EGLL/LHR Departure Procedures

[B-HKD]

One thing i don't yet fully understand with MNM alt. requirements on SID charts is:

If for example at EGLL on the BPK6 SID where crossing the LON/300 radial at MNM 3500' is a requirement what happens if this cannot be achieved by a heavy 744?

Can the procedure vary on the same SID between different Airlines/SOPs?

I know BA on the 744 do T/O on flaps 20, climb flaps 10 to 4000' to meet the MNM alt. requiements and then continue acceleration and cleanup.

On the other hand I've been told CX does T/O on flaps 10, Climb on flaps 5. And at 4000' accel and cleanup.

Now is only the MNM 4000' a requirement or also the MNM 3500' (3000' on most other SID's)

Are these alts. always achieved? do they have to be achieved?

I am only 16 so some insight on this would be great!

Leo

[TopBunk]

I know BA on the 744 do T/O on flaps 20, climb flaps 10 to 4000' to meet the MNM alt. requiements and then continue acceleration and cleanup.

We do the above procedure for noise and environmental reasons, not SID gradient performance reasons (we climb at full CLB thrust until clean). In years gone by we used to use F20 to 1000'agl then clean up whilst accelerating, taking reduced CLB thrust with F5, and we still made the SID constraints.

The above applies to all weights and temps usually encountered at LHR in my experience.

I would anticipate the only problems likely would be following an engine failure, and then we would tell ATC if uable an altitude.

[B-HKD]

Thanks! That is what i was looking for

Since you fly this for noise abatement an not for the altitude requirements does it matter if you dont achieve them in certain conditions? Or is this a non issue since you always manage the MNM alt. Requirements?

safe landings,

Leo

[Rainboe]

Even a max weight take-off on a 747-400 had no problem with any minimum altitude restrictions at LHR. The old 747-100/200s on a Burnham departure for Anchorage could not make 3000' at Burnham (10 miles away). It was always about 2800', but the 747-400, even going long range to HKG or SIN has no problem.

[TopBunk]

BKHD

If you re-read my post, I said that the heights will be met in all conditions ex-LHR bar engine failure. Pls read the posts

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Originally Posted by Rainboe

Even a max weight take-off on a 747-400 had no problem with any minimum altitude restrictions at LHR. The old 747-100/200s on a Burnham departure for Anchorage could not make 3000' at Burnham (10 miles away). It was always about 2800', but the 747-400, even going long range to HKG or SIN has no problem.

Hence Timothy's classsic (on routing in his Aztec BURHAM-ASCOT):-

Originally Posted by Thames Radar

(they should inform us before they depart if they cannot make 243ft/nm!)

I was once on this route when a 747 lost a donk on takeoff. You guys were on to me like a ton of bricks - "IMMEDIATErightturnonto270toleavecontrolledairspacecautionWh iteWalthamzonedescendNOWtominimumsafealtitudetrafficisa747in your80clockdoyouhaveitvisual " or something very much like that!

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...tml#post916022

[B-HKD]

Thanks TopBunk and Rainboe.

Leo

[SMOC]

does it matter if you dont achieve them in certain conditions?

B-HKD, at airports where you know a min height cannot be achieved you would notify ATC prior to departure and then you will probably be given a different SID that you can comply with.

If for whatever reason you were unable to meet the restriction airborne, again notify ATC and you could probably expect a letter from the relevant ATC department to the company asking why it was not met, which would then result in the company asking the Captain of that flight why. This may result in a change to SOPs for operating from that particular airfield or that particular SID. CX has some airfield port page notes that restrict certain SIDs to certain weights. LHR has a weight - T/O thrust chart which allows for TO / TO1 / TO2 depending on weight.