G/A below minima
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G/A below minima
I have searched the forum, but could not find a thread on this topic- I am sure it must have been discussed before so please forgive me for posting a new thread. 
If you are unlucky enough to find yourself below minima on a single engine approach when you find the runway to be blocked and forced to go around, would you:
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)
For the sake of argument let's assume we have a tall mountain ahead and you are performance "challenged"
. I have had this discussion with colleagues in the bar a few times earlier, but we were all trained on the same SOPs. I would love to hear some opinions.
Thanks!
If you are unlucky enough to find yourself below minima on a single engine approach when you find the runway to be blocked and forced to go around, would you:
A: Fly the published missed approach?(although it is designed to be flown from minima)
B: Fly a SID? Or
C: Fly the engine out procedure? (Assuming there is one)
For the sake of argument let's assume we have a tall mountain ahead and you are performance "challenged"
. I have had this discussion with colleagues in the bar a few times earlier, but we were all trained on the same SOPs. I would love to hear some opinions.Thanks!
While OEI go arounds are practiced, I'd damn sure let the tower know our situation, probably by "confirm the runway is clear as we have an emergency'" radio call. If perf were really critical, there could be an argument for landing and take the consequences. Crashing into a car might be better than slamming into a mountain.
Yes, accountancy might be a better pastime
GF
Yes, accountancy might be a better pastime
GF
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South of N90º00'.0
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you were all trained on the same SOP, let us know which aircraft we're discussing and you may get some more accurate opinions.
If we are talking about typical GA aircraft type - with the scenario you presented - I'm gonna have to agree with Galaxy on this; run into the car in a somewhat controlled condition.
If we are discussing an aircraft which is capable of reasonable Single Engine performance, then the solutions would be:
All those which you suggested, and the one that EVERYONE seems to forget....
Look out the window, and fly visually around the obstacles!
That said, you may want to check out Top Accounting Schools & Top Accounting Programs | Top Accounting Colleges & Accounting Classes - AccountingProgramsU.com
If we are talking about typical GA aircraft type - with the scenario you presented - I'm gonna have to agree with Galaxy on this; run into the car in a somewhat controlled condition.
If we are discussing an aircraft which is capable of reasonable Single Engine performance, then the solutions would be:
All those which you suggested, and the one that EVERYONE seems to forget....
Look out the window, and fly visually around the obstacles!
That said, you may want to check out Top Accounting Schools & Top Accounting Programs | Top Accounting Colleges & Accounting Classes - AccountingProgramsU.com
All things being equal/standard....there is a different climb gradient required for the SID and for the MAP which makes one of them more attractive to you.
The single engine emergency tracking will obviously follow a low terrain path as well.
If you know what these are and are still argueing in the bar about it then I'm puzzled.....if you don't then looking them up will help you remember them better than me just telling you what they are.
You would have done well to brief the go-round tracking in the hold before commencing the approach as well considering how critical this field is with the mountain and all.
The single engine emergency tracking will obviously follow a low terrain path as well.
If you know what these are and are still argueing in the bar about it then I'm puzzled.....if you don't then looking them up will help you remember them better than me just telling you what they are.
You would have done well to brief the go-round tracking in the hold before commencing the approach as well considering how critical this field is with the mountain and all.
Perfectley reasnoble and often asked question.
The answer is:- If your aircraft cannot meet the required climb gradient of the missed approach, fly the engine out procedure.
The answer is:- If your aircraft cannot meet the required climb gradient of the missed approach, fly the engine out procedure.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: India
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz......absolutely correct unless you are visual and meet obstacle clearance visually.
Wiz is absolutely right that it is a perfectly reasonable questions. I wonder what make barbie's paramour and gf to be so haughty and intolerant.
I have self professed skygods begging for jobs in incredible India ASKING ME THIS when I pointed out to them during line training
Wiz is absolutely right that it is a perfectly reasonable questions. I wonder what make barbie's paramour and gf to be so haughty and intolerant.
I have self professed skygods begging for jobs in incredible India ASKING ME THIS when I pointed out to them during line training
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz,
I agree it is a reasonable question.
I think I would consider that I would probably be nearly DH/MDH * 2 below the missed app profile with a balked landing just prior to touchdown, and that height loss cannot be assumed to be regained if on one engine. If there is no one engine SID then perhaps a normal SID maybe a better choice given that you will be a few hundred feet above that profile, and unless there are promulgated specific climb gradient requirements I think it maybe safer to assume that you will remain clear throughout the manoeuvre despite the initial standard SID climb gradient being higher.
In short, I'm thinking that flying a normal SID is a valid consideration.
I agree it is a reasonable question.
I think I would consider that I would probably be nearly DH/MDH * 2 below the missed app profile with a balked landing just prior to touchdown, and that height loss cannot be assumed to be regained if on one engine. If there is no one engine SID then perhaps a normal SID maybe a better choice given that you will be a few hundred feet above that profile, and unless there are promulgated specific climb gradient requirements I think it maybe safer to assume that you will remain clear throughout the manoeuvre despite the initial standard SID climb gradient being higher.
In short, I'm thinking that flying a normal SID is a valid consideration.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fly the Engine out procedure"... All very well, but that must imply that you either know this procedure completely by heart or you have the procedure written/depicted in front of you when landing. Now as this is a procedure used for T/O, I doubt that many have... :rolleyes
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SE Go around you should fly the standard missed approach as published, the EO procedure is only applicable to runway departures.
Fly a SID? Nonsense
Below Minima? You would have to be a long way below minima not to be able to comply with the GA proceedure in terms of climb gradients and your speed would have to have decayed below VREF as VREF for you landing flap is V2 for the next stage GA Flap.
In circumstances where a high missed approach gradient is required your landing weights will be restricted as per your performance manual, in other words, you would also have to be over performance limited landing weight as well.
Quick look at Pan Ops 8168 might clear this up for you.
All in all, it would have had to be a complete mess up.
If you were trained to the same SOPs, what do they state..
Fly a SID? Nonsense
Below Minima? You would have to be a long way below minima not to be able to comply with the GA proceedure in terms of climb gradients and your speed would have to have decayed below VREF as VREF for you landing flap is V2 for the next stage GA Flap.
In circumstances where a high missed approach gradient is required your landing weights will be restricted as per your performance manual, in other words, you would also have to be over performance limited landing weight as well.
Quick look at Pan Ops 8168 might clear this up for you.
All in all, it would have had to be a complete mess up.
If you were trained to the same SOPs, what do they state..
This issue has been raised a number of times in the past here in pprune if you look back far enough and each time I have been amazed by those people that dismiss this issue.
In my opinion, your ONLY option is to fly the Take-Off One-Engine-Inoperative procedure for that runway. Let me explain why.
Some days you might get away with following the published missed approach when the terrain is flat in the surrounding area and the tracking is straight ahead, or if there is a turn away from high terrain but this happens some distance past the upwind end of the runway. You would without a doubt be below the designed climb gradient, but this is of no consequence.
Some days you might get away with following a SID for that runway. This time at least you begin at an altitude above the minimum climb gradient required, but there is no guarantee that you will remain above this before reaching the MSA.
Remaining clear of terrain visually is fraught with danger too. I can think of at least one one-engine-inoperative procedure that requires tracking in one direction, then after some distance, a turn back to fly overhead the aerodrome. Interestingly, the procedure turns to the right whereas the SID turns to the left! Also to continue straight ahead visually and simply looking for the lowest saddle between two peaks on the horizon would almost certainly result in contact with terrain. Just because you can see it doesn't mean your not still destined to hit it.
And what are these people going to do at night eh??
No. The only way you are going to ensure terrain separation in every case is to study the engine-inoperative procedure for that runway during the approach briefing.
I would like to add too that not only is the tracking important, the acceleration altitude is also very important. Quite often it is the standard height of 800 ft above the runway (for my company at least), but there are also exceptions. The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft! The take-off performance charts for that runway are climb limited and require an acceleration not below 2000 ft!
Also the take-off limits for that runway are much lower than the structural landing weight limits. If you are departing AKL for the east coast of Australia in conditions below the landing minima, and therefore require a Return Airport other than AKL, you'd better have done your homework if you are going to divert to WLG after losing an engine above V1 in AKL. Rejecting a landing at a weight well above the MTOW for RWY 34, then accelerating 1200 ft below the minimum acceleration altitude is surely going to end in tears!
Do people still think it's not worthy of serious consideration?
And don't come back with a counter argument starting with the words "Yeah but what are the chances bla bla bla..."
Answer: 10^-6? 10^-8?? I don't know. But I would say it's just as likely as an engine failure at V1 and we all know how much effort goes in to having that scenario taken in to account.
In my opinion, your ONLY option is to fly the Take-Off One-Engine-Inoperative procedure for that runway. Let me explain why.
Some days you might get away with following the published missed approach when the terrain is flat in the surrounding area and the tracking is straight ahead, or if there is a turn away from high terrain but this happens some distance past the upwind end of the runway. You would without a doubt be below the designed climb gradient, but this is of no consequence.
Some days you might get away with following a SID for that runway. This time at least you begin at an altitude above the minimum climb gradient required, but there is no guarantee that you will remain above this before reaching the MSA.
Remaining clear of terrain visually is fraught with danger too. I can think of at least one one-engine-inoperative procedure that requires tracking in one direction, then after some distance, a turn back to fly overhead the aerodrome. Interestingly, the procedure turns to the right whereas the SID turns to the left! Also to continue straight ahead visually and simply looking for the lowest saddle between two peaks on the horizon would almost certainly result in contact with terrain. Just because you can see it doesn't mean your not still destined to hit it.
And what are these people going to do at night eh??
No. The only way you are going to ensure terrain separation in every case is to study the engine-inoperative procedure for that runway during the approach briefing.
I would like to add too that not only is the tracking important, the acceleration altitude is also very important. Quite often it is the standard height of 800 ft above the runway (for my company at least), but there are also exceptions. The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft! The take-off performance charts for that runway are climb limited and require an acceleration not below 2000 ft!
Also the take-off limits for that runway are much lower than the structural landing weight limits. If you are departing AKL for the east coast of Australia in conditions below the landing minima, and therefore require a Return Airport other than AKL, you'd better have done your homework if you are going to divert to WLG after losing an engine above V1 in AKL. Rejecting a landing at a weight well above the MTOW for RWY 34, then accelerating 1200 ft below the minimum acceleration altitude is surely going to end in tears!
Do people still think it's not worthy of serious consideration?
And don't come back with a counter argument starting with the words "Yeah but what are the chances bla bla bla..."
Answer: 10^-6? 10^-8?? I don't know. But I would say it's just as likely as an engine failure at V1 and we all know how much effort goes in to having that scenario taken in to account.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually there's always some truck on the rwy when i come in single engine the first time and i have to make a G/A from 50ft. and on the 2nd app we land. also on the 2nd app the wx is suddenly better but the ils is down...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft!
mm43
Oh dear indeed mm43! Are proposing we just make it up as we go along??
Last time I checked the WLG 34 ILS chart it indicated that CIRCLE-TO-LAND was "NA". What does that say to a B737 or B767 crew considering your proposed visual circuit during the day, never mind at night or in IMC?
What altitude would you consider safe? There's no published Circling Minima. How far in track miles will it take you to climb to the MSA? Did you brief the other pilot that that was your intention BEFORE commencing the approach or did you just bank the aircraft into the downwind turn without warning? Great CRM that.
Like I said, you need a procedure that will consistently ensure terrain clearance in all situations. You need to be clear about your intentions before you commence the approach.
Last time I checked the WLG 34 ILS chart it indicated that CIRCLE-TO-LAND was "NA". What does that say to a B737 or B767 crew considering your proposed visual circuit during the day, never mind at night or in IMC?
What altitude would you consider safe? There's no published Circling Minima. How far in track miles will it take you to climb to the MSA? Did you brief the other pilot that that was your intention BEFORE commencing the approach or did you just bank the aircraft into the downwind turn without warning? Great CRM that.
Like I said, you need a procedure that will consistently ensure terrain clearance in all situations. You need to be clear about your intentions before you commence the approach.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TurnandBurn: Yes you are right about the A330 part. But the overweight landing procedure (A332) says that during a G/A you should retract flaps/slats to 1 instead of one dent less. This obviously leads to a better climb performance. But will it make up for the excess weight?
Regards,
Capriati
Regards,
Capriati
