Completion of std flight segments in oei scenario

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Dear all,

Just after some thoughts and ideas on the above?

From your experience, company procedures and regulations I wonder what the consensus is on the following:

Assuming you are an operator that utilise EOSID, Emergency Turn, Engine Failure Procedures etc.....

Within the construction of your procedures and your understanding of regulations and how to fly the damm aircraft is it ALWAYS required to complete the 3rd and 4th segment when experiencing engine failure / designing a tailored procedure.

I would have thought that the main criteria in engine failure scenario is to climb and follow a path where obstacles and terrain can be cleared within OEI performance to find a suitable holding pattern where altitude can be gained if needed and allows you time to consider your options for landing back at the original aerodrome/diversion airfield. This may occur at various points in the progression of the take-off process and due to the local airfield, obstacle, terrain constraints but also at which point after V1 you suffer the engine failure.
I would not have thought completing the 4 segments would be required or even desirable in some scenarios, but can't find anything to suggest one way or the other.

Obviously each aerodrome offers it own challenges, so no one answer fits (unless regs dictate) but a simple airport with benign terrain/obstacles climbing to min accl altitude and finding a suitable hold over a navaid may well suffice and allow you to climb and evaluate. Others may require you to follow a quite specific course and turns at specified speeds and therefore you may well be into 3rd segment and then become ltd by TOGA for 5-10mins and into the 4th.........

On another note, does anyone know regulation concerning a max 200KIAS for following a procedure turn?> I can find many references to but no regulation. I can see the reason / rationale as adding a speed restriction to such helps to ensure you stay within the area considered for terrain clearance, but is there any regulation and if so does it apply to procedure turn only in the context of Instrument Approach / MAP?

Appreciate any input, ideas, experience. Keep them polite though

ORJ

[aterpster]

Ops Room Junkie:

If you don't at least complete the flight path profile to 15 hundred feet the aircraft may not perform as you want it to, even if you are returning to land. Beyond that general statement, there are simply too many variables as to what should be done at Airport A with Aircraft B.

On another note, does anyone know regulation concerning a max 200KIAS for following a procedure turn?> I can find many references to but no regulation. I can see the reason / rationale as adding a speed restriction to such helps to ensure you stay within the area considered for terrain clearance, but is there any regulation and if so does it apply to procedure turn only in the context of Instrument Approach / MAP?

Where would you do a procedure turn in a MAP?

As to approaches in areas under FAA jursidication, and I quote:

FAA Aeronautical Information Manual:

5-4-9-3. When the approach procedure involves a procedure turn, a maximum speed of not greater than 200 knots (IAS) should be observed from first overheading the course reversal IAF through the procedure turn maneuver to ensure containment within the obstruction clearance area. Pilots should begin the outbound turn immediately after passing the procedure turn fix. The procedure turn maneuver must be executed within the distance specified in the profile view. The normal procedure turn distance is 10 miles. This may be reduced to a minimum of 5 miles where only Category A or helicopter aircraft are to be operated or increased to as much as 15 miles to accommodate high performance aircraft.

[FlightPathOBN]

Your post has many vastly different questions...

Speed restrictions could relate to maintaining a max 18 degree bank limit on a specific turn radius, ie if you see a speed restriction on a specific turn such as 170kts, the radius design assumes an 18 degree bank limit with tailwinds.

Within the construction of your procedures and your understanding of regulations and how to fly the damm aircraft is it ALWAYS required to complete the 3rd and 4th segment when experiencing engine failure / designing a tailored procedure.

The second segment is the critical segment EO.
Are you combining EO and a tailored procedure? There are many different ways to look at this.

You cannot find EO in any design criteria because it does not exist.

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Many thanks for your comments, much appreciated and interesting

[Old Smokey]

Hey Ops_Room_Junkie,

I think that you've started a thread here with a lot of potential, I'm amazed that there have been so few responses.

Although a bit short on responses, can you please keep the thread open? Someone I know (me) has a strong interest in making a comprehensive response when my work load reduces to Maximum Continuous!

Keep it open, please...........

Regards,

Old Smokey

[A37575]

Appreciate any input, ideas, experience. Keep them polite though

I am not sure if this is what you are talking about but I'll blunder on.

Assuming the take off weight at the time is based upon an individual runway analyses chart. If there are no significant obstacles such as taking off towards water, the runway analyses will probably assume a company standard third segment acceleration height. The minimum is normally 400 feet and can vary depending on many variables including the chief pilot's personal opinion.

On the other hand, if obstacles encroach the straight out or curved flight path the pilot has no choice but to rely implicitly on the performance engineer's calculations. Keep in mind at night or in IMC, obstacles may not been seen; especially with high body angles involved. Once the pilot deviates from the published runway analyses tracking or turning information, he could be be in unknown territory and becomes entirely responsible for his own obstacle clearance. At night or in IMC this could prove foolhardy indeed.

I have seen runway analyses charts that give only a minimum flap retraction (acceleration segment) height and leave the rest to the pilot to decide where to go once the flaps are up. The pilot thus assumes there are no obstacles to concern him and all he has to do is climb to above the MSA and decide where to go from there. Good airmanship would dictate he has a nearby published holding pattern in mind to allow breathing space for decision making at a known safe height.

I well recall one European operator had a special procedure involving a Greek island airport that required a curved track through 90 degrees towards the sea if an engine failed on take off. The flap retract height was published as a standard 800 ft. Once the curved procedure was completed the pilot was on his own. The only problem was the presence of an island 2000 ft high barely seven miles ahead dead on the final track after the 90 degree curved turn.

This island was not accounted for by the company performance engineers and the aircraft would have hit the hill during the third segment. The reason given for not including the island terrain, was that the the foreign State who originally supplied the obstacle charts to the company did not survey beyond 10,000 metres. In other words the pilot was very much on his own once the aircraft was beyond 10,000 metres from take off. This bordered on criminal neglect.

The ideal runway analyses chart would publish safe flight path information until the aircraft reached a safe altitude from which it could conduct an instrument approach to return to the departure airport. This may have to include tracking to various fixes all of which would have been surveyed as part of the OEI flight path. Of course once the pilot has reached the published safe altitude the next course of action is up to him.

In most cases, I understand the runway analyses chart design is based upon the worst case of engine failure at V1 and continue in IMC. If VMC is encountered, then it becomes entirely the responsibility of the captain to stay with the runway analyses published track and any restrictions - or - deviate from the published information and go it alone taking personal responsibility for terrain clearance.
All the above is a bit generalised but I hope it covers some of your questions.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by a37

The ideal runway analyses chart would publish safe flight path information until the aircraft reached a safe altitude from which it could conduct an instrument approach to return to the departure airport or continue en-route. This may have to include tracking to various fixes all of which would have been surveyed as part of the OEI flight path. Of course once the pilot has reached the published safe altitude the next course of action is up to him.

- just to amplify (my bold), somewhere, buried in EUOPS this is a 'requirement' for airfield performance but is ignored by many operators. My last always 'left' crews at 1500.(clean) - with no info on what to do next or what lay ahead in which direction.

[FlightPathOBN]

Consider obstacle clearance evaluation areas when looking at missed approach and departures, this is all there is (includes terrain and man made obstacles)...

you have no guarantees outside of this area..

Obstacle Survey



the 50,000' is for runways with ILS approach to the runway, otherwise 14,000' 'cone' from runway end is for everything else, including departures...

[Ops_Room_Junkie]

Chaps,

thanks to all for your time to make responses, all very thought provoking and interesting. Always good to get a balance between differing company procedures, the regualtions and good old fashioned airmanship.

Cheers,
ORJ