V1 Cut obstacle clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Smokey (and JT) - many thanks for your wisdom thus far. To draw a drinking analagy, I feel as though I am slowly emerging from a performance induced hangover as your replies help to make it all a little bit clearer each time. I look forward to Oz_Expat's input - should he surface!
It's a lovely day here in Blighty, the sun is shining and the temp has risen from 3 C when I got up to 9C now and we are told it's heading for 17!!
Cheers all,
mcdhu
It's a lovely day here in Blighty, the sun is shining and the temp has risen from 3 C when I got up to 9C now and we are told it's heading for 17!!
Cheers all,
mcdhu
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get heat stroke mcdhu, we'd miss you!
You're not the only one getting the bad breaks you know. The Rotten Sods (otherwise known as Crew Scheduling) have sent me off for a sojourn in Bali, dusky maidens, sipping a G & T under swaying palm trees, about 28 degrees, you know the sort of lousy rosters we all have to face from time to time, but, someone's got to do the dirty work!
Might just find Oz_Expat with Greenie in hand under one of the swaying palms!
Regards,
Old Smokey
You're not the only one getting the bad breaks you know. The Rotten Sods (otherwise known as Crew Scheduling) have sent me off for a sojourn in Bali, dusky maidens, sipping a G & T under swaying palm trees, about 28 degrees, you know the sort of lousy rosters we all have to face from time to time, but, someone's got to do the dirty work!
Might just find Oz_Expat with Greenie in hand under one of the swaying palms!
Regards,
Old Smokey
OS
Some guys have all the luck! I went a whole boreal (that would northern US) winter with nary a trip to the Southern Hemisphere. I did go to KMIA with a day off-15C, hot coffee, no dusky or blonde bikini-clad maidens there-mostly bundled-up, blue-haired elderly.
GF
Some guys have all the luck! I went a whole boreal (that would northern US) winter with nary a trip to the Southern Hemisphere. I did go to KMIA with a day off-15C, hot coffee, no dusky or blonde bikini-clad maidens there-mostly bundled-up, blue-haired elderly.
GF
Hello again to all on frequency:
I believe I've read and understood everything, with some of you guys I have to revisit the thread afew times to make sure that I understand; especially as so many regulations come into play; I'm not sure if this is what is the 'basic question regarding the missed approach?
As J_T inplies: in the US we actually do have provision in the air carrier rules 121/135 etc.. for an Approach climb OEI/AEO and it is a 3.2% gradient,...this statement was not correct I confused the asummed gross gradient with net gradients ---sorry PA
...But we don't have provision For a 'landing climb' OEI; where the AEO-ONLY gradient is 3.3%
that's why 'I mentioned the eight second rule' to infer a critical but unlikey scenario, I mean your OIS would't extend all the way to the DER as would a critical TO OEI scenario , but surely your TO OEI procedures could be used provided you don't extend spoilers or use the reversers ..."OEI touch and GO?"
edited to add 'of course in proper deference to Vmcl considerations'
For those not familar wwith the FAA:
An aicraft is CERTIFIED for airworthiness [23/25/29] and then CERTIFCATED for Comercial operations [121/125/135,
.....it seems not all states follow that practice; something I just learned here
PA
I believe I've read and understood everything, with some of you guys I have to revisit the thread afew times to make sure that I understand; especially as so many regulations come into play; I'm not sure if this is what is the 'basic question regarding the missed approach?
As J_T inplies: in the US we actually do have provision in the air carrier rules 121/135 etc.. for an Approach climb OEI/AEO and it is a 3.2% gradient,...this statement was not correct I confused the asummed gross gradient with net gradients ---sorry PA
...But we don't have provision For a 'landing climb' OEI; where the AEO-ONLY gradient is 3.3%
that's why 'I mentioned the eight second rule' to infer a critical but unlikey scenario, I mean your OIS would't extend all the way to the DER as would a critical TO OEI scenario , but surely your TO OEI procedures could be used provided you don't extend spoilers or use the reversers ..."OEI touch and GO?"
edited to add 'of course in proper deference to Vmcl considerations'
For those not familar wwith the FAA:
An aicraft is CERTIFIED for airworthiness [23/25/29] and then CERTIFCATED for Comercial operations [121/125/135,
.....it seems not all states follow that practice; something I just learned here
PA
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 1st Apr 2009 at 21:50. Reason: bold
Moderator
can we expect to maintain that gradient, or will it degrade as we climb through an increment of, say, 2000'?
Actual steady climb gradient tapers off as height increases.
A similar concern has existed for years in respect of takeoff segment gradient capability... and some AFMs are a bit better than others when it comes to working out what is what. On occasion the user has to be very careful and check at what level the chart data applies. Consider the case of an extended second segment when the AFM probably is based on a minimum climb profile .. one needs to do some iteration to match capability with requirement.
When I was starting out in the aviation sandpit, this was a hot topic in Australian ops engineering circles and there was much arm waving about performance at 35 ft and 400 ft etc., largely for the F27 and the general view was that one should meet the requirement throughout the second segment and not just at the commencement.
At the end of the day, what the rules might actually require/mean is determined by the Judge at the enquiry after the event ...
for those of us who have a Company imposed Accn Alt below the MAP,
I don't claim to be a procedures expert so the detail is best addressed by OzEx. However, the operator/pilot ought to be concerned that the actual obstacle profile is matched to the aircraft capability, including any profile/configuration changes during the miss.
"Is it a LEGAL requirement ?"
Unfortunately, that argument provides little comfort during the damages actions after the enquiry/BOI/etc. A more rational approach for an operator to adopt is to look at this in that same way as anything else .. and run a normal corporate risk assessment to determine how many dollars are reasonable to throw at getting a better answer .. considering the potential penalties associated with just winging it.
All will become clear when Oz_Expat emerges from his cave
I hope the raskols haven't caught up with him ...
Santa Claus that is, to whom the gentleman referred to has acquired a remarkable resemblance
I haven't seen Ian for a while but, if I read your comments correctly, we probably are acquiring a similar profile ... except I'm better looking, of course ... just my opinion, naturally .. he might opine to the contrary.
But we don't have provision For a 'landing climb' OEI
Nor will you; the airworthiness design standards (FAR 25 etc) require certification to address an OEI miss in the approach, and AEO in the landing configuration .. hence the ops engineering concern with transitioning from the landing configuration to the miss and the potential for the elapsed distance to impact on obstacle clearance in the case of critical runways. For the ops folk to mandate a landing configuration OEI capability would put them right out on the proverbial limb ...
surely your TO OEI procedures could be used provided you don't extend spoilers or use the reversers ..."OEI touch and GO?"
If you end up on the runway during the miss (ie Cat III type situation) things are a bit easier as the aircraft is physically located in space and the main problem is matching the actual liftoff point to the normal takeoff ie initial tracking fidelity is the concern. If the miss is all airborne, then initial tracking becomes a critical concern, not to mention height profiles during the reconfiguration period.
This is a lot easier with the fancy tracking gadgetry on later aircraft .. but consider the olden days case where we pitched up from a non-precision approach with not a whole lot of confidence as to just where we might have been over the ground (in terms of missing the hard bit two or three miles away ..) There was a lot to be said for being conservative in respect of what minimum level was used for the approach ... considering the extent to which the overshoot traversed tiger country.
An aicraft is CERTIFIED for airworthiness [23/25/29] and then CERTIFCATED for Comercial operations [121/125/135,
The terminology depends on one's view of life, death, and the Universe. Quite some years ago in Oz, Ian Mc was in the chair and he put together some very useful booklets on certification. His view was that, for a process resulting in a (Type) Certificate's being issued, the appropriate term was "certificated" for the airworthiness side of things ... of course, it doesn't really matter .. we all have a basic understanding of what the gameplan is.
Then again, I am reminded of my father's many career years in the mental health game wherein "certified" applied to those folk who went through the legal system, were so deemed, and ended up in various institutions of restricted independence .. hence I tend to use "certificated" across the board for aviation work.
Actual steady climb gradient tapers off as height increases.
A similar concern has existed for years in respect of takeoff segment gradient capability... and some AFMs are a bit better than others when it comes to working out what is what. On occasion the user has to be very careful and check at what level the chart data applies. Consider the case of an extended second segment when the AFM probably is based on a minimum climb profile .. one needs to do some iteration to match capability with requirement.
When I was starting out in the aviation sandpit, this was a hot topic in Australian ops engineering circles and there was much arm waving about performance at 35 ft and 400 ft etc., largely for the F27 and the general view was that one should meet the requirement throughout the second segment and not just at the commencement.
At the end of the day, what the rules might actually require/mean is determined by the Judge at the enquiry after the event ...
for those of us who have a Company imposed Accn Alt below the MAP,
I don't claim to be a procedures expert so the detail is best addressed by OzEx. However, the operator/pilot ought to be concerned that the actual obstacle profile is matched to the aircraft capability, including any profile/configuration changes during the miss.
"Is it a LEGAL requirement ?"
Unfortunately, that argument provides little comfort during the damages actions after the enquiry/BOI/etc. A more rational approach for an operator to adopt is to look at this in that same way as anything else .. and run a normal corporate risk assessment to determine how many dollars are reasonable to throw at getting a better answer .. considering the potential penalties associated with just winging it.
All will become clear when Oz_Expat emerges from his cave
I hope the raskols haven't caught up with him ...
Santa Claus that is, to whom the gentleman referred to has acquired a remarkable resemblance
I haven't seen Ian for a while but, if I read your comments correctly, we probably are acquiring a similar profile ... except I'm better looking, of course ... just my opinion, naturally .. he might opine to the contrary.
But we don't have provision For a 'landing climb' OEI
Nor will you; the airworthiness design standards (FAR 25 etc) require certification to address an OEI miss in the approach, and AEO in the landing configuration .. hence the ops engineering concern with transitioning from the landing configuration to the miss and the potential for the elapsed distance to impact on obstacle clearance in the case of critical runways. For the ops folk to mandate a landing configuration OEI capability would put them right out on the proverbial limb ...
surely your TO OEI procedures could be used provided you don't extend spoilers or use the reversers ..."OEI touch and GO?"
If you end up on the runway during the miss (ie Cat III type situation) things are a bit easier as the aircraft is physically located in space and the main problem is matching the actual liftoff point to the normal takeoff ie initial tracking fidelity is the concern. If the miss is all airborne, then initial tracking becomes a critical concern, not to mention height profiles during the reconfiguration period.
This is a lot easier with the fancy tracking gadgetry on later aircraft .. but consider the olden days case where we pitched up from a non-precision approach with not a whole lot of confidence as to just where we might have been over the ground (in terms of missing the hard bit two or three miles away ..) There was a lot to be said for being conservative in respect of what minimum level was used for the approach ... considering the extent to which the overshoot traversed tiger country.
An aicraft is CERTIFIED for airworthiness [23/25/29] and then CERTIFCATED for Comercial operations [121/125/135,
The terminology depends on one's view of life, death, and the Universe. Quite some years ago in Oz, Ian Mc was in the chair and he put together some very useful booklets on certification. His view was that, for a process resulting in a (Type) Certificate's being issued, the appropriate term was "certificated" for the airworthiness side of things ... of course, it doesn't really matter .. we all have a basic understanding of what the gameplan is.
Then again, I am reminded of my father's many career years in the mental health game wherein "certified" applied to those folk who went through the legal system, were so deemed, and ended up in various institutions of restricted independence .. hence I tend to use "certificated" across the board for aviation work.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galaxy flyer,
"no dusky or blonde bikini-clad maidens there-mostly bundled-up, blue-haired elderly."
Wow!!!! Where's that? I'm 60+ now you know, the dusky maidens only laugh at the old man! What you describe sounds more like my speed!
In brief, agree with J_T about the OEI landing climb, so long as you can re-configure to at least the Missed Approach configuration. At least you should be able to avail yourself of the Takeoff splays, even with less than "state of the art" navigation systems. Landing Climb is based upon ALL engines operating in the Landing configuration. NONE of this in the regulations, but a good start for research would be your "Performance" people who have crunched the numbers for runways suitable for Touch and Go training, and applied the appropriate safety factors.
Regards,
Old Smokey
"no dusky or blonde bikini-clad maidens there-mostly bundled-up, blue-haired elderly."
Wow!!!! Where's that? I'm 60+ now you know, the dusky maidens only laugh at the old man! What you describe sounds more like my speed!
In brief, agree with J_T about the OEI landing climb, so long as you can re-configure to at least the Missed Approach configuration. At least you should be able to avail yourself of the Takeoff splays, even with less than "state of the art" navigation systems. Landing Climb is based upon ALL engines operating in the Landing configuration. NONE of this in the regulations, but a good start for research would be your "Performance" people who have crunched the numbers for runways suitable for Touch and Go training, and applied the appropriate safety factors.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
What you describe sounds more like my speed!
If I may be permitted a little licence (even to the point of approaching a lack of PC) .. and to support my colleague's opinions ... it's a little like the proposition put to me by the wise old chap (I was still reasonably young then and all the old folk on the aircraft were, indeed, and by comparison, wise old chaps) who trained me on the 727 ... when he was a young chap, he would get all agitated, hot and bothered whenever a sweet young lass might pass by ... then, in his 40s he might glance over his lookovers at the said sweet young lass .. but contemplate the probability of her mother's being very attractive .... while, as he approached retirement ... it was a case of, through the pentafocals - looking over the lookovers, as a capability, having long been consigned to the woodheap of life .. revelling in the thought that "she must have an absolutely gorgeous grandmother" .. proving, of course, that all things are relative to the frame of reference from which one constructs one's universe and the mathematics relating thereto ....
He had some other delightful tales but I shall refrain ....
If I may be permitted a little licence (even to the point of approaching a lack of PC) .. and to support my colleague's opinions ... it's a little like the proposition put to me by the wise old chap (I was still reasonably young then and all the old folk on the aircraft were, indeed, and by comparison, wise old chaps) who trained me on the 727 ... when he was a young chap, he would get all agitated, hot and bothered whenever a sweet young lass might pass by ... then, in his 40s he might glance over his lookovers at the said sweet young lass .. but contemplate the probability of her mother's being very attractive .... while, as he approached retirement ... it was a case of, through the pentafocals - looking over the lookovers, as a capability, having long been consigned to the woodheap of life .. revelling in the thought that "she must have an absolutely gorgeous grandmother" .. proving, of course, that all things are relative to the frame of reference from which one constructs one's universe and the mathematics relating thereto ....
He had some other delightful tales but I shall refrain ....
J_T
An worthy example of Einstein's General Theory as applied to the aviation.
Back to the thread, it was my understanding, based on old airline training, that Landing Climb was based on AEO due to the assumption that once fully configured, the aircraft was AEO and a miss would be with AEO, if it wasn't AEO, it would committed to land, hence no need for a OEI Landing Climb. That might be B727-specific.
GF
An worthy example of Einstein's General Theory as applied to the aviation.
Back to the thread, it was my understanding, based on old airline training, that Landing Climb was based on AEO due to the assumption that once fully configured, the aircraft was AEO and a miss would be with AEO, if it wasn't AEO, it would committed to land, hence no need for a OEI Landing Climb. That might be B727-specific.
GF
Moderator
Certainly not tied to any one Type. The AEO/OEI climb requirements are tied up with the certification philosophy and history .. the original explanatory words would be lost deep in the bowels of CAR 4b, I guess. Certainly, the basics haven't changed all that much in a long time. I probably have some earlier versions gathering dust in a filing cabinet somewhere but CAR 4b.119(b) and 120(d) is the earliest electronic version I can find - at 1953.
More practically, a requirement which might impose OEI capability in the landing configuration would mean we could all retire and go fishing as the payloads wouldn't impress the beancounters ...
At the end of the day, the various Design Standard climb requirements provide lines in the sand so that the aircraft on the line is reasonably likely to have a chance of getting away from the ground at whichever maximum weight is relevant to the circumstances.
(I shall consider myself ticked off for indulging in wilful and gratuitous thread creep ....)
More practically, a requirement which might impose OEI capability in the landing configuration would mean we could all retire and go fishing as the payloads wouldn't impress the beancounters ...
At the end of the day, the various Design Standard climb requirements provide lines in the sand so that the aircraft on the line is reasonably likely to have a chance of getting away from the ground at whichever maximum weight is relevant to the circumstances.
(I shall consider myself ticked off for indulging in wilful and gratuitous thread creep ....)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A simplified way of considering Landing Climb (AEO in the Landing Config) and the Approach Climb (OEI in the Missed Approach config) is to compare them to the WAT limits. Both provide a certain guarantee of aircraft performance, with no considerations whatsoever for Obstacle Clearance.
It is up to the wise operator to "marry" the two into a hopefully, harmonious relationship.
Feel free to "thread creep" all you like J_T, keep the thread alive and all that you know. Might give some time to hear Mutt's opinion of handling obstacle clearance during the missed approach, his silence is noticeable, and his opinion is, as always, worth it's weight in gold!
Regards,
Old Smokey
It is up to the wise operator to "marry" the two into a hopefully, harmonious relationship.
Feel free to "thread creep" all you like J_T, keep the thread alive and all that you know. Might give some time to hear Mutt's opinion of handling obstacle clearance during the missed approach, his silence is noticeable, and his opinion is, as always, worth it's weight in gold!
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off to the sim for a 4 day stint tomorrow, but it will give me unfettered access to the Airbus performance laptop (every cloud has a silver lining!).
So if I run a landing 'inflight' perf calculation at a high GW and temp for a SL airport and run it again with the same parameters for say, MAD (elev 2000') and compare the app/clb gradient, that should give some indication of the degradation of the gradient as we climb away OEI. Presumably, though, if the OAT is below the flat rated temp for the engine (ISA+30 in my case), since the thrust will stay the same, only the small increase in TAS as we climb will account for any fall off in gradient.........
............unless you know different!!
Enjoy the weekend - if you're off!
Cheers
mcdhu
So if I run a landing 'inflight' perf calculation at a high GW and temp for a SL airport and run it again with the same parameters for say, MAD (elev 2000') and compare the app/clb gradient, that should give some indication of the degradation of the gradient as we climb away OEI. Presumably, though, if the OAT is below the flat rated temp for the engine (ISA+30 in my case), since the thrust will stay the same, only the small increase in TAS as we climb will account for any fall off in gradient.........
............unless you know different!!
Enjoy the weekend - if you're off!
Cheers
mcdhu
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wichita Kansas USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent Post!
OS & J_T, et, al.
I enjoyed this post immensely! I thought it was very informative and an excellent overview of OEI obstacle performance engineering.
If anyone is interested in a PDF copy of a certain cited performance engineering manual, please contact me off line. I also have a PDF copy of CAO AirOps Doc 7401 - Final Report on the Standing Committee on Performance, dated 1954 which is the origin of most the transport airplane performance rules.
Once again, great job!
Rich Boll
Wichita, KS
I enjoyed this post immensely! I thought it was very informative and an excellent overview of OEI obstacle performance engineering.
If anyone is interested in a PDF copy of a certain cited performance engineering manual, please contact me off line. I also have a PDF copy of CAO AirOps Doc 7401 - Final Report on the Standing Committee on Performance, dated 1954 which is the origin of most the transport airplane performance rules.
Once again, great job!
Rich Boll
Wichita, KS
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich!,
Welcome back, it's been a long while since we last communicated, the Aspen Co exercise comes to mind. What is that damned 50 foot obstacle at the runway end by the way ?, always wondered..... (I have visions of J_T with hunting rifle and theodolite over his shoulder, suitably equipped with snow shoes and skis, wending his way along the OEISID, making due obstacle allowance for snow depth of course). (Sorry John, I couldn't resist).
Do expect a PM soon WRT the documents offered, I've already reserved some space on my new hard drive for your offering...........
mcdhu,
It will be interesting what you observe. Damned Flat ratings, they do make a mess of conventional wisdom sometimes. One factor to consider is that, if within the Flat Rating limits, but below the maximum Pressure Height for the Flat rating, thrust can slightly increase with increasing altitude. Being a simulator, there are instances where data has been "cut to fit", and a realistic but not quite so precise results may occur.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Welcome back, it's been a long while since we last communicated, the Aspen Co exercise comes to mind. What is that damned 50 foot obstacle at the runway end by the way ?, always wondered..... (I have visions of J_T with hunting rifle and theodolite over his shoulder, suitably equipped with snow shoes and skis, wending his way along the OEISID, making due obstacle allowance for snow depth of course). (Sorry John, I couldn't resist).
Do expect a PM soon WRT the documents offered, I've already reserved some space on my new hard drive for your offering...........
mcdhu,
It will be interesting what you observe. Damned Flat ratings, they do make a mess of conventional wisdom sometimes. One factor to consider is that, if within the Flat Rating limits, but below the maximum Pressure Height for the Flat rating, thrust can slightly increase with increasing altitude. Being a simulator, there are instances where data has been "cut to fit", and a realistic but not quite so precise results may occur.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tween Hurn&Filton
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too, enjoyed it I mean, though I only understood a quarter of it!
Fundamentally it would be nice to know that in the event of one motor failing at V1 (worst case), that you would not become an unfortunate statistic, due to performance that failed to ensure clearance of the hard bits ahead.
As several non-airline bods have observed, it is often extremely difficult to obtain ANY obstacle data, thus making the calculation of required climb gradient impossible. However same authorities/aeronautical information providers were capable of surveying their airports in order to establish separation fom the hard bits on the way down, so even though they publish a required climb gradient on the way up, why could they not publish OEISIDS for different performing a/c?
Rather as there are different DAs/circling minima for different approach speeds, OEISIDs could be published for Cat A,B,C,or D V2 speeds, each giving a minimum required SE climb gradient.
I reserve the right to feel stupid depending on the ferocity of the replies. PL
Fundamentally it would be nice to know that in the event of one motor failing at V1 (worst case), that you would not become an unfortunate statistic, due to performance that failed to ensure clearance of the hard bits ahead.
As several non-airline bods have observed, it is often extremely difficult to obtain ANY obstacle data, thus making the calculation of required climb gradient impossible. However same authorities/aeronautical information providers were capable of surveying their airports in order to establish separation fom the hard bits on the way down, so even though they publish a required climb gradient on the way up, why could they not publish OEISIDS for different performing a/c?
Rather as there are different DAs/circling minima for different approach speeds, OEISIDs could be published for Cat A,B,C,or D V2 speeds, each giving a minimum required SE climb gradient.
I reserve the right to feel stupid depending on the ferocity of the replies. PL
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferocity of the replies Paradise Lost? I think not.
I believe that the general consensus expressed in this thread is that "Categorised" OEISIDs would be a good thing, a very good thing indeed!
An operation penalised by having to consider the "worst case" aircraft that may be using it, is infinitely better than no procedure at all.
I do agree with Oz_Expat's words many threads ago that it would be a huge task, but, as people like Mutt have indicated, the operator may reserve the right to independantly develop a procedure for a particular type if adversely affected.
There genuinely are numerous considerations to make, and I do not envy the people developing the various categories if this could be implemented. Many differences, even for the same performance category aircraft have been mentioned, having named a few myself, in hind-sight differences in 1st Segment Gradient and Distance would probably be the worst difference of all.
Regards,
Old Smokey
I believe that the general consensus expressed in this thread is that "Categorised" OEISIDs would be a good thing, a very good thing indeed!
An operation penalised by having to consider the "worst case" aircraft that may be using it, is infinitely better than no procedure at all.
I do agree with Oz_Expat's words many threads ago that it would be a huge task, but, as people like Mutt have indicated, the operator may reserve the right to independantly develop a procedure for a particular type if adversely affected.
There genuinely are numerous considerations to make, and I do not envy the people developing the various categories if this could be implemented. Many differences, even for the same performance category aircraft have been mentioned, having named a few myself, in hind-sight differences in 1st Segment Gradient and Distance would probably be the worst difference of all.
Regards,
Old Smokey
OS
KMIA, Miami. It was no warmer than 16C both times I was there this winter on trips, and nary a Southern Hemisphere trip except a hard working trip to SYD, where I went to work at 3 am.
GF
Wow!!!! Where's that?
GF
Moderator
that should give some indication of the degradation of the gradient as we climb away OEI.
Depends on how the software presents the data (and I have negligible background on Airbus). Unless the individual limits are specified, you may get caught with behind the scenes change in limits .. similar to obstacle limited takeoff where obstacle #1 is replaced by #2 as the critical case etc. ..
OEISIDs could be published for Cat A,B,C,or D V2 speeds
problem is cost unless the process is mandated .. and then the Fiscal Fiends will want their pound of flesh from the punters
I reserve the right to feel stupid depending on the ferocity of the replies
No-one is permitted to feel studid on Tech Log .. and ferocity is metered ... having said that .. I regularly am confronted by the limitations of my own knowledge base with many of the threads which come up on the Forum.
Depends on how the software presents the data (and I have negligible background on Airbus). Unless the individual limits are specified, you may get caught with behind the scenes change in limits .. similar to obstacle limited takeoff where obstacle #1 is replaced by #2 as the critical case etc. ..
OEISIDs could be published for Cat A,B,C,or D V2 speeds
problem is cost unless the process is mandated .. and then the Fiscal Fiends will want their pound of flesh from the punters
I reserve the right to feel stupid depending on the ferocity of the replies
No-one is permitted to feel studid on Tech Log .. and ferocity is metered ... having said that .. I regularly am confronted by the limitations of my own knowledge base with many of the threads which come up on the Forum.
J_T
Quite agree, everyone's limits of knowledge is explored on Tech Log, that's the beauty of it. Best, is that everyone (mostly, anyway) is respected and get a chance to learn from our betters. It is great that fellows like you can share the accumulated knowledge.
GF
Quite agree, everyone's limits of knowledge is explored on Tech Log, that's the beauty of it. Best, is that everyone (mostly, anyway) is respected and get a chance to learn from our betters. It is great that fellows like you can share the accumulated knowledge.
GF
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: when I find out I'll tell you
Age: 58
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with g_f.
Awesome thread.The muddy waters are becoming a bit clearer, again, thanks to this forum love it
Thanks all
SRU
Awesome thread.
The muddy waters are becoming a bit clearer, again, thanks to this forum love it Thanks all
SRU
Last edited by sru; 23rd Mar 2009 at 05:16.