G/A below minima
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FE Hoppy, we're getting there slowly. They key point to the big picture of this admittedly confusing matter is fact that there's two sets of rules:
One is aircraft certification and another one operational is EU OPS or FAR. They're unfortunately not harmonized as you seem to assume
and the rule doesn't say anywhere you're safe no matter what the MACG might be, on contrary it says;
Thus in our case for the approach to ILS 16 CAT I in LSZH you have 3 options:
1. Fly higher minimum published for MACG of 2,5%
2. Fly CAT I minima and reduce LW to meet 5% MACG SE
3. Fly CAT I minima and retain MLW but follow EOSID in case of SEGA.
As we saw earlier the operator may do generic calculations so as far as I see my performance layout for RWY 16 says A 320 can follow published MA with MLW CONFIG FULL only when OAT is below 0 C otherwise EOSID.
It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO.
as it's self-explanatory Cheers
One is aircraft certification and another one operational is EU OPS or FAR. They're unfortunately not harmonized as you seem to assume
OPS 1.510 covers the missed approach requirements including the need to satisfy the published climb gradient when above 2.5% or a minimum of 2.5% when the DH is below 200'. But, in both cases the procedures assume the GA begins at or above the published minima.
For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2.5%, the expected landing mass of the aeroplane shall allow a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one- engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed.
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*)
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority (*)
1. Fly higher minimum published for MACG of 2,5%
2. Fly CAT I minima and reduce LW to meet 5% MACG SE
3. Fly CAT I minima and retain MLW but follow EOSID in case of SEGA.
As we saw earlier the operator may do generic calculations so as far as I see my performance layout for RWY 16 says A 320 can follow published MA with MLW CONFIG FULL only when OAT is below 0 C otherwise EOSID.
It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO.
as it's self-explanatory Cheers
Last edited by 9.G; 19th Feb 2010 at 08:06.
It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO. as it's self-explanatory Cheers
Unfortunately the fact that this thread has made it to page 4 suggests that what is self-explanatory to some, is not to many others.
Personally I think ICAO has a lot to answer for in this and many other areas of aviation safety. This area of performance should be accounted for just as thoroughly as take-off performance, but it clearly isn't.
Whether the aircraft is approaching an airport in the USA, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia, or Australia-Pacific, the same laws of physics and gravity apply yet the regulations covering this aspect of aircraft performance apparently does not.
ICAO should have this covered so that it does not come down to individual national/regional authorities such as FAA, JAA, UK CAA, AUS CASA etc.
Thank you fdr for your FAA references. I would never have known otherwise. I have now downloaded the said document from the original source.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
couldn't agree more Blip. No matter how we twist the words the essence doesn't change. Let's write it off as a pun, shall we? FAA is ages ahead of EU in some respect and deserve the credit for it. In the end there'll always be white spots on the chart of knowledge no matter how advanced technology might be. It's always the curios individual mind that drives it forward, doesn't it? Isn't it why we surf those sites? Cheers.
In the end there'll always be white spots on the chart of knowledge no matter how advanced technology might be. It's always the curios individual mind that drives it forward, doesn't it? Isn't it why we surf those sites? Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter how we twist the words the essence doesn't change. Let's write it off as a pun, shall we? FAA is ages ahead of EU in some respect and deserve the credit for it.
Nevertheless...fact.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pointless to discuss the case of a GA below DA IMHO. as it's self-explanatory Cheers
That's why the FAA have described the position, configuration and speed to be used in this case.
There is no certified performance data for a missed approach from a low energy state below minimums.
You would need to consider the worst case which could be below Vref, wheels on or close to the ground. The effect of ground contact on the ability to reconfigure. The time needed to spool up and accelerate back up to Vref.
All these considerations mean that without pre-prescribed criteria it is not possible to produce a standard operating procedure for single engined baulked landing(missed approach below DH) which regardless of FDRs post is why many EU operators do not cover this scenario in their SOP and yet operate quite legally. I checked 3 EU national flag carrier airlines OMs to confirm I wasn't going mad before making this reply.
It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.
"sky of blue and sea of green, in our yelow submarine"
Richard Starkey Jr (1940 - present)
"yelow"
There is no certified performance data for a missed approach from a low energy state below minimums.
(If your "low energy" point is that the aircraft needs to be operated within it's usual approach envelope in order to affect a G/A on one engine, that is the norm. The aircraft cannot complete a G/A successfully at 10kts on the taxiway either, or at the terminal gate with the engines shut down and the APU running, (or on external power), all low [kinetic] energy states, nor is it expected to be able to do so. It is however able to (except in a few instances) achieve a missed approach from a OEI approach, including the big twins, up to late in the approach/landing. Once your speed is below Vref, your margin above VMCa with limited bank angle may be as limiting as your excess thrust available). Selecting gear up on most large aircraft will result in a short term increase in total drag, where gear doors are sequenced open from a closed position. And yes, adding thrust may take some time to reach rated G/A thrust, however the time you have noted is not from an approach idle setting and is also the maximum allowable not the usual time.
You would need to consider the worst case which could be below Vref, wheels on or close to the ground. The effect of ground contact on the ability to reconfigure. The time needed to spool up and accelerate back up to Vref.
Why? On a B744 OEI, you can go around from touchdown, but you probably would have a hard time doing that in a B737. What is required is.... Your organisation needs to evaluate it's operation of aircraft and routes to assess the applicability of restrictions, or procedural guidance to satisfy 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). that can include a commitment point as it does for a 2 eng approach on a B747/744. If you want to start a thread on another topic apart from the one posed here, then please do so. perhaps quirky limitations of certification is one... this topic is about what procedure to follow on an OEI G/A below minima.
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
See JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be approved] [ ].
Dear FE... What you and your airline do in order to comply with the requirement is entirely up to you and your airline. That there is a requirement to consider factors in relation to a OEI G/A to protect the operation is stated, in your EUR case in 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). How you do so, and whether you do is entirely up to you.
If you want to split hairs, then you may contemplate the use of "should" from a compliance point, however, after the fact you need a pretty darn cogent reason in court if it goes pear shape and you consider you didn't need to comply with "should". The French Judiciary would be an interesting one to run that by.
All these considerations mean that without pre-prescribed criteria it is not possible to produce a standard operating procedure for single engined baulked landing(missed approach below DH) which regardless of FDRs post is why many EU operators do not cover this scenario in their SOP and yet operate quite legally. I checked 3 EU national flag carrier airlines OMs to confirm I wasn't going mad before making this reply.
It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.
It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.
What you & your "3 x EU" carriers do to comply with 1.510 is dependent on their operation and route, and their understanding of their compliance obligations. You do at least appear now to understand some of the aspects to the OEI approach considerations.
Assuming that you are not just being contrarian, merely obtuse, and are having some difficulty understanding this fairly simple concept, I have written this post very slowly, in order that you can read it consequently. I do hope that helps.
"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge". Elbert Hubbard, (1856-1915)
Cheers,
FDR,
Last edited by fdr; 21st Feb 2010 at 19:59.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEH, well I'll spare you all the legitimacy traps one finds himself inevitably by signing the dispatch release, flight plan etc. Bottom line is PIC is responsible for a safe conduct of the flight beyond any doubts as well as lack of knowledge doesn't liberate one of accountability. I know of one particular compliant EU OPS operator which apart from detailed performance charts 10-7 Jepp EOSID for DEP adn GA with associated generic data for each RWY and A/C type provides in OM A guidelines when the EOSID to be followed. The final sentence is whenever PIC is in doubts follow EOSID instead of MA procedure. I frankly couldn't care less if EU OPS provides the same detailed info as FAA, common sense is my ally.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but relevant - Salzburg has two g/a procedures on the southerly depending on chosen DA. My last company only used the higher DA but I always briefed the second g/a in case of a g/a below DA.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 77
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. - 20,000 hrs on B737 - TRI/TRE
Fly the engine out missed approach procedure. It's the only way you are obstactle protected. They were built for that. And good luck.
Good flights
Good flights
