Approach Climb Gradient vs EOSID
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but AVN rules for us....
We design and develop instrument flight procedures (IFPs), publish aeronautical charts and digital products for air carrier and general aviation pilots for use throughout the United States and around the world, provide aircraft maintenance and engineering services, operate a fleet of flight inspection aircraft for airborne evaluation of electronic navigational signals and flight validation of ground-based and GPS performanced based IFPs.
Aviation System Standards - AJW-3
I am curious about the SAV plate, was this the eval procedure for Jepp with the FAA? as BDL was with Naverus?
I am with the other guy, why state RF? This is AR, so the users should understand the plate.
Do you know of anyone who has an OpSpec for less than .3RNP. Perhaps Fedex and Alaska, but I dont know of too many carriers that even have an RNP OpSpec, let alone a .15....
We design and develop instrument flight procedures (IFPs), publish aeronautical charts and digital products for air carrier and general aviation pilots for use throughout the United States and around the world, provide aircraft maintenance and engineering services, operate a fleet of flight inspection aircraft for airborne evaluation of electronic navigational signals and flight validation of ground-based and GPS performanced based IFPs.
Aviation System Standards - AJW-3
I am curious about the SAV plate, was this the eval procedure for Jepp with the FAA? as BDL was with Naverus?
I am with the other guy, why state RF? This is AR, so the users should understand the plate.
Do you know of anyone who has an OpSpec for less than .3RNP. Perhaps Fedex and Alaska, but I dont know of too many carriers that even have an RNP OpSpec, let alone a .15....
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 6th Apr 2011 at 17:12.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FtlopsOBN:
I believe so, but I do not know that with certainty.
Because a fairly large PARC working group was formed to establish RNP AR charting specifications for the United States. That was one of many specs that came out of several meetings.
With the present fleet of Boeing transports that can do RNP AR, the smallest value that can be approved is 0.11. I am sure at least CAL, Alaska, DAL, and AAL have approval to 0.11. Horizon (Alaska's commuter carrier) can do 0.30, and may be working for lower in aircraft equipped with a single IRU.
Some models of the Gulfstream are approved for RNP 0.10 provided the airframe has the latest mods and the crew has the training, and has completed the required number of practice approaches or approaches to 0.30 minimums. One of the members of our committee works for a G550 operator with 0.10 approval. The Falcon 900EX is either approved for 0.10 or soon will be.
The U.S. operators who fly into Quito are now using two hybrid RNP AR IAPs that require 0.15.
I am curious about the SAV plate, was this the eval procedure for Jepp with the FAA? as BDL was with Naverus?
I am with the other guy, why state RF? This is AR, so the users should understand the plate.
Do you know of anyone who has an OpSpec for less than .3RNP. Perhaps Fedex and Alaska, but I dont know of too many carriers that even have an RNP OpSpec, let alone a .15....
Some models of the Gulfstream are approved for RNP 0.10 provided the airframe has the latest mods and the crew has the training, and has completed the required number of practice approaches or approaches to 0.30 minimums. One of the members of our committee works for a G550 operator with 0.10 approval. The Falcon 900EX is either approved for 0.10 or soon will be.
The U.S. operators who fly into Quito are now using two hybrid RNP AR IAPs that require 0.15.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info...I havent been keeping up with US operations too much lately.
This may be why it is denoted in the navdata as it is...
In regards to the charts, I actually like to see the radius on the turn, I feel this may help the crew if there are winds to deal with.
(at least they gave the some decent waypoint names, not like FUGOV MORON)
an kinder FAA...how nice!
There is the EO tracks for Burbank, that was a real interesting approval process...(the controlling obstacle is the monument to aviation)...how is the FAA handling the EO procedures...just making each carrier submit their own for review?
I am curious about the SAV plate, was this the eval procedure for Jepp with the FAA? as BDL was with Naverus?
In regards to the charts, I actually like to see the radius on the turn, I feel this may help the crew if there are winds to deal with.
(at least they gave the some decent waypoint names, not like FUGOV MORON)
an kinder FAA...how nice!
There is the EO tracks for Burbank, that was a real interesting approval process...(the controlling obstacle is the monument to aviation)...how is the FAA handling the EO procedures...just making each carrier submit their own for review?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
I don't see how knowing the radius of an RF leg would help the crew at all with winds. As you know, the wind assumptions required by the 8260.52 are very conservative; so much so SWA has used historical winds at some locations in order to obtain slight smaller radii. With a bit of practice an RF leg is easy to fly, even with a significant wind component. Further, if the RNP value for the final segment is less than 0.30, many operators gain approval based on roll-steering auto-flight or, at least, roll-steering flight director.
Finally, the radius of turn is on the FMS legs page. Most RNP AR crews refer to the legs page more than the chart once the IAP is underway.
I don't know anything about FUGOV but the fix called MORON was called Morongo for many years, after the Native Americans of the area.
I don't know. That is beyond the scope of work I do. When I flew for a major airline and did some ALPA safety work there, I had the impression that no one at the FAA looked at the company's OEI procedures, such as they were. But, that was a long time ago.
In regards to the charts, I actually like to see the radius on the turn, I feel this may help the crew if there are winds to deal with.
Finally, the radius of turn is on the FMS legs page. Most RNP AR crews refer to the legs page more than the chart once the IAP is underway.
(at least they gave the some decent waypoint names, not like FUGOV MORON)
...how is the FAA handling the EO procedures...just making each carrier submit their own for review?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how knowing the radius of an RF leg would help the crew at all with winds.
FUGOV and MORON are waypoints at PSP.
Great Stuff Aterpster FlightPathOBN 
ooh can we see
Also I've been meaning to post this; but does anyone have a copy the FAA orders regarding " Holding Pattern Criteria"---I've found it once but it since disappeared sorry for being off topic---
Aterpster I too prefer the NACO charts to the Jepps...less visual clutter
There is the EO tracks for Burbank, that was a real interesting approval process...(the controlling obstacle is the monument to aviation)...how is the FAA handling the EO procedures...just making each carrier submit their own for review?
Also I've been meaning to post this; but does anyone have a copy the FAA orders regarding " Holding Pattern Criteria"---I've found it once but it since disappeared sorry for being off topic---
Aterpster I too prefer the NACO charts to the Jepps...less visual clutter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.A.:
Download it here:
7130.3A - Holding Pattern Criteria - Document Information
There is also this policy memo for RNAV holding patterns that modifies pattern selection for RNAV HILPTs:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Patterns.pdf
I meant only in this isolated situation. Jeppesen charts have been a way of life for me. They can be tailored and they cover the world.
Also I've been meaning to post this; but does anyone have a copy the FAA orders regarding " Holding Pattern Criteria"---I've found it once but it since disappeared sorry for being off topic---
7130.3A - Holding Pattern Criteria - Document Information
There is also this policy memo for RNAV holding patterns that modifies pattern selection for RNAV HILPTs:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...20Patterns.pdf
Aterpster I too prefer the NACO charts to the Jepps...less visual clutter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Folks,
When a SID is designed , if no info concerning climb gradient, 3,3% is to be considered. If more climb gradient is required it will published in the plate. The regulators basically , are telling you "to avoid obstacles , you have to comply with it" .EO considerations are left to you.
Suposing that your SID has a climb gradient you can not comply with , your operator must have an EOSID available for the EO case.
Now , about the approach climb performance:
All app plates consider as standard 2,1% for ILS CAT1 and 2.5% for ILS CAT2 and 3.
If , to avoid obstacles , they need you figures above the standard ones , they will state that.
Your operator , has to provide you with one table with the necessary adjustements in case you can not comply with that climb gradient SE.
The same table we have in the FCOM 3.05.35 (airbus) , but including higher climb gradients (in the FCOM`s we only have to 2.1% and 2.5%).I flew in one company which had this table available for some airports with a more demanding approach climb performance.
Some fellows referred the low temperatures. When corrections to the DA have to be made due to low temps, actually we are adjusting your DA to keep the same height at Mapt. So in case of go-around you´ll be complying with very same "vertical profile".
My 2 cents.
A-3TWENTY
When a SID is designed , if no info concerning climb gradient, 3,3% is to be considered. If more climb gradient is required it will published in the plate. The regulators basically , are telling you "to avoid obstacles , you have to comply with it" .EO considerations are left to you.
Suposing that your SID has a climb gradient you can not comply with , your operator must have an EOSID available for the EO case.
Now , about the approach climb performance:
All app plates consider as standard 2,1% for ILS CAT1 and 2.5% for ILS CAT2 and 3.
If , to avoid obstacles , they need you figures above the standard ones , they will state that.
Your operator , has to provide you with one table with the necessary adjustements in case you can not comply with that climb gradient SE.
The same table we have in the FCOM 3.05.35 (airbus) , but including higher climb gradients (in the FCOM`s we only have to 2.1% and 2.5%).I flew in one company which had this table available for some airports with a more demanding approach climb performance.
Some fellows referred the low temperatures. When corrections to the DA have to be made due to low temps, actually we are adjusting your DA to keep the same height at Mapt. So in case of go-around you´ll be complying with very same "vertical profile".
My 2 cents.
A-3TWENTY
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suposing that your SID has a climb gradient you can not comply with , your operator must have an EOSID available for the EO case.
SID's do not take into account low, close-in obstacles in the Initial Climb Area. Those obstacles may be a threat to a WAT-limited airplane with one engine inop.
The case of low, close-in obstacles is one of the reasons that paragraph 7 of AC 120-91 states:
...Further, compliance with TERPS all-engines-operating climb gradient requirements does not necessarily assure that one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements are met.
Procedure designers also have options to publish ceiling and visibility minimums for the purpose of avoiding obstacles within 3 miles of the departure end of the runway.
However, the operating rules (14 CFR 121.189 and equivalent) make no exceptions for weather conditions.
Thus, reliance on a SID or published (all engines) Obstacle Departure Procedure may not adequately protect for the loss of an engine during takeoff.
`
Last edited by Zeffy; 10th Apr 2011 at 12:37. Reason: added "not always" in first paragraph
The irony of it all. Micrometer management of the takeoff situation, with no "requirement" at all to ensure terrain clearance in a Missed Approach apart from the WAT limit. 
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs:
1. The certification process dwells extensively on the balanced runway and the takeoff flight path.
2. Every flight has a takeoff. And, often above max landing weight; perhaps well above.
3. Missed approaches occur on a small percentage of flights. If an engine becomes inoperative during the flight, often the IAP with a missed approach performance problem can be avoided.
4. There is no "takeoff" flight path defined in certification for the missed approach flight path.
Related to both the takeoff flight path and the missed approach flight path is the lack of clear, concise guidance on how to get from the end of the takeoff flight path safely into the en route structure, especially in mountainous areas.
The irony of it all. Micrometer management of the takeoff situation, with no "requirement" at all to ensure terrain clearance in a Missed Approach apart from the WAT limit.
2. Every flight has a takeoff. And, often above max landing weight; perhaps well above.
3. Missed approaches occur on a small percentage of flights. If an engine becomes inoperative during the flight, often the IAP with a missed approach performance problem can be avoided.
4. There is no "takeoff" flight path defined in certification for the missed approach flight path.
Related to both the takeoff flight path and the missed approach flight path is the lack of clear, concise guidance on how to get from the end of the takeoff flight path safely into the en route structure, especially in mountainous areas.
Originally Posted by Zeffy
Procedure designers also have options to publish ceiling and visibility minimums for the purpose of avoiding obstacles within 3 miles of the departure end of the runway.
Aterpster, thanks to this thread, I have a better understanding of what the rules are; I was just pointing out what I consider to be the irony of the Takeoff verses the Missed Approach.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs:
First and foremost: the designers are not charged with designing a departure procedure to provide for an engine failure. That is solely the operator's responsibility.
Now, do designers provide a visibility requirement for close-in obstacles that they honest believe will aid in the avoidance of the obstacle? No, they are usually not pilots, and even the few that are have no heavy, or significant line experience. The flight inspection pilots are suppose to be the "check valve" but they are often checking off the numbers on a nice clear day.
Plus, takeoff minimums have a larger political component (and less science) than do landing minimums.
Do the designers honestly believe that increasing the vis requirement to 1nm (less than the length of a runway) is going to enable a satisfactory visual terrain avoidance manoeuvre after takeoff? In less than 30 seconds, you have to visually identify the obstacle, work out whether or not you are going to hit it, and then manoeuvre laterally to avoid it, all with an engine out?
Now, do designers provide a visibility requirement for close-in obstacles that they honest believe will aid in the avoidance of the obstacle? No, they are usually not pilots, and even the few that are have no heavy, or significant line experience. The flight inspection pilots are suppose to be the "check valve" but they are often checking off the numbers on a nice clear day.
Plus, takeoff minimums have a larger political component (and less science) than do landing minimums.
Moderator
a satisfactory visual terrain avoidance manoeuvre after takeoff?
My thoughts might be heresy for some of the more skilful folk.
However, my contention is that visual tracking for terrain clearance OEI in a heavy is arrant nonsense. Even in a light twin it's more than a bit tenuous, especially SP.
With the typical deck angles, it just isn't feasible to wing it on the fly.
Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.
Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.
My thoughts might be heresy for some of the more skilful folk.
However, my contention is that visual tracking for terrain clearance OEI in a heavy is arrant nonsense. Even in a light twin it's more than a bit tenuous, especially SP.
With the typical deck angles, it just isn't feasible to wing it on the fly.
Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.
Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thus, reliance on a SID or published (all engines) Obstacle Departure Procedure may not adequately protect for the loss of an engine during takeoff.
Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.
Plus, takeoff minimums have a larger political component (and less science) than do landing minimums.
The flight inspection pilots are suppose to be the "check valve" but they are often checking off the numbers on a nice clear day.
Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.
Thread Comments:
This has been a great discussion from an ops and design perspective. Many times, when training pilots on procedures, there are very few questions.
Discussions like this really help in the training outlines, to explain the nuances of procedures, procedure design, differences, and with the coded procedures, especially EO, why it is important to use them.
I am going to add an entire section on performance engineering, especially EO, so that the operators can see the BCOP, etc data input/ouput, and the parameters that a procedure engineer uses when generating the profiles.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
j.t.:
Spot on. If a pilot is "winging it" in day VFR conditions, he might just pick the spot where impact will happen a bit later rather than sooner.
My thoughts might be heresy for some of the more skilful folk.
However, my contention is that visual tracking for terrain clearance OEI in a heavy is arrant nonsense. Even in a light twin it's more than a bit tenuous, especially SP.
With the typical deck angles, it just isn't feasible to wing it on the fly.
Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.
Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.
However, my contention is that visual tracking for terrain clearance OEI in a heavy is arrant nonsense. Even in a light twin it's more than a bit tenuous, especially SP.
With the typical deck angles, it just isn't feasible to wing it on the fly.
Furthermore, the climb angles are so shallow (typically) that the human brain has great difficulty figuring whether or not the aircraft is really going up, flying level, or going down .. other than by rigorous attention to the IF scan.
Hence my boring and repetitive comments that the takeoff and miss, OEI, have to be preplanned with detailed attention to intended tracking and obstacle clearance.
Originally Posted by FlightPathOBN
This is why I am really harping on the engine out procedures. A coded engine out assures the crew that the procedure will have the obstacle clearances, turns, and destination already figured out, leaving the crew to aviate, not navigate.
