Missed Approach Climb Gradient question?
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 0
From: engineer at large
Here is an online doc that uses BCOP to analyze the performance climbs for Westjet. http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf...Operations.pdf
This climb out perf is all engine. Note how many variants, depending on temperature and altitude, have a climb rate below 2% All engine.
When you look at BCOP and the performance, hot places like Australia, many variants have EO climb gradients on the order of 1%. This offer no protection from the terrain and obstacle assessments, thus a custom terrain/obstacle clearance is needed, or the weights will be severely restricted.
Again, nothing in the criteria, including the procedures, addresses Engine out.
thats rather humorous, you telling Terpster he needs to understand how aircraft are certified.
This climb out perf is all engine. Note how many variants, depending on temperature and altitude, have a climb rate below 2% All engine.
When you look at BCOP and the performance, hot places like Australia, many variants have EO climb gradients on the order of 1%. This offer no protection from the terrain and obstacle assessments, thus a custom terrain/obstacle clearance is needed, or the weights will be severely restricted.
You've dug yourselves into a hole if you want the world to believe that you can fly jets without having single engine performance that meets the departure and MAP profile.
thats rather humorous, you telling Terpster he needs to understand how aircraft are certified.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 22nd July 2011 at 18:50.
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,407
Likes: 0
From: engineer at large
if you can't determine you single engine performance as it relates to the departure or MAP that you have to fly
You've dug yourselves into a hole if you want the world to believe that you can fly jets without having single engine performance that meets the departure and MAP profile.
incompetent...no doubt you are very familiar with this term.
Does your grandmother know you are using her computer?
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,983
Likes: 567
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Agreed the Ficklefinger then, one question, how do you determine OEI flight path clearance for "close-in" obstacles? Those in the ICA or what used to be termed Zone 1.
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
FAA AC120-91 is required reading for anyone who actually wants to understand this issue:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...E/AC120-91.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...E/AC120-91.pdf
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
theficklefinger:
Repeating my previous post:
So, since you presumably read it, you either understand it and your questions are answered, or you don't understand it and nothing anyone can say on this forum will make a difference in that regard.
End of discussion.
Aterp - I read it...your point?
FAA AC120-91 is required reading for anyone who actually wants to understand this issue.
End of discussion.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Likes: 1
From: A tropical island.
Fickle, if you are a pilot (which I highly doubt) I would be surprised if you are able to stay employed anywhere with the attitude that you have. Aterpster is right, but that is beside the point now, you don't belong in any sort of aviation, including simulated.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Where it's Too Cold
You guys are idiots...no offense, but if you can't figure single engine performance...forget being a pilot, you shouldn't be on a technical aviation forum.
I suspect that we can survive without this poster's erudition - JT
I suspect that we can survive without this poster's erudition - JT
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi ficklefing,
- but I do take offence at that remark.
er...... I must have missed something, how many engines did you start with?
You guys are idiots...no offense
but if you can't figure single engine performance...
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 954
Likes: 5
From: USA
I suspect that we can survive without this poster's erudition - JT
I suspect JT is correct.
But I appreciated the opportunity presented to review AC 120-91 again aterpster.
This is probably the single most misunderstood and misapplied operational requirement I've encountered in my experience as a part 135 pilot. The very few pilots who do seem to grasp the concept are grossly outnumbered!
Anyway, it's been a treat!
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
westhawk:
If nothing else AC 120-91 sends a strong message that Part 121 and 135 operators that operate Part 25 birds really do need the expert assistance of performance engineers.
But I appreciated the opportunity presented to review AC 120-91 again aterpster. 
This is probably the single most misunderstood and misapplied operational requirement I've encountered in my experience as a part 135 pilot. The very few pilots who do seem to grasp the concept are grossly outnumbered!
Anyway, it's been a treat!
This is probably the single most misunderstood and misapplied operational requirement I've encountered in my experience as a part 135 pilot. The very few pilots who do seem to grasp the concept are grossly outnumbered!
Anyway, it's been a treat!
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,442
Likes: 307
From: various places .....
For routine performance work, the work is relatively straighforward and the ops engineer doesn't need a great deal of anything other than
(a) a good understanding of what he/she is endeavouring to achieve
(b) good housekeeping and general attention to detail.
What is a problem is the (generally) pilot who views the work as being a lot more simplistic than it is. Perhaps this sort of view develops as a consequence of using the typically very simply presented RTOW tables in routine line operations ?
(a) a good understanding of what he/she is endeavouring to achieve
(b) good housekeeping and general attention to detail.
What is a problem is the (generally) pilot who views the work as being a lot more simplistic than it is. Perhaps this sort of view develops as a consequence of using the typically very simply presented RTOW tables in routine line operations ?