the way that one operator does it.
Best Regards, Nice to be back,
Old Smokey
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok.. now lets take this situation.
Departing from a rocky scenary... the SID take you through some headings, but you know that with e/o could be impossible to accomplish and have to do company E/o procedure.. so.. when you take off in that situation,do you fly the e/o procedure with both engine just in case???
Departing from a rocky scenary... the SID take you through some headings, but you know that with e/o could be impossible to accomplish and have to do company E/o procedure.. so.. when you take off in that situation,do you fly the e/o procedure with both engine just in case???
when you take off in that situation,do you fly the e/o procedure with both engine just in case???
In extreme cases, following the EOSID on all engines might mean you're unable to do anything but return to the airfield or spiral up in a hold. This isn't the most efficient way of starting off towards your destination! If the terrain is very high on your normal SID, the EOSID may take you in the opposite direction: again, not ultra-efficient.
Also, as .86 points out, you are not going to be flavour of the month with ATC if you do this on a regular basis...
Last edited by FullWings; 25th Jul 2008 at 16:39.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome back...... totally missed you....
We try to talk to the ATC at all of our scheduled destinations, generally we ask them what the home base operator does, surprisingly they usually look at us with blank expressions that reveal that no one ever talks to them about EOSIDS, but the problem is, they have no process to accept our procedures so its up to the crew to inform them as soon as they deviate from the normal procedure.
Mutt
We try to talk to the ATC at all of our scheduled destinations, generally we ask them what the home base operator does, surprisingly they usually look at us with blank expressions that reveal that no one ever talks to them about EOSIDS, but the problem is, they have no process to accept our procedures so its up to the crew to inform them as soon as they deviate from the normal procedure.
Mutt
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At TCX we have 2 types.
One is an engine out procedure, which is usually a basic 1500 agl left or right turn back to the beacon or overhead.
Second is a defined engine out procedure based on terrain.
My problem is, that most ATC units don't have a clue as to what we are going to do - SFB is a classic. I spoke with the senior there and explained what we would do ( 1500 agl, left turn back to the overhead). There was a long silence and the lady then said :-
' Sir, I would suggest that you do not do that at Sanford '.
So, what do we do ?
I guess ATC communication is the best way, coupled with good CRM and a weather eye out for what is practical on the day
One is an engine out procedure, which is usually a basic 1500 agl left or right turn back to the beacon or overhead.
Second is a defined engine out procedure based on terrain.
My problem is, that most ATC units don't have a clue as to what we are going to do - SFB is a classic. I spoke with the senior there and explained what we would do ( 1500 agl, left turn back to the overhead). There was a long silence and the lady then said :-
' Sir, I would suggest that you do not do that at Sanford '.
So, what do we do ?
I guess ATC communication is the best way, coupled with good CRM and a weather eye out for what is practical on the day
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OESIDs typically created are "idealised" for engine failure from V1 (or Vef to be precise), thus, an early engine failure leaves the pilot in no doubt of immediately cancelling the SID and continuing with the EOSID (Special Procedure). The curve ball out of left field is those SIDs which require early turn, with all engines operating up to the SID turning point, and engine failure ocurring on the next leg of the SID which has not been evaluated for OEI performance. Numerous SIDs require climb gradients far in excess of available OEI performance, and even if you can meet the gradient (e.g. 3.3%), at which altitude do you accelerate?
From the EOSID design point of view in these situations I create 2 EOSIDs for such runways, one idealised for early engine failure, and the other for the worst of the published SIDs. The RTOWs for the SIDs are invariably limited to a lower weight than for the "idealised" OESID. With such data available, at the pre-flight stage the pilot then knows whether or not he/she can meet the SID following engine failure. If the SID is achievable OEI, accept the clearance and go. If not, advise ATC that the SID is unacceptable, and request alternative departure procedures.
I still sleep better at night that way
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
From the EOSID design point of view in these situations I create 2 EOSIDs for such runways, one idealised for early engine failure, and the other for the worst of the published SIDs. The RTOWs for the SIDs are invariably limited to a lower weight than for the "idealised" OESID. With such data available, at the pre-flight stage the pilot then knows whether or not he/she can meet the SID following engine failure. If the SID is achievable OEI, accept the clearance and go. If not, advise ATC that the SID is unacceptable, and request alternative departure procedures.
I still sleep better at night that way
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
One of the problems we face is that some (not all) airlines address the runway failure case and then leave it to the crew to wing it for subsequent (later) failures ...
I know of some airlines which don't even do that much and base their departure RTOWs on runway lengths only (ie rocky bits are ignored ... that really is a bit naughty)
There is little problem for a straight departure as the OEI runway failure case covers the later failure ... the problem is with SIDs which include turns around/over terrain problems.
The nervous nellies amongst us (and I include me, Mutt, and OS) prefer to have an out planned for a failure anywhere along the departure up to a point where the aircraft's calculated height is comfortably above the close encounters of a rocky kind part of the departure ... For some of the more interesting runways, this can involve a lot of work at the planning stage. As OS observes, the alternative is just to forget the SID and require a preplanned alternative departure which addresses the concerns.
I know of some airlines which don't even do that much and base their departure RTOWs on runway lengths only (ie rocky bits are ignored ... that really is a bit naughty)
There is little problem for a straight departure as the OEI runway failure case covers the later failure ... the problem is with SIDs which include turns around/over terrain problems.
The nervous nellies amongst us (and I include me, Mutt, and OS) prefer to have an out planned for a failure anywhere along the departure up to a point where the aircraft's calculated height is comfortably above the close encounters of a rocky kind part of the departure ... For some of the more interesting runways, this can involve a lot of work at the planning stage. As OS observes, the alternative is just to forget the SID and require a preplanned alternative departure which addresses the concerns.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, this includes....
And, this includes a go-around from an approach with OEI. The bottom line is, if you can't meet the required minimum climb gradient (assuming this, due to an engine failure), you need to have a 'Plan B'.
At my old airline, our OEI charts read, "In case of engine failure during takeoff or missed approach"
It's interesting to look at the actual track of such a plan...looking at things when the weather is nice...good viz....to see the mountains you miss, the valleys you exploit...Hong Kong is a good example of this....especially RWY 7L.
PantLoad
At my old airline, our OEI charts read, "In case of engine failure during takeoff or missed approach"
It's interesting to look at the actual track of such a plan...looking at things when the weather is nice...good viz....to see the mountains you miss, the valleys you exploit...Hong Kong is a good example of this....especially RWY 7L.
PantLoad
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight (only slight) thread drift.
I recall from a previous life, that the 'special runway procedures' (or whatever other name you use) produced by Jepps, would get you to the MSA, but the straight ahead options were only valid out to a specific surveyed distance, and did not necessarily guarantee survival to the MSA or relevant MEA. That is to say that they did not cover the sort of planning referred to by OS in his reply #27.
Does anyone recall the distance?
Snooze
I recall from a previous life, that the 'special runway procedures' (or whatever other name you use) produced by Jepps, would get you to the MSA, but the straight ahead options were only valid out to a specific surveyed distance, and did not necessarily guarantee survival to the MSA or relevant MEA. That is to say that they did not cover the sort of planning referred to by OS in his reply #27.
Does anyone recall the distance?
Snooze
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeppesen = 30 miles, after that, you're on your own.
Is that good enough? I think not
A classic case in point is Melbourne (Tullamarine) RWY 34. Because Jeps have evaluated the obstacles straight ahead for 30 miles, found them to be OK (with some performance limitations), and published no special procedure (because straight ahead was OK)
What then? For the MAA provided (don't have it with me), a Right turn back will give plenty of "Terrain, Taerains" on the GPWS, but you should survive the day. For a Left turn back, there will be an abundance of "Whoop, whoop, PUll Ups", all of the way to impact. MAA is about 500 feet below terrain for a Left turn back.
Just for clarity, I say again "Is that good enough? I think not"
Regards,
Old Smokey
Is that good enough? I think not
A classic case in point is Melbourne (Tullamarine) RWY 34. Because Jeps have evaluated the obstacles straight ahead for 30 miles, found them to be OK (with some performance limitations), and published no special procedure (because straight ahead was OK)
What then? For the MAA provided (don't have it with me), a Right turn back will give plenty of "Terrain, Taerains" on the GPWS, but you should survive the day. For a Left turn back, there will be an abundance of "Whoop, whoop, PUll Ups", all of the way to impact. MAA is about 500 feet below terrain for a Left turn back.
Just for clarity, I say again "Is that good enough? I think not
"Regards,
Old Smokey