Special Engine failure departure
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about the same Jeppesen Joe Monsoon?
One of our 4 major divisions use Jep data, and a direct quote from the briefing for their Airport Analysis follows -
"Heights and distances of all obstacles considered along the straight out track or the prescribed special engine failure route up to 30nm are shown at the bottom of the tables"
Unfortunately, yours truly flys for this division (but does the Performance Engineering for other divisions), and am well familiar with possible forays into "no man's land" at the end of the survey limit.
At 22nm, many aircraft at limiting weights will only be partly established in the 3rd segment. In the work that I do (for the other divisions), it is not uncommon to see the 3rd segment end beyond 30nm.
If I have a "rush job" for a new destination, I frequently resort to the use of Jep data to get me to the first 30nm, then my work starts in earnest to evaluate the obstacles beyond that to ensure safe tracking and vertical clearance up to the MSA. I encounter numerous cases where using the Jep data alone would be a recipe for disaster.
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
One of our 4 major divisions use Jep data, and a direct quote from the briefing for their Airport Analysis follows -
"Heights and distances of all obstacles considered along the straight out track or the prescribed special engine failure route up to 30nm are shown at the bottom of the tables"
Unfortunately, yours truly flys for this division (but does the Performance Engineering for other divisions), and am well familiar with possible forays into "no man's land" at the end of the survey limit.
At 22nm, many aircraft at limiting weights will only be partly established in the 3rd segment. In the work that I do (for the other divisions), it is not uncommon to see the 3rd segment end beyond 30nm.
If I have a "rush job" for a new destination, I frequently resort to the use of Jep data to get me to the first 30nm, then my work starts in earnest to evaluate the obstacles beyond that to ensure safe tracking and vertical clearance up to the MSA. I encounter numerous cases where using the Jep data alone would be a recipe for disaster.
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine out
While I realise it's the main point of discussion here, this all seems to refer to modern airliners with bags of power.
Wasn't it the case not so long ago, with feeble engines, that " to try & turn back was suicide " - land straight ahead-ish, hoping that doesn't involve a church spire, town etc.
I realise military fast jets are a little different, and single engined ones have simpler decisions to make ( though there have been some truly heroic dead-stick landings, such as the late Hugh Mereweather and Peter Twiss ) but on my ride in G-Hawk, an especially valuable instrumented demonstrator, I was still left in doubt at all, " if we lose the engine on takeoff ( birdstrike being the most likely culprit ) we eject "
Having nice flat unpopulated farmland dead ahead was a handy thing, but there was clearly no thought of a dead-stick wheels up landing on grass, if that was within reach.
I suspect the same Test Pilot, if alone in a new model aircraft, may well have tried to belly-land and save it.
Wasn't it the case not so long ago, with feeble engines, that " to try & turn back was suicide " - land straight ahead-ish, hoping that doesn't involve a church spire, town etc.
I realise military fast jets are a little different, and single engined ones have simpler decisions to make ( though there have been some truly heroic dead-stick landings, such as the late Hugh Mereweather and Peter Twiss ) but on my ride in G-Hawk, an especially valuable instrumented demonstrator, I was still left in doubt at all, " if we lose the engine on takeoff ( birdstrike being the most likely culprit ) we eject "
Having nice flat unpopulated farmland dead ahead was a handy thing, but there was clearly no thought of a dead-stick wheels up landing on grass, if that was within reach.
I suspect the same Test Pilot, if alone in a new model aircraft, may well have tried to belly-land and save it.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero,
"this all seems to refer to modern airliners with bags of power"
Not quite, it was well established in the sixties when I first became acquainted with it, aviation historians may be able to shed light on the time when the regulations required obstacle clearance following engine failure at all phases of flight. Of course, the regulations have been refined over the years, but the basic principals remain the same.
If you want to go even further back, to a time when obstacle clearance was not considered, but guaranteed One Engine Inoperative performance was, you'll have to go right back to the DC1 and DC2. It was TWA's specification that the aircraft must have guaranteed engine out performance. Millions of passengers in the 80 or so years since then have a lot to thank Jack Fry for.
The "modern airliners" from the sixties are, with a few exceptions, now only found in museums. The sixties are, after all, going on to half a century, hardly modern times.
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
"this all seems to refer to modern airliners with bags of power"
Not quite, it was well established in the sixties when I first became acquainted with it, aviation historians may be able to shed light on the time when the regulations required obstacle clearance following engine failure at all phases of flight. Of course, the regulations have been refined over the years, but the basic principals remain the same.
If you want to go even further back, to a time when obstacle clearance was not considered, but guaranteed One Engine Inoperative performance was, you'll have to go right back to the DC1 and DC2. It was TWA's specification that the aircraft must have guaranteed engine out performance. Millions of passengers in the 80 or so years since then have a lot to thank Jack Fry for.
The "modern airliners" from the sixties are, with a few exceptions, now only found in museums. The sixties are, after all, going on to half a century, hardly modern times.
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Smokey,
I appreciate your reply; does that include such things as Herald's, Ambassadors, ( I know out of service now ) Twin Otters, light twins, etc etc -even 737 early models ?
All admittedly basically 1960's a/c, but some are still around today.
On another slant of 'single engine failure' I take it you saw the recent shots of the AA 767 where the starboard engine had an uncontained failure,very fortunately on the ground, with the hot fan spool buzz-sawing through the lower fuselage straight into, and taking out,the port engine + various control surfaces !
I appreciate your reply; does that include such things as Herald's, Ambassadors, ( I know out of service now ) Twin Otters, light twins, etc etc -even 737 early models ?
All admittedly basically 1960's a/c, but some are still around today.
On another slant of 'single engine failure' I take it you saw the recent shots of the AA 767 where the starboard engine had an uncontained failure,very fortunately on the ground, with the hot fan spool buzz-sawing through the lower fuselage straight into, and taking out,the port engine + various control surfaces !
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero,
Not familiar with Herald's, Ambassadors etc., but I strongly suspect that they were. Similar aircraft from that era that I was associated with, F27,Viscount, Electra, early model DC9, B727 and B737 most certainly did have to comply.
Interesting that you note the Twin Otter (FHC6), as a light aircraft (<5700 Kg / 12500 Lb) the regulations did not require them to comply fully with FAR25 type requirements, but as we were operating them RPT within Australia, the regulatory authority (God bless 'em), required us (the airline) to prove that they did meet all of the FAR25 standards (except that they called it CAO 20.7.1B because they were Australian).
The one interesting concession granted to us by the same regulatory authority was that DC3 operations in New Guinea, due to very high airfield elevations and MUCH higher obstacles operated with "special" PK charts, which allowed for "all engines" operation only, treating the aircraft as one would a single engined aircraft. Jack Fry must have rolled over in his grave!
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
Not familiar with Herald's, Ambassadors etc., but I strongly suspect that they were. Similar aircraft from that era that I was associated with, F27,Viscount, Electra, early model DC9, B727 and B737 most certainly did have to comply.
Interesting that you note the Twin Otter (FHC6), as a light aircraft (<5700 Kg / 12500 Lb) the regulations did not require them to comply fully with FAR25 type requirements, but as we were operating them RPT within Australia, the regulatory authority (God bless 'em), required us (the airline) to prove that they did meet all of the FAR25 standards (except that they called it CAO 20.7.1B because they were Australian).
The one interesting concession granted to us by the same regulatory authority was that DC3 operations in New Guinea, due to very high airfield elevations and MUCH higher obstacles operated with "special" PK charts, which allowed for "all engines" operation only, treating the aircraft as one would a single engined aircraft. Jack Fry must have rolled over in his grave!
Best Regards,
Old Smokey
Referring to "22nm" downrange distance, the only place I have heard that number was in the C-5 where Lockheed only needed to produce the climb gradient charts to that distance. When Jepp OpsData did the computations for special OEI departures having 22nm data restricted them in some cases. They also expressed frustration at the limitations that distance caused. Especially in a plane where 22 nm might only have gotten you through flap retaction 
Jepp considered 30 nm as the standard endpoint for climb gradient data.
GF
Jepp considered 30 nm as the standard endpoint for climb gradient data.
GF
Moderator
Like OS, I started out in the 60s (maybe a year or two ahead of his goodself) when much of the heavy performance changes were in the making ... and we both are probably looking more toward fishing rather than aeroplanes in the next few years or so ... unfortunately, we probably don't have the old school Aus regulatory folk, such as IST and JCF in the PPRuNe community .. they would be able to quote chapter and verse of the whole developmental lineage as if it were only yesterday ... (if it sounds like I was in a bit of awe of those folk .. then that would be a fair assessment ..)
The earlier certification standard at the time (CAR4b) was a bit like an upmarket FAR23 package for performance and required a level of OEI capability .. if you really want to be adventurous, have a looksee here.
During the mid to late 60s, ICAO put out a PAMC (Provisional Acceptable Means of Compliance) on aircraft performance (looking at some notes tucked away in the computer archives .. I think Circular 58-AN/53/2 ?) .. I have a copy in a filing cabinet somewhere but wouldn't like to have to find it in a hurry ... normal sort of doc .. around the 30-40 page size, as I recall ? .. long time since I've looked at it ...
The F27, if I recall correctly, probably was the first turbine powered aircraft to recertify from the older to the newer standards eventually embodied in FAR25 (which came on the scene in the mid-60s).
The Industry then saw the now "normal" OEI segmented takeoff capabilities evolve into a more general application in the general heavy aircraft sandpit ...
As for the problems associated with getting obstacle data .. while it is getting easier with satellite imagery ... the bulk of the work done Industry wide is geared to the initial takeoff ... with the majority tending to ignore what happens between then and LSA ... folk like Mutt, OS, and me worry about that latter bit a lot as satisfying it takes the most detective effort in finding out just what rocky bits exist for a given departure .. Centaurus, for one, could regale us with tales of operators who tend even not to worry about the early rocky bits .. but that is another tale for another day ...
Generally, if you are still struggling at 25nm, then you are having a bad day .. the real problem, then, is with those aerodromes which have a high MSA.
The earlier certification standard at the time (CAR4b) was a bit like an upmarket FAR23 package for performance and required a level of OEI capability .. if you really want to be adventurous, have a looksee here.
During the mid to late 60s, ICAO put out a PAMC (Provisional Acceptable Means of Compliance) on aircraft performance (looking at some notes tucked away in the computer archives .. I think Circular 58-AN/53/2 ?) .. I have a copy in a filing cabinet somewhere but wouldn't like to have to find it in a hurry ... normal sort of doc .. around the 30-40 page size, as I recall ? .. long time since I've looked at it ...
The F27, if I recall correctly, probably was the first turbine powered aircraft to recertify from the older to the newer standards eventually embodied in FAR25 (which came on the scene in the mid-60s).
The Industry then saw the now "normal" OEI segmented takeoff capabilities evolve into a more general application in the general heavy aircraft sandpit ...
As for the problems associated with getting obstacle data .. while it is getting easier with satellite imagery ... the bulk of the work done Industry wide is geared to the initial takeoff ... with the majority tending to ignore what happens between then and LSA ... folk like Mutt, OS, and me worry about that latter bit a lot as satisfying it takes the most detective effort in finding out just what rocky bits exist for a given departure .. Centaurus, for one, could regale us with tales of operators who tend even not to worry about the early rocky bits .. but that is another tale for another day ...
Generally, if you are still struggling at 25nm, then you are having a bad day .. the real problem, then, is with those aerodromes which have a high MSA.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one look pretty exciting 
RNAV only.
http://www.naverus.com/documents/ZUNZ_All_Tracks.pdf
They fly 757s and A319s with high-altitude kits I think.
EDIT: here's a video: YouTube - Naverus RNP approach into Linzhi, China
Elevation 9670ft
RNAV only.http://www.naverus.com/documents/ZUNZ_All_Tracks.pdf
They fly 757s and A319s with high-altitude kits I think.
EDIT: here's a video: YouTube - Naverus RNP approach into Linzhi, China
Elevation 9670ft
Last edited by Massey1Bravo; 5th Aug 2008 at 08:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so for Linzhi rwy 23 departure... if you fly the departure track and have and engin failure nz462 and nz466, are you safe?? or you have to fly always the engine out track, just in case, and until you have an enough altitude to proceed to the standard departure???
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
