EO SID / Special Take-Off Procedure - Include in App. Brief?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've made the point precisely. "Either you have the performance for a missed approach, or you need a company escape route if required." Perfectly stated....
However before we start any approach we have to calculate the relevant go-around climb gradients (both all engines and OEI) during the normal landing performance calculation (done on the EFB and documented on the OFP) and if we do not meet the required gradient either wait until our weight is low enough or divert.
I was never told to "wait until you burn your weight off" in a place where there are higher than standard PDG's. I remember something like
"Either you have the performance for a missed approach, or you need a company escape route if required."
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original thread...
My former company's SOP had Jeppesen plates that read:
"Engine Failure on Takeoff or Missed Approach" It was a 10-7 plate (or a 20-7 plate, as required).
And, yes, it was a required briefing item.
And, yes, this was an FAA requirement...both to have the plate, to use it, and to brief it.
(This applied to those airports that had terrain such that made it necessary for an engine failure on takeoff or a missed approach with one engine inoperative.)
This answers the original question.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
"Engine Failure on Takeoff or Missed Approach" It was a 10-7 plate (or a 20-7 plate, as required).
And, yes, it was a required briefing item.
And, yes, this was an FAA requirement...both to have the plate, to use it, and to brief it.
(This applied to those airports that had terrain such that made it necessary for an engine failure on takeoff or a missed approach with one engine inoperative.)
This answers the original question.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The marketing department loves you....
Wow,
So, we circle and burn fuel to be light enough to do a single engine go around with the published missed approach.
Or, we limit the commercial payload...maybe only half passengers and no freight....
Yep, sounds like a plan....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
So, we circle and burn fuel to be light enough to do a single engine go around with the published missed approach.
Or, we limit the commercial payload...maybe only half passengers and no freight....
Yep, sounds like a plan....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off the subject of the original thread...
When flying over the Rockies, our routing was specific, due to drift-down requirements. Asking for 'direct' from ATC was illegal, as deviating from the filed routing wouold put you in ?????? (can we make it, if an engine fails?)
Same logic, folks.....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Same logic, folks.....
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the regulatory reference:
EU - OPS 1.510 - Landing — Destination and alternate aerodromes
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with EU - OPS 1.475
(a) does not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate aerodrome.
(b) For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2,5 % an operator shall verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows 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 (see applicable requirements on certification of large aeroplanes). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. IOW fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2,5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater (see CS AWO 243). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. Once again fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
It's complete bollocks to maintain a diversion or burning fuel is required for compliance with regs. Whether the operator choses to entertain commercially sane and perfectly legal solution or bluntly to burn the fuel till it can comply with the published GA climb gradient, well, I guess it depends on how deep the pocket is.
EU - OPS 1.510 - Landing — Destination and alternate aerodromes
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with EU - OPS 1.475
(a) does not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate aerodrome.
(b) For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2,5 % an operator shall verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows 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 (see applicable requirements on certification of large aeroplanes). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. IOW fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2,5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater (see CS AWO 243). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. Once again fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
It's complete bollocks to maintain a diversion or burning fuel is required for compliance with regs. Whether the operator choses to entertain commercially sane and perfectly legal solution or bluntly to burn the fuel till it can comply with the published GA climb gradient, well, I guess it depends on how deep the pocket is.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the authority (in that case the german LBA) does not approve an alternate method for smallish jets (737s) though. Therefore we have to comply with the required missed approach climb gradients.
And if we can't change the required climb gradient by using an alternate method there is only two other things we can do if we find ourselves unable to comply with then. However landing climb performance is a dispatch issue and has to be checked during planning and before takeoff, therefore it is highly unlikely to find oneself in that situation.
And if we can't change the required climb gradient by using an alternate method there is only two other things we can do if we find ourselves unable to comply with then. However landing climb performance is a dispatch issue and has to be checked during planning and before takeoff, therefore it is highly unlikely to find oneself in that situation.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denti, LBA might not approve it for your outfit or for places like LOWS simply coz there's no chance to build a escape route, the take off is unidirectional anyways. I'm very skeptical, to say at least, to believe carriers like LH wouldn't entertain alternatives methods flying worldwide and among the others 737 to places in Norway. Just doesn't make sense mate.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, we limit the commercial payload...maybe only half passengers and no freight....
Mutt
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think DENTI phrased it quite clearly,and it is obvious his kmowledge in the matter shows that his airline is following JAA regulations in that matter.
Dispatching an aircraft in europe requires the airline to follow its caa regulations which they do via their dispather who must ensure the aircraft is planned at destination to be below max landing weight,thats its landing distance is within the distance available and that it meets the appropriate go around climb gradient(one engine on toga and flaps 15(ie engine fail during gi around or following engine failure on approach and flaps 30 maintained).
THEN it is up to the crew following possible weather change/runway condition/use of antice in flight(will decrease gradient by 1% if landing in temp below 10c) to recalcute their performance including landing distance.
An engine failure below minima (in imc) where perf is an issue is a remote possibility as you are in that scenario in visual conditions and legal to continue for a landing.
At that point if a landing cant be made(blocked runway), the best judgement relies on the captain terrain awareness(in that case a possible t/o engine out procedure).
But we have to remember that at tjis point the config would be flaps 15 and not as in a normal t/o.
In any case you are outside calculated performance.
The only thing we can do is to fly as safely as we can,follow regulations and when a non standard situation occurs use the best of our knowledge ,preparation and skills with a salt of luck,we may save the day.
In that scenario a crew
Dispatching an aircraft in europe requires the airline to follow its caa regulations which they do via their dispather who must ensure the aircraft is planned at destination to be below max landing weight,thats its landing distance is within the distance available and that it meets the appropriate go around climb gradient(one engine on toga and flaps 15(ie engine fail during gi around or following engine failure on approach and flaps 30 maintained).
THEN it is up to the crew following possible weather change/runway condition/use of antice in flight(will decrease gradient by 1% if landing in temp below 10c) to recalcute their performance including landing distance.
An engine failure below minima (in imc) where perf is an issue is a remote possibility as you are in that scenario in visual conditions and legal to continue for a landing.
At that point if a landing cant be made(blocked runway), the best judgement relies on the captain terrain awareness(in that case a possible t/o engine out procedure).
But we have to remember that at tjis point the config would be flaps 15 and not as in a normal t/o.
In any case you are outside calculated performance.
The only thing we can do is to fly as safely as we can,follow regulations and when a non standard situation occurs use the best of our knowledge ,preparation and skills with a salt of luck,we may save the day.
In that scenario a crew
Last edited by de facto; 23rd Feb 2011 at 11:39.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9.G
LOWS simply coz there's no chance to build a escape route, the take off is unidirectional anyways.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de facto, firstly dispatchers in Europe don't require license unlike in the US, that doesn't mean the companies don't send them to complete such and obtain the certificate. Secondly in Europe dispatchers aren't co-responsible for the safe conduct of the flight, only the commander is. Thirdly, except for those airport where there's no other way but to reduce the payload in order to comply with MA climb gradient due to terrain profile etc, it's operator's choice whether to entertain or not alternative methods, best example HKG 07L coming in on 330 we can come in with max LW and LVO provided we follow EO SID in case of EO GA , coming in on A 345 or 346 we follow published MA even with EO unless the OAT is above 40 C. Last but not least the authorities grant approvals to operators based on their assessment criterions which doesn't mean every operator will be able to follow alternative methods.
BOAC operation to LOWS requires prior permission by Austrian CAA and most certainly if one wants to use 16 for departure special authorization is required as it's high performance departure. In this case EO SID is a must no doubt. Again particularly for LOWS the company chose to reduce the LW in order to comply with lower minima instead of using EO SID. Whether it was a voluntary choice or the Austrian CAA didn't approve it no idea. If I recall correct LW on 321 was limited to 68T or something like that.
Those are best examples in fact, LOWS requiring CAA authorization to use lower minimas for CAT I and HKG not requiring anything for lower cat I minima except ordinary compliance with regs. I'm not talking about LVO authorization here which requires a separate approval.
BOAC operation to LOWS requires prior permission by Austrian CAA and most certainly if one wants to use 16 for departure special authorization is required as it's high performance departure. In this case EO SID is a must no doubt. Again particularly for LOWS the company chose to reduce the LW in order to comply with lower minima instead of using EO SID. Whether it was a voluntary choice or the Austrian CAA didn't approve it no idea. If I recall correct LW on 321 was limited to 68T or something like that.
Those are best examples in fact, LOWS requiring CAA authorization to use lower minimas for CAT I and HKG not requiring anything for lower cat I minima except ordinary compliance with regs. I'm not talking about LVO authorization here which requires a separate approval.
Moderator
The only thing we can do is to fly as safely as we can,follow regulations and when a non standard situation occurs use the best of our knowledge ,preparation and skills with a salt of luck,we may save the day.
... which is akin to the ostrich with its head in the sand.
Either the operator/commander knows what's what, has/have done the sums (forget eyeballing escape procedures - the usual gradients are so low that either they have been analysed prior to the need or one is content to play Russian Roulette - the human brain doesn't appear to be good at calculating gradient intercepts on the fly).
There is no major impediment to doing the thing properly (other than money - I guess some/many operators don't spend on the basis of risk management unless the Regulator holds a gun to their head). Not fundamentally different to a takeoff analysis.
The italicized post, above, is characteristic of the operator with which I would rather not fly, given an alternative. Philosophically, it subscribes to the view that one ought not address any sensible risk mitigation strategy .. prefering, rather, to leave one's outcome to the Fates.
For instance, in previous days at AN, a number of critical runways had been run through the analysis for a missed approach - apart from the money spent, where is the problem ?
... which is akin to the ostrich with its head in the sand.
Either the operator/commander knows what's what, has/have done the sums (forget eyeballing escape procedures - the usual gradients are so low that either they have been analysed prior to the need or one is content to play Russian Roulette - the human brain doesn't appear to be good at calculating gradient intercepts on the fly).
There is no major impediment to doing the thing properly (other than money - I guess some/many operators don't spend on the basis of risk management unless the Regulator holds a gun to their head). Not fundamentally different to a takeoff analysis.
The italicized post, above, is characteristic of the operator with which I would rather not fly, given an alternative. Philosophically, it subscribes to the view that one ought not address any sensible risk mitigation strategy .. prefering, rather, to leave one's outcome to the Fates.
For instance, in previous days at AN, a number of critical runways had been run through the analysis for a missed approach - apart from the money spent, where is the problem ?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under U.S. law...
The FAA requires that the commander ensure, at all times, the aircraft will be able to maintain adequate terrain clearance during all phases of flight, both with all engines operating, and with one engine inoperative. This, of course, includes takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and missed approach. This is the regulation....
Good luck with using your ingenuity when XXXX happens at the worst time.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Good luck with using your ingenuity when XXXX happens at the worst time.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you in the takeoff splay during the missed approach?
Folks,
For performance engineering, the biggest problem in planning for missed approaches is working out where the aircraft will be when it actually achieves the missed approach configuration and has a relatively fixed climb gradient.
The first element is that it takes time and space to reconfigure from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration and stabilise the climb - so there is a physical distance between the MAP and the start of the obstacle clearance plane which must be factored into the vertical plan.
The second element relates to where the aircraft goes during that reconfiguration - and the plan must consider the contingencies such as despatch without/failure of autopilot and OEI operations, the location of the MAP and the aircraft vector approaching and departing the MAP. This will determine the horizontal plan.
I would not permit the use of the EOI takeoff procedure for the missed approach unless I was satisfied that the aircraft had a 99% probability of being positioned within the vertical and horizontal constraints of that procedure. Generally, the vertical is not an issue unless the aircraft routinely lands heavier than it takes off. Horizontally, getting the aircraft within 90 metres either side of the centreline at the far end of the runway during an OEI IMC missed approach is rarely achieved, thus invalidating the EOI takeoff procedure as a safe plan.
And, to declare my hand, if Jeppesen says its OK - I automatically reject it! Watch what comes out in discovery on the first real law suit with a determined plaintiff and no plea bargain/settlement.
Stay Alive,
For performance engineering, the biggest problem in planning for missed approaches is working out where the aircraft will be when it actually achieves the missed approach configuration and has a relatively fixed climb gradient.
The first element is that it takes time and space to reconfigure from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration and stabilise the climb - so there is a physical distance between the MAP and the start of the obstacle clearance plane which must be factored into the vertical plan.
The second element relates to where the aircraft goes during that reconfiguration - and the plan must consider the contingencies such as despatch without/failure of autopilot and OEI operations, the location of the MAP and the aircraft vector approaching and departing the MAP. This will determine the horizontal plan.
I would not permit the use of the EOI takeoff procedure for the missed approach unless I was satisfied that the aircraft had a 99% probability of being positioned within the vertical and horizontal constraints of that procedure. Generally, the vertical is not an issue unless the aircraft routinely lands heavier than it takes off. Horizontally, getting the aircraft within 90 metres either side of the centreline at the far end of the runway during an OEI IMC missed approach is rarely achieved, thus invalidating the EOI takeoff procedure as a safe plan.
And, to declare my hand, if Jeppesen says its OK - I automatically reject it! Watch what comes out in discovery on the first real law suit with a determined plaintiff and no plea bargain/settlement.
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right. Based on my own understanding, for a normal CatI we need 2,1%, take off EOI/contingency 2,4% and a normal SID 3,3%. Required take off climb gradient ends at 1500 AGL. So your reduced N1 provides a thrust setting (on a balanced T/O) that will either enable you to stop before V1 or get you to 1500' AGL on OEI without hitting terrain. If terrain is an issue for the required ROC an emergency turn/contingency procedure is constructed. This will require a lower ROC of 2,4%.
So, basically if you end up OEI close to max landing weight, or if a higher missed approach climb rate is required for the approach in question, you should consider your options (increasing DA/MDA accordingly).
So, basically if you end up OEI close to max landing weight, or if a higher missed approach climb rate is required for the approach in question, you should consider your options (increasing DA/MDA accordingly).
We have an Eng Fail procedure for all take-offs and landings published with our RTOW charts. Same procedure for both for all our current runways, with the important proviso that the procedure begins at the DER so no turns allowed before passing the far end of the runway in G/A. This covers all cases.
Airbus uses a ridiculous term EOSID - engine out SID - which clearly it cannot be as by definition all a/c from all operators would fly the same procedure if it was a SID. Just another example of their careless use of language.
In every case there's a need to consider engine failure in the G/A so those who think the normal G/A procedure will do are sadly mistaken. It MAY give you the required obstacle clearance but then again it may not. Are you prepared to take that chance? I'm certainly not.
Airbus uses a ridiculous term EOSID - engine out SID - which clearly it cannot be as by definition all a/c from all operators would fly the same procedure if it was a SID. Just another example of their careless use of language.
In every case there's a need to consider engine failure in the G/A so those who think the normal G/A procedure will do are sadly mistaken. It MAY give you the required obstacle clearance but then again it may not. Are you prepared to take that chance? I'm certainly not.
Airbus uses a ridiculous term EOSID - engine out SID - which clearly it cannot be as by definition all a/c from all operators would fly the same procedure if it was a SID. Just another example of their careless use of language.
EO SID does not mean that all operators would fly the same procedure, just because it is named using the term SID. In fact, it is entirely logical: Engine Out Standard Instrument Departure. Given the FMS uses the term, why not? What else would you call it and does it actually matter what it's called?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ridiculous terms
This may have something to do with it:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%20120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf
Stay Alive,
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%20120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf
Stay Alive,
