approach climb 2.1% vs MACG 2.5% or greater
Join Date: May 2004
Location: prime meridian
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO doc 8168 vol.2 extract.
BTW what aircraft're you flying, and does the manufacturer provide the MACG limit wt charts or are they developed by your company performance engineers?
Seeing you've raised your level of knowledge (and mine!), here's an extract that may also be of interest.
6.2 CLIMB GRADIENT AND MOC
6.2.1 Initial phase
6.2.1.1 The initial phase begins at the earliest missed approach point (MAPt) and ends at the start of climb point
(SOC). The manoeuvre during this phase requires the concentrated attention of the pilot, especially when establishing
the climb and the changes in configuration, and it is assumed that guidance equipment is not utilized during these
manoeuvres. No turns may be specified during this phase.
6.2.1.2 Climb gradient in the initial phase. In the initial phase the flight track is horizontal.
6.2.1.3 Obstacle clearance in the initial phase. In the initial missed approach area, the minimum obstacle
clearance shall be the same as for the last part of the final approach area except where the extension of the intermediate
missed approach surface backwards towards the missed approach point requires less clearance. (See Figures I-4-6-4
and I-4-6-5.)
6.2.2 Intermediate phase
6.2.2.1 The intermediate phase begins at the SOC. The climb is continued at stabilized speeds up to the first point
where 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) obstacle clearance is obtained and can be maintained. In the construction of
this phase it is assumed that advantage may be taken of available navigation guidance. During the intermediate phase,
the missed approach track may be changed from that of the initial phase by a maximum of 15°.
6.2.2.2 Climb gradient in the intermediate phase. The nominal climb gradient (tan Z) of the missed approach
surface is 2.5 per cent (Cat H 4.2 per cent). A gradient of 2 per cent may be used if the necessary survey and
safeguarding can be provided. Additional climb gradients of 3, 4 or 5 per cent may also be specified. These may be
used by aircraft whose climb performance permits the operational advantage of the lower OCA/H associated with these
gradients, with the approval of the competent authority.
Note.— In case of non-precision approach, any intermediate values (e.g. 3.4 per cent) between 2 and 5 per cent
may be considered.
6.2.2.3 Obstacle clearance in the intermediate phase
6.2.2.3.1 In the intermediate missed approach phase, the minimum obstacle clearance shall be 30 m (98 ft) in the
primary area, and in the secondary area the minimum obstacle clearance shall be 30 m (98 ft) at the inner edge,
reducing linearly to zero at the outer edge. See Section 2, Chapter 1, 1.3, “Obstacle clearance”.
6.2.2.3.2 The OCA/H for the nominal 2.5 per cent must always be published on the instrument approach chart. If
additional gradients are specified in the construction of the missed approach procedure, they and their associated
OCA/H values must be published as alternative options.
Note.— MOC may be obtained by increasing the OCA/H or by a longitudinal adjustment of the MAPt or both.
6.2.3 Final phase
The final phase begins at the point where 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) obstacle clearance is first obtained and
can be maintained. It ends at the point at which a new approach, holding or return to en-route flight is initiated. Turns
may be carried out during this phase.
6.2.3.1 Climb gradient in the final phase. The criteria of the intermediate phase apply.
6.2.3.2 Obstacle clearance in the final phase
6.2.3.2.1 In the final missed approach phase of a straight missed approach the minimum obstacle clearance shall
be 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) in the primary area, reducing linearly to zero at the outer edge of the secondary
area. See Figure I-4-6-4.
6.2.3.2.2 Turning missed approaches have specific criteria for MOC and for the arrangement and extent of
secondary areas (see 6.4, “Turning missed approach”).
Note.— MOC may be obtained by increasing the OCA/H or by a longitudinal adjustment of the MAPt or both. In
addition, obstacles may be excluded from consideration by defining a turn.
Seeing you've raised your level of knowledge (and mine!), here's an extract that may also be of interest.
6.2 CLIMB GRADIENT AND MOC
6.2.1 Initial phase
6.2.1.1 The initial phase begins at the earliest missed approach point (MAPt) and ends at the start of climb point
(SOC). The manoeuvre during this phase requires the concentrated attention of the pilot, especially when establishing
the climb and the changes in configuration, and it is assumed that guidance equipment is not utilized during these
manoeuvres. No turns may be specified during this phase.
6.2.1.2 Climb gradient in the initial phase. In the initial phase the flight track is horizontal.
6.2.1.3 Obstacle clearance in the initial phase. In the initial missed approach area, the minimum obstacle
clearance shall be the same as for the last part of the final approach area except where the extension of the intermediate
missed approach surface backwards towards the missed approach point requires less clearance. (See Figures I-4-6-4
and I-4-6-5.)
6.2.2 Intermediate phase
6.2.2.1 The intermediate phase begins at the SOC. The climb is continued at stabilized speeds up to the first point
where 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) obstacle clearance is obtained and can be maintained. In the construction of
this phase it is assumed that advantage may be taken of available navigation guidance. During the intermediate phase,
the missed approach track may be changed from that of the initial phase by a maximum of 15°.
6.2.2.2 Climb gradient in the intermediate phase. The nominal climb gradient (tan Z) of the missed approach
surface is 2.5 per cent (Cat H 4.2 per cent). A gradient of 2 per cent may be used if the necessary survey and
safeguarding can be provided. Additional climb gradients of 3, 4 or 5 per cent may also be specified. These may be
used by aircraft whose climb performance permits the operational advantage of the lower OCA/H associated with these
gradients, with the approval of the competent authority.
Note.— In case of non-precision approach, any intermediate values (e.g. 3.4 per cent) between 2 and 5 per cent
may be considered.
6.2.2.3 Obstacle clearance in the intermediate phase
6.2.2.3.1 In the intermediate missed approach phase, the minimum obstacle clearance shall be 30 m (98 ft) in the
primary area, and in the secondary area the minimum obstacle clearance shall be 30 m (98 ft) at the inner edge,
reducing linearly to zero at the outer edge. See Section 2, Chapter 1, 1.3, “Obstacle clearance”.
6.2.2.3.2 The OCA/H for the nominal 2.5 per cent must always be published on the instrument approach chart. If
additional gradients are specified in the construction of the missed approach procedure, they and their associated
OCA/H values must be published as alternative options.
Note.— MOC may be obtained by increasing the OCA/H or by a longitudinal adjustment of the MAPt or both.
6.2.3 Final phase
The final phase begins at the point where 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) obstacle clearance is first obtained and
can be maintained. It ends at the point at which a new approach, holding or return to en-route flight is initiated. Turns
may be carried out during this phase.
6.2.3.1 Climb gradient in the final phase. The criteria of the intermediate phase apply.
6.2.3.2 Obstacle clearance in the final phase
6.2.3.2.1 In the final missed approach phase of a straight missed approach the minimum obstacle clearance shall
be 50 m (164 ft) (Cat H, 40 m (132 ft)) in the primary area, reducing linearly to zero at the outer edge of the secondary
area. See Figure I-4-6-4.
6.2.3.2.2 Turning missed approaches have specific criteria for MOC and for the arrangement and extent of
secondary areas (see 6.4, “Turning missed approach”).
Note.— MOC may be obtained by increasing the OCA/H or by a longitudinal adjustment of the MAPt or both. In
addition, obstacles may be excluded from consideration by defining a turn.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: home
Age: 41
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im flying 737-800
At the bottom of the charts it says BPS version 3.1 landing analysis software, so I pressure BPS means Boeing Performance Software.
So from this, Id say Boeing provide the data and our engineers include that in their documents which I have access to.
Thanks for the extra info. Always appreciated.
At the bottom of the charts it says BPS version 3.1 landing analysis software, so I pressure BPS means Boeing Performance Software.
So from this, Id say Boeing provide the data and our engineers include that in their documents which I have access to.
Thanks for the extra info. Always appreciated.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aslan1982;
At the risk of appearing pedantic, I think two minor clarifications will complement what you wrote:
Approach climb - From CS-25.121(d)(1):
Landing climb - From CS-25.119:
Regarding CS-25.119 - since the landing WAT-limit weight is the lesser of the weights limited by 25.119 and 25.121, and for many airplanes, twins in particular, the one-engine-inoperative requirement is the limiting one, it is quite common that full G/A thrust is not achieved within 8 seconds, although the required gradient of 3.2 % is.
Regards,
HN39
At the risk of appearing pedantic, I think two minor clarifications will complement what you wrote:
Approach climb - From CS-25.121(d)(1):
The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2·1% for two-engined aeroplanes, 2·4% for three-engined aeroplanes and 2·7% for four-engined aeroplanes, with –
In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3·2%, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the goaround power or thrust setting
Regards,
HN39
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of any operator that makes an analysis similar to the one for Take Off for the Go-Around.
EK had a GMFO that refused to listen to the performance engineer who resigned for that reason and joined Boeing as a performance engineer
Mutt
(BTW, what happened to O_S? I havent seen him post in months?)
(BTW, what happened to O_S? I havent seen him post in months?)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Mutt
Nice to see what you guys are doing.
Now we are approved a 15 kts tailwind on a CAT I, this may well mean that at 2000 ft higher the wind is 25 kts.
A 2,5% WAT Go-Around (for me WAT = Still Air ?) might not cover me for obstacles. Are you telling me that you make an allowance for that?
As far as I understand the whole thing, the 2,5 % gradient is used to design the procedure and identify the limiting obstacles. As a result you can then come forward with a DA (DH) or MDA and MAP.
Thanks for clarifying that to me.
Cheers PUA
probably better to PM the fellow's ID - JT
Now we are approved a 15 kts tailwind on a CAT I, this may well mean that at 2000 ft higher the wind is 25 kts.
A 2,5% WAT Go-Around (for me WAT = Still Air ?) might not cover me for obstacles. Are you telling me that you make an allowance for that?
As far as I understand the whole thing, the 2,5 % gradient is used to design the procedure and identify the limiting obstacles. As a result you can then come forward with a DA (DH) or MDA and MAP.
Thanks for clarifying that to me.
Cheers PUA
probably better to PM the fellow's ID - JT
Last edited by Pitch Up Authority; 12th Mar 2011 at 19:53.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aslan1982;
From the document you posted in your #19:
catpinsan;
Re yr post #21: The Thirteenth Meeting of the Obstacle Clearance Panel (2003) added the following to the Foreword of ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) :
Regards,
HN39
From the document you posted in your #19:
Procedure Missed Approach Gradient
- A conflict exists between JAR-25 and ICAO (...)
- The case of an engine failure during Go-around is not considered as this is deemed a remote possibility
- A conflict exists between JAR-25 and ICAO (...)
- The case of an engine failure during Go-around is not considered as this is deemed a remote possibility
Re yr post #21: The Thirteenth Meeting of the Obstacle Clearance Panel (2003) added the following to the Foreword of ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) :
1.5 The design of procedures in accordance with PANS-OPS criteria assumes normal operations. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide contingency procedures for abnormal and emergency operations.
HN39
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 14th Mar 2011 at 16:36. Reason: PS deleted
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you telling me that you make an allowance for that?
But i have to admit that we only do this in Shiraz due to the missed approach procedure.I read the name before J_T's edit...... thanks
Mutt
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Pans-Ops criteria, nor the FAA 8260.52 consider Engine Out in the procedure design. The missed approach is based on a minimum performance gradient.
As you noted, the criteria nominal climb gradient of 2.5%.
This is a gross climb rate of about 227 feet per nm.
The net climb is about 167 feet per nm.
Check with the performance people...but EO performance for 2 engine aircraft is along the lines of 100 feet per nm depending on temperatures/loading, and I have worked extensively with 65 feet per nm.
EO procedures are separate, and, to date, custom designed.
Most regulatory agencies do NOT want EO procedures in the public realm, and want to direct the aircraft as able.
(this just in, thanks...Hazel!)
Re yr post #21: The Thirteenth Meeting of the Obstacle Clearance Panel (2003) added the following to the Foreword of ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) :
Quote:
1.5 The design of procedures in accordance with PANS-OPS criteria assumes normal operations. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide contingency procedures for abnormal and emergency operations.
As you noted, the criteria nominal climb gradient of 2.5%.
This is a gross climb rate of about 227 feet per nm.
The net climb is about 167 feet per nm.
Check with the performance people...but EO performance for 2 engine aircraft is along the lines of 100 feet per nm depending on temperatures/loading, and I have worked extensively with 65 feet per nm.
EO procedures are separate, and, to date, custom designed.
Most regulatory agencies do NOT want EO procedures in the public realm, and want to direct the aircraft as able.
(this just in, thanks...Hazel!)
Re yr post #21: The Thirteenth Meeting of the Obstacle Clearance Panel (2003) added the following to the Foreword of ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS) :
Quote:
1.5 The design of procedures in accordance with PANS-OPS criteria assumes normal operations. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide contingency procedures for abnormal and emergency operations.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the responsibility of the operator to provide contingency procedures for abnormal and emergency operations.
FlightPathOBN is offline Report Post Reply
FlightPathOBN is offline Report Post Reply
Mutt
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, yes, and no...as the criteria do not support EO procedures, there is nothing for them to do with the procedure, and cant check if you did it correctly, and given that EO is emergency in nature, the 'if able' governs.
It is interesting noting everyones comments in these regards, it helps quite a bit when proposing procedures, and explaining the parameters of the public procedures.
It is interesting noting everyones comments in these regards, it helps quite a bit when proposing procedures, and explaining the parameters of the public procedures.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we are approved a 15 kts tailwind on a CAT I, this may well mean that at 2000 ft higher the wind is 25 kts.
Table 1-3 gives the minimums for turns....you get to 50kts at 1500'
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ergghhh, 2.5% equals what?
FlightPathOBN
As you noted, the criteria nominal climb gradient of 2.5%.
This is a gross climb rate of about 227 feet per nm.
The net climb is about 167 feet per nm.
As you noted, the criteria nominal climb gradient of 2.5%.
This is a gross climb rate of about 227 feet per nm.
The net climb is about 167 feet per nm.
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
152 ...its still there...
152/6076=2.5% I am not sure what the heck I was talking about!
152/6076=2.5% I am not sure what the heck I was talking about!
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 15th Mar 2011 at 19:37. Reason: why not...
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Cascais-Portugal
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is realy a very interesting issue to discuss and to try to obtain a correct answer which is not easy, as we can see.
Nevertheless let me introduce a couple of things for reflection.
1- When operating the aircraft (twin engine for instances) am I realy obliged to comply with the restrictions of FAR25 (or JAR/CS25)? Or this is a matter for the constructor when applying for certification of an aircraft model? Do I realy have to make sure that 2.1 % of climb gradient in AppClimb phase is being obtained? This is FAR 25.
Take a look on FAR 25 initial point:
Sec. 25.1
Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for transport category airplanes.
(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 [New] for such a certificate or change must show compliance with the applicable requirements in this part.
2- If I am operating the aircraft (as a pilot or "Operator"-company) my "rules" are the JAR/EUOPS-1 or FAR 121/135/91. Right or wrong?
JAROPS1 states:
JAR–OPS 1.485 General
(a) An operator shall ensure that, for determining compliance with the requirements of this Subpart, the approved performance data in the Aeroplane Flight Manual is supplemented as necessary with other data acceptable to the Authority if the approved performance Data in the Aeroplane Flight Manual is insufficient in respect of items such as:
(1) Accounting for reasonably expected adverse operating conditions such as take-off and landing on contaminated runways; and
(2) Consideration of engine failure in all
flight phases.
FAA stated in PART 121:
Sec. 121.141
Airplane flight manual.
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep a current approved airplane flight manual for each type of airplane that it operates except for nontransport category airplanes certificated before January 1, 1965.
(b) In each airplane required to have an airplane flight manual in paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder shall carry either the manual required by Sec. 121.133, if it contains the information required for the applicable flight manual and this information is clearly identified as flight manual requirements, or an approved Airplane Manual. If the certificate holder elects to carry the manual required by Sec. 121.133, the certificate holder may revise the operating procedures sections and modify the presentation of performance data from the applicable flight manual if the revised operating procedures and modified performance date presentation are--
(1) Approved by the Administrator; and
(2) Clearly identified as airplane flight manual requirements.
Amdt. 121-251, Eff. 1/19/96
For me, it looks like in an OEI situation, the performance that is in AFM might not be the one that we are looking for (because once again it is prepared for the Certification Standards).
3 - What about the 2.5% (or greater) in Missed Approach phase?
This a metter of another "rule" - ICAO Doc 8168 PANSOPS.
This is designed and prepared in the assumption that ALL ENGINES ARE OPERATIVE.
In this case, IF ANY DOUBT EXISTS IN OEI YOU (your company) SHOULD HAVE A CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE (MAY BE AWAY OF THE MISSED APP TRACKING).
Another way to look at it is that weather conditions might interfere in the DECISION PROCESS.
If in VMC why to think in Decision Altitude at 200 feet? You can decide earlier and "COMMITTED TO LAND" at a higher altitude (1000 feet AAL for instance).
In this case if any thing goes wrong and Go Around in OEI is initiated, you are well above the requirement of the Doc 8168 (or TERPs in your case).
Conclusion:
For me what is important is that I AM SAFE (SAFETY FIRST) but I AM OPERATIONAL (Commercial Pilot).
What is SAFE?
The industry says that "have to clear all obstacles by 35 feet (50 feet in turns greater than 15º)"
Which means, IF YOU YOU ARE IN A "NET" CLIMBING AND CLEAR ALL OBSTACLES (even Visually is contemplated) then you are SAFE.
This is legislation then, WE ARE LEGAL complying with it.
Remember that TERPS / PANSOPS design Missed Approach with obstacle clearances of 98 feet and 164 feet in intermediate phase WHICH ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE FAR 121 and EU OPS-1 (35 feet).
This is another view of the problem
Best Regards
Nevertheless let me introduce a couple of things for reflection.
1- When operating the aircraft (twin engine for instances) am I realy obliged to comply with the restrictions of FAR25 (or JAR/CS25)? Or this is a matter for the constructor when applying for certification of an aircraft model? Do I realy have to make sure that 2.1 % of climb gradient in AppClimb phase is being obtained? This is FAR 25.
Take a look on FAR 25 initial point:
Sec. 25.1
Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for transport category airplanes.
(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 [New] for such a certificate or change must show compliance with the applicable requirements in this part.
2- If I am operating the aircraft (as a pilot or "Operator"-company) my "rules" are the JAR/EUOPS-1 or FAR 121/135/91. Right or wrong?
JAROPS1 states:
JAR–OPS 1.485 General
(a) An operator shall ensure that, for determining compliance with the requirements of this Subpart, the approved performance data in the Aeroplane Flight Manual is supplemented as necessary with other data acceptable to the Authority if the approved performance Data in the Aeroplane Flight Manual is insufficient in respect of items such as:
(1) Accounting for reasonably expected adverse operating conditions such as take-off and landing on contaminated runways; and
(2) Consideration of engine failure in all
flight phases.
FAA stated in PART 121:
Sec. 121.141
Airplane flight manual.
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep a current approved airplane flight manual for each type of airplane that it operates except for nontransport category airplanes certificated before January 1, 1965.
(b) In each airplane required to have an airplane flight manual in paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder shall carry either the manual required by Sec. 121.133, if it contains the information required for the applicable flight manual and this information is clearly identified as flight manual requirements, or an approved Airplane Manual. If the certificate holder elects to carry the manual required by Sec. 121.133, the certificate holder may revise the operating procedures sections and modify the presentation of performance data from the applicable flight manual if the revised operating procedures and modified performance date presentation are--
(1) Approved by the Administrator; and
(2) Clearly identified as airplane flight manual requirements.
Amdt. 121-251, Eff. 1/19/96
For me, it looks like in an OEI situation, the performance that is in AFM might not be the one that we are looking for (because once again it is prepared for the Certification Standards).
3 - What about the 2.5% (or greater) in Missed Approach phase?
This a metter of another "rule" - ICAO Doc 8168 PANSOPS.
This is designed and prepared in the assumption that ALL ENGINES ARE OPERATIVE.
In this case, IF ANY DOUBT EXISTS IN OEI YOU (your company) SHOULD HAVE A CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE (MAY BE AWAY OF THE MISSED APP TRACKING).
Another way to look at it is that weather conditions might interfere in the DECISION PROCESS.
If in VMC why to think in Decision Altitude at 200 feet? You can decide earlier and "COMMITTED TO LAND" at a higher altitude (1000 feet AAL for instance).
In this case if any thing goes wrong and Go Around in OEI is initiated, you are well above the requirement of the Doc 8168 (or TERPs in your case).
Conclusion:
For me what is important is that I AM SAFE (SAFETY FIRST) but I AM OPERATIONAL (Commercial Pilot).
What is SAFE?
The industry says that "have to clear all obstacles by 35 feet (50 feet in turns greater than 15º)"
Which means, IF YOU YOU ARE IN A "NET" CLIMBING AND CLEAR ALL OBSTACLES (even Visually is contemplated) then you are SAFE.
This is legislation then, WE ARE LEGAL complying with it.
Remember that TERPS / PANSOPS design Missed Approach with obstacle clearances of 98 feet and 164 feet in intermediate phase WHICH ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE FAR 121 and EU OPS-1 (35 feet).
This is another view of the problem
Best Regards
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So unless the airfield brief allows us to use the 4.0%, we must choose the higher 2.5% DA
Also the last time I flew there, I remember the captain saying in the cruise, can you check the MACG table for 4.0% against our est LW and OAT at FUE. I did and we were below the Limiting weight so we selected the lower DA. I.e. The 4.0
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Cascais-Portugal
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HazelNuts39
I am new here but not in the business.
Almost 43 years of experience and not behind a desk. Really "aviating" every day.
I am not Skky but always in the sky trying to earn my money in the most professional way.
My post is just "another" "different" way to look to this issue.
This is a matter of the legislation that you are in. And you are talking, and discussing, about the "certification rules" (one engine inoperative). But we are not certifying the aircraft when we are flying it. We are "operating it".
My point is that now, operating it, we have to apply different legislation/rules.
And for the Missed Approach, AIPs applies ICAO Doc 1868 and the gradients expressed there are for ALL ENGINES operative. In the same document ICAO states that "operators have to create a CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE in case of an engine out condition".
You might establish your "contingency" flying the same route/track as the Miss App Procedure contemplates, but in this case you are committed to the
"lower gradient", if possible, which permits "higher weight" with HIGH Temperatures and in OEI (One Eng Inoperative). Otherwise your company is loosing money because you are not carrying the contracted payload (i.e. PAX/Bags).
But looking into another set of rules/legislation, the JAR/EU-OPS-1, in it's ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE AND INTERPRETATIVE/ EXPLANATORY MATERIAL (AMC & IEM), sates this, for example:
(Quote)
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] [ ].
[Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
(Unquote)
What do you take from this statement? Is my point of view a "trollish nonsense" as you mention?
I am not nuts; and I am not a fool. I am just THINKING WITH MY HEAD with an OPEN MIND.
Best regards
Almost 43 years of experience and not behind a desk. Really "aviating" every day.
I am not Skky but always in the sky trying to earn my money in the most professional way.
My post is just "another" "different" way to look to this issue.
This is a matter of the legislation that you are in. And you are talking, and discussing, about the "certification rules" (one engine inoperative). But we are not certifying the aircraft when we are flying it. We are "operating it".
My point is that now, operating it, we have to apply different legislation/rules.
And for the Missed Approach, AIPs applies ICAO Doc 1868 and the gradients expressed there are for ALL ENGINES operative. In the same document ICAO states that "operators have to create a CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE in case of an engine out condition".
You might establish your "contingency" flying the same route/track as the Miss App Procedure contemplates, but in this case you are committed to the
"lower gradient", if possible, which permits "higher weight" with HIGH Temperatures and in OEI (One Eng Inoperative). Otherwise your company is loosing money because you are not carrying the contracted payload (i.e. PAX/Bags).
But looking into another set of rules/legislation, the JAR/EU-OPS-1, in it's ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE AND INTERPRETATIVE/ EXPLANATORY MATERIAL (AMC & IEM), sates this, for example:
(Quote)
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] [ ].
[Amdt. 3, 01.12.01]
(Unquote)
What do you take from this statement? Is my point of view a "trollish nonsense" as you mention?
I am not nuts; and I am not a fool. I am just THINKING WITH MY HEAD with an OPEN MIND.
Best regards
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mav2147
I am not nuts; and I am not a fool. I am just THINKING WITH MY HEAD with an OPEN MIND.
