EO SID Acceleration
Moderator
how you would plan to cover all the sporty EOSIDs from all the runways at my airlines 500+ routes
all your departures are innovative and complex ? Without knowing the structure I can only speculate. However, I suspect that you will have a small set of "difficult" departures and, from these, one should be able to extract a cyclic recurrent training program to maintain a reasonable level of competence. It is a lemma that one only wants to review the more complicated and difficult EOI departures.
your lofty point two is somewhat unrealistic or possibly idealistic
At the enquiry you (PIC and operator) WILL be quizzed on competence, training, checking etc. I don't think I was being lofty .. only pragmatic .. but, then again, I've been on the receiving end of a barrister's venom in court on more than one occasion so perhaps my view is a little jaundiced ? My conservative approach to life lets me sleep quite well and I certainly don't wish to expose myself to the sort of harassment in court to which some of my colleagues have been subject ...
point blank refused to sign off several EOSID that were 'legal' but totally un-flyable in real life
then full marks to you, good sir. The inference is that the ops engineers had little operational experience ?
unrealistic expectation is as much a threat to safety as the engine failure. we've progresses since the 70's.- well i hope we have
My apologies. I was brought up in an environment where one was required to be able to do the pushing and pulling and make the aircraft fly to the requirement. The expectation is simple - if the pilot can't handle the heat then he/she has NO business being in the kitchen.
If you HAVE to fly a complicated EOSID as the only safe means of escape then it must be so.
Having developed numerous escape procedures over the years, I am of the view that a complicated procedure should only be the exception. I concur totally with your observation that one should achieve the procedure
there is NO reason to add complexity
we are in heated agreement. The reality of workload is that every increase in complexity ramps up the risk of an unsuccessful outcome
some US aerodromes do have published obstacles escape departures,
an uncommon outcome (in Australia, we have a small number of prescribed procedures) but such still requires a Type specific ops engineering evaluation to determine an RTOW table ..
all your departures are innovative and complex ? Without knowing the structure I can only speculate. However, I suspect that you will have a small set of "difficult" departures and, from these, one should be able to extract a cyclic recurrent training program to maintain a reasonable level of competence. It is a lemma that one only wants to review the more complicated and difficult EOI departures.
your lofty point two is somewhat unrealistic or possibly idealistic
At the enquiry you (PIC and operator) WILL be quizzed on competence, training, checking etc. I don't think I was being lofty .. only pragmatic .. but, then again, I've been on the receiving end of a barrister's venom in court on more than one occasion so perhaps my view is a little jaundiced ? My conservative approach to life lets me sleep quite well and I certainly don't wish to expose myself to the sort of harassment in court to which some of my colleagues have been subject ...
point blank refused to sign off several EOSID that were 'legal' but totally un-flyable in real life
then full marks to you, good sir. The inference is that the ops engineers had little operational experience ?
unrealistic expectation is as much a threat to safety as the engine failure. we've progresses since the 70's.- well i hope we have
My apologies. I was brought up in an environment where one was required to be able to do the pushing and pulling and make the aircraft fly to the requirement. The expectation is simple - if the pilot can't handle the heat then he/she has NO business being in the kitchen.
If you HAVE to fly a complicated EOSID as the only safe means of escape then it must be so.
Having developed numerous escape procedures over the years, I am of the view that a complicated procedure should only be the exception. I concur totally with your observation that one should achieve the procedure
there is NO reason to add complexity
we are in heated agreement. The reality of workload is that every increase in complexity ramps up the risk of an unsuccessful outcome
some US aerodromes do have published obstacles escape departures,
an uncommon outcome (in Australia, we have a small number of prescribed procedures) but such still requires a Type specific ops engineering evaluation to determine an RTOW table ..
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found the airbus brochure this is the excerpt from it:
Well, that's what airbus published in it's operational liaison meeting 2004.
Title SID/EOSID how to ensure the performance is achieved.
What is an EOSID?
• An EOSID is a departure procedure diverging from SID published by the local authorities, to be flown in case of engine failure.
• The EOSID is produced by the operator and proposed for approval to the local authorities.
• Due to their complexity in some cases, the EOSID approval requires special pilot briefing and sometimes, simulator training.
• In some rare cases the local authorities propose themselves the EOSID in a particular airport (Ex: Innsbruck)
• An EOSID is a departure procedure diverging from SID published by the local authorities, to be flown in case of engine failure.
• The EOSID is produced by the operator and proposed for approval to the local authorities.
• Due to their complexity in some cases, the EOSID approval requires special pilot briefing and sometimes, simulator training.
• In some rare cases the local authorities propose themselves the EOSID in a particular airport (Ex: Innsbruck)
Title SID/EOSID how to ensure the performance is achieved.
