EO SID / Special Take-Off Procedure - Include in App. Brief?
Thread Starter
EO SID / Special Take-Off Procedure - Include in App. Brief?
Ok, so with all engines operating you are planning to land on a runway which has a special take off procedure to follow in the event of an engine failure. In your company do you make a point of briefing this procedure as part of an approach brief in order to follow in the event of an engine failure for a go-around or missed approach?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is good to have the oei t/o procedure in your head as to have a better situation awareness of the potential obstacles problem.(balked landing with one engine,very bad day indeed).
However an engine out special procedure at take off is there for takeoff NOT for a missed approach.
You must follow the std missed app,making sure that you can achieve the published DA goaround gradient(1engine at toga/flaps15) using you landing weight/oat/use of eai/wai.
If you cant make the go around gradient,the DA must be increased(by your airline) or your ldg weight decreased until you do.
However an engine out special procedure at take off is there for takeoff NOT for a missed approach.
You must follow the std missed app,making sure that you can achieve the published DA goaround gradient(1engine at toga/flaps15) using you landing weight/oat/use of eai/wai.
If you cant make the go around gradient,the DA must be increased(by your airline) or your ldg weight decreased until you do.
Last edited by de facto; 22nd Feb 2011 at 02:59.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you could also just advise atc that you are unable standard missed approach due to engine out and request alternate missed approach procedure.
At our airline, we brief it all. And a good pilot always has an idea about terrain.
At our airline, we brief it all. And a good pilot always has an idea about terrain.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our landing performance manual would contain the information related to something like this, but that's in a simple old 727 without all those fancy gizmos up front.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, not exactly....
You have to remember that, for a missed approach, there is a certain required climb gradient. If there is no minimum climb gradient specified in the missed approach procedure, then the standard certification figure applies. (Can't remember off hand....I'm thinking it's 2.5%. Please refer to the Airbus doc "Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance.") If the requirement is greater, the approach plate will specify.
In the case of the standard required gradient, your aircraft should be able to make it with one engine inoperative. In the case of a higher-than-standard required gradient, well.....maybe yes, maybe no.
You'll have to get into the performance charts to make this determination. If the result of your research is positive, all is well. If not, there are two ways to go about this.
First, you can increase your DA, thereby giving your aircraft a 'head start' for the climb. For example, on an ILS with the typical 200 foot DA, you might increase your DA to 1000 feet.
Of course, you, as the pilot, cannot arbitrarily make this determination. This is part of the IAP certification. An example of this would be Hong Kong's ILS to runway 07L.
Or, second, you could fly the standard ILS, but, in the event of an engine failure at go-around, fly the 'engine failure on takeoff procedure'. In the case of your aircraft not being albe to maintain the higher-than-standard missed approach climb gradient, this would provide you with protection.
Doing so is perfectly legal, required, and expected......
So, to say that this procedure is for take off only, is incorrect.
In any event, either an engine failure on takeoff or missed approach, notification of ATC is required, so they are aware that you'll be flying the one-engine-inoperative profile and not the standard missed approach procedure.
Should you include all this in your standard approach briefing? What does your company's SOP say? My old company required it. Perhaps your company's SOP does or does not.
If it does not, then such a briefing falls, not into the 'SOP bucket', but, instead into the 'technique bucket'. I never chastised a pilot for anything in the technique bucket. If it's not explicitly stated in the SOP, but the pilot wishes to brief it, anyway....well, this, in my opinion, is good airmanship (airpersonship). Good airmanship is not stressed enough, these days, in both our fundamental training an our routine line operations.
I hope this provides some insight...
Fly safe,
PantLoad
In the case of the standard required gradient, your aircraft should be able to make it with one engine inoperative. In the case of a higher-than-standard required gradient, well.....maybe yes, maybe no.
You'll have to get into the performance charts to make this determination. If the result of your research is positive, all is well. If not, there are two ways to go about this.
First, you can increase your DA, thereby giving your aircraft a 'head start' for the climb. For example, on an ILS with the typical 200 foot DA, you might increase your DA to 1000 feet.
Of course, you, as the pilot, cannot arbitrarily make this determination. This is part of the IAP certification. An example of this would be Hong Kong's ILS to runway 07L.
Or, second, you could fly the standard ILS, but, in the event of an engine failure at go-around, fly the 'engine failure on takeoff procedure'. In the case of your aircraft not being albe to maintain the higher-than-standard missed approach climb gradient, this would provide you with protection.
Doing so is perfectly legal, required, and expected......
So, to say that this procedure is for take off only, is incorrect.
In any event, either an engine failure on takeoff or missed approach, notification of ATC is required, so they are aware that you'll be flying the one-engine-inoperative profile and not the standard missed approach procedure.
Should you include all this in your standard approach briefing? What does your company's SOP say? My old company required it. Perhaps your company's SOP does or does not.
If it does not, then such a briefing falls, not into the 'SOP bucket', but, instead into the 'technique bucket'. I never chastised a pilot for anything in the technique bucket. If it's not explicitly stated in the SOP, but the pilot wishes to brief it, anyway....well, this, in my opinion, is good airmanship (airpersonship). Good airmanship is not stressed enough, these days, in both our fundamental training an our routine line operations.
I hope this provides some insight...
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of the standard required gradient, your aircraft should be able to make it with one engine inoperative. In the case of a higher-than-standard required gradient, well.....maybe yes, maybe no
If you fly 737,you must calculate your Go around climb gradient using the 'DISPATCH PERFOMANCE' provided by Boeing in the FCOM.
It is for the case when the go around climb gradient is higher than the standard (2.4%)(2 engines jet).
If your Minima say 4%, you must ensure that you can do it by CALCULATING it using the above performance tables.
First, you can increase your DA, thereby giving your aircraft a 'head start' for the climb. For example, on an ILS with the typical 200 foot DA, you might increase your DA to 1000 feet.
For example,4% gradient on the plate shows 300ft DA/RVR 800 but 2.5% gradient shows a DA of 200ft and RVR550, you cant legally start the approach with lets say with 600 RVR if you cant achieve the the 4% gradient.
If you have terrain during the go around and a standard missed approach is not possible,an escape route MUST be provided by Jeppesen and your company for you to follow.(example INNsbruck).
Last edited by de facto; 22nd Feb 2011 at 03:08.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try not to talk back and forth to myself to much, or the passengers might think I am nuts... But to answer your question...you don't go into a runway, without knowing whether you can get out...that's seems obvious to me.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de facto, you are correct....
With regard to changing the DA, the required visibility is increased, as well. This is not a guess, nor a subjective figure. It is a published IAP.
Again, the ILS to 07L at HKG illustrates.....a good example.
This confusion is my fault. I wasn't clear in my text.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Again, the ILS to 07L at HKG illustrates.....a good example.
This confusion is my fault. I wasn't clear in my text.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Or check the two ILSs to runway 11 at KMSO. The normal one gets you down to 1900 AGL and requires 7 miles vis, if you can meet the missed approach climb gradient of 410 feet per mile to 9800 feet, then you're good down to 300 feet AGL and only need 1/2 mile vis.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought what you said was perfectly clear. Indeed, our SOP is to consider the contingency procedure for OEI approaches. It seems pretty sensible to me, the objective is to maintain separation, then if you can do it heavy on take-off then you can do it lighter from an approach. Separation guaranteed, no guess or maybes required and no need to operate to significantly restrictive weights or minima.
How about flying an arrival in reverse? We're allowed to utilise that too.
How about flying an arrival in reverse? We're allowed to utilise that too.
Thread Starter
Thanks all for the detailed replies.
The company does not have this practice as a written SOP but it is common place to brief the procedure although some take it more seriosuly than others. I was just curious what the rest of the world was doing. Cheers
The company does not have this practice as a written SOP but it is common place to brief the procedure although some take it more seriosuly than others. I was just curious what the rest of the world was doing. Cheers
Moderator
Putting consideration of regulatory requirements to one side, I would expect the prudent company to provide emergency missed approach procedures (where appropriate) in the same way that EOI takeoff procedures are published.
Simple matter of corporate risk management and sensible governance. The opposing counsel at the Enquiry is very practiced in making the target in the box look a right idiot if the i's were not dotted and the t's not crossed in a defensible manner ...
Using the takeoff procedure is better than blindly applying power and pitching up. However, one needs to consider - at the very least -
(a) the relative position of the MAP and the runway BR point
(b) distance/gradient capability for the acceleration to the missed approach configuration, as appropriate
(c) initial tracking errors and how one might address the effect on the takeoff trapezoid - remembering that big, rocky bits might be just outside the trapezoid.
Simple matter of corporate risk management and sensible governance. The opposing counsel at the Enquiry is very practiced in making the target in the box look a right idiot if the i's were not dotted and the t's not crossed in a defensible manner ...
Using the takeoff procedure is better than blindly applying power and pitching up. However, one needs to consider - at the very least -
(a) the relative position of the MAP and the runway BR point
(b) distance/gradient capability for the acceleration to the missed approach configuration, as appropriate
(c) initial tracking errors and how one might address the effect on the takeoff trapezoid - remembering that big, rocky bits might be just outside the trapezoid.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly,
A t/o engine out procedure may require you to turn at V2 (not more) at lets say 400ft or DER to avoid terrain ahead.
What if you do a single engine go around ,will ur speed be correct hence your turn radius satisfactory?
Loads of shady area.
I wouldnt do it.
Either you have the perf required for the missed app or you need a company escape route if required.
A t/o engine out procedure may require you to turn at V2 (not more) at lets say 400ft or DER to avoid terrain ahead.
What if you do a single engine go around ,will ur speed be correct hence your turn radius satisfactory?
Loads of shady area.
I wouldnt do it.
Either you have the perf required for the missed app or you need a company escape route if required.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De facto, everything you write is correct assuming that the missed approach is performed at or above the DA.
The problem is below the DA, then all bets are off and there are no longer any requirement that have to be meet according to regulations. If e.g. a runway incursion occurs and you have to make a go around or balked landing, you most likely wont have any problems following the standard missed approach with 2 engines. But if at the same time a flock of birds lift of an get ingested in one engine at the same time, your starting point and altitude for the missed approach is very different than what is assumed for the calculations. If there is already a contingency go around procedure it wont help. As this assumes that you engine failed before the approach and that you go around when reaching minimums as well.
In short, with engine failure and go around below minimums - the engine out procedure for the departure will most likely be the safer choice if operating around the limits.
But how likely is this scenario is another question. It would have to be special circumstances before I would waste my time including this in my briefing.
The problem is below the DA, then all bets are off and there are no longer any requirement that have to be meet according to regulations. If e.g. a runway incursion occurs and you have to make a go around or balked landing, you most likely wont have any problems following the standard missed approach with 2 engines. But if at the same time a flock of birds lift of an get ingested in one engine at the same time, your starting point and altitude for the missed approach is very different than what is assumed for the calculations. If there is already a contingency go around procedure it wont help. As this assumes that you engine failed before the approach and that you go around when reaching minimums as well.
In short, with engine failure and go around below minimums - the engine out procedure for the departure will most likely be the safer choice if operating around the limits.
But how likely is this scenario is another question. It would have to be special circumstances before I would waste my time including this in my briefing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so with all engines operating you are planning to land on a runway which has a special take off procedure to follow in the event of an engine failure. In your company do you make a point of briefing this procedure as part of an approach brief in order to follow in the event of an engine failure for a go-around or missed approach?
Reason?
The go-around procedure is entirely different than the one engine failed heavy weight takeoff procedure.
And besides, we operate a three engine type.
Not a problem, except in exceptional circumstances.
Case closed....except for the B737 (etc) where this might be appropriate.
IE: I don't fly small airplanes, in airline revenue service.
Sorry...not, and I'm not about to start...now.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Pantload on this one. A standard Cat I approach has a 2.1% missed climb approach gradient and a CAT II/III has a 2.5% gradient. A standard SID has a 3.3% gradient. So let's assume you are operating to a runway that has a non-standard N-1 procedure. Starting with a take-off (I know we are discussing landings), if you can't make 3.3% following an engine failure at V1 (which will be a fair point down the runway), you'll follow the non-standard N-1 procedure. So returning to the landing, you should not really be starting an approach if you are unable to make the required missed approach climb gradient. But (there's always one of these) if you do find yourself there or worse, find yourself making a go-around below MDA/DH you are possibly in uncharted territory. So the safest procedure is to nick a tool from the take-off box - follow the N-1 procedure. This may also save your bacon if you have a performance problem, like the gear failing to retract, following an N-1 go-around. The reasons for following the procedure will be that firstly, it will be executed before the start of the runway. Secondly it will be started with flying speed and lastly you will already have some height in the bag to start with. If you do find yourself following the N-1 procedure, don't forget to tell ATC - The'll be expecting you to follow the Standard Missed Approach and I'll bet they haven't a clue as to what your company specific N-1 Take-off procedure is.
As for including it in the brief? Well if that that's what you are going to do...
PM
As for including it in the brief? Well if that that's what you are going to do...
PM
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we don't have specific EO for a missed, it's the same as for EO SID and must be followed in case aircraft can't comply with MA climb gradient (standard or non standard), overweight landing, Go around below DA MDA, bulked landing or abnormally hot temperatures, last but not least in case any doubts exist about the performance. Bear in mind that all the procedures were designed for normal operating conditions it's operators responsibility to cater for contingency.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de facto....
de facto,
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....
So, you take off, what is your V2? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....
And, during your go around, what is your speed? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....
411A flies three engines or more....not the same animal. Performance, performance requirements, regulations....all different.
Suggestion: On your next sim, try it. Have a look at an airport that has one of these procedures, along with an ILS missed approach with an abnormally high climb gradient. (Again, Hong Kong 07L is a good one, but may not be in your sim's data base.) Set the weather on Vmc....so you can see the hills. Set the temperature at typical. Set the landing weight at maximum, first, then typical landing weights in a second trial. Do the published missed approach, first, then do the engine failure on takeoff.
We did this a few years back...trying to remember the airport (It was a U.S. airport, but can't remember the specifics.) Did it in the MiniBus...four trials....one at max landing weight, one at typical landing weight, and each of those two with the standard missed approach procedure and the engine failure on takeoff.
Have a look....
Our trials confirmed that our comapny's SOP is correct. At max landing weight, warm temps, one engine inoperative, flying the standard MAP, we DID miss the hills, but we got a lot of "WHOOP WHOOP UP". Simply, we did not meet the non-standard missed approach climb gradient with one engine inoperative. Flying the engine failure on takeoff procedure was a piece of cake.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
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....
So, you take off, what is your V2? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....
And, during your go around, what is your speed? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....
411A flies three engines or more....not the same animal. Performance, performance requirements, regulations....all different.
Suggestion: On your next sim, try it. Have a look at an airport that has one of these procedures, along with an ILS missed approach with an abnormally high climb gradient. (Again, Hong Kong 07L is a good one, but may not be in your sim's data base.) Set the weather on Vmc....so you can see the hills. Set the temperature at typical. Set the landing weight at maximum, first, then typical landing weights in a second trial. Do the published missed approach, first, then do the engine failure on takeoff.
We did this a few years back...trying to remember the airport (It was a U.S. airport, but can't remember the specifics.) Did it in the MiniBus...four trials....one at max landing weight, one at typical landing weight, and each of those two with the standard missed approach procedure and the engine failure on takeoff.
Have a look....
Our trials confirmed that our comapny's SOP is correct. At max landing weight, warm temps, one engine inoperative, flying the standard MAP, we DID miss the hills, but we got a lot of "WHOOP WHOOP UP". Simply, we did not meet the non-standard missed approach climb gradient with one engine inoperative. Flying the engine failure on takeoff procedure was a piece of cake.
Fly safe,
PantLoad
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We cannot use any take off procedure during a go around. 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. The performance calculation has to conform with a normal dispatch performance calculation (factors for dispatch) as the lowest usable value in all circumstances. In a 737 i never had problems with landing performance though, even in places like LOWS, LOWK or LOWI (special performance approval for all of those).