Missed Approach Climb Gradient question?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This plate is a basket case....
The * on MDA notes that you must climb to 11000, if able...that altitude makes sense with the controlling obstacle listed, and the mountainous ROC.
climb to 13000 direct KUPLE...this is about a 500' DA...so one goes from 4580 to 13000 for the missed? Where the heck does that come from?
3.68 GPA???? CAT C...wow...VGSI and GPA not coincident...no ****...
one has to love the FAA exempting themselves from the criteria...
The * on MDA notes that you must climb to 11000, if able...that altitude makes sense with the controlling obstacle listed, and the mountainous ROC.
climb to 13000 direct KUPLE...this is about a 500' DA...so one goes from 4580 to 13000 for the missed? Where the heck does that come from?
3.68 GPA???? CAT C...wow...VGSI and GPA not coincident...no ****...
one has to love the FAA exempting themselves from the criteria...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN:
It's a good procedure that provides access to high-performance birds that previously has not been available. It is an LNAV only procedure, thus the desent angle; this is normal TERPs. A vertically guided procedure would not qualify because of GQS problems. Otherwise, this runway would have had an RNP AR IAP.
The minimum holding altitude in that valley is 13,000 feet, thus the climb to 13,000. If there were no hold the missed approach would still have to go to 12,500 to 13,000.
Did you check the "Y" procedure for the average performing aircraft?
Obviously, this procedure is impractical for other than turbine airplane.
This plate is a basket case....
The * on MDA notes that you must climb to 11000, if able...that altitude makes sense with the controlling obstacle listed, and the mountainous ROC.
climb to 13000 direct KUPLE...this is about a 500' DA...so one goes from 4580 to 13000 for the missed? Where the heck does that come from?
3.68 GPA???? CAT C...wow...VGSI and GPA not coincident...no ****...
one has to love the FAA exempting themselves from the criteria...
The * on MDA notes that you must climb to 11000, if able...that altitude makes sense with the controlling obstacle listed, and the mountainous ROC.
climb to 13000 direct KUPLE...this is about a 500' DA...so one goes from 4580 to 13000 for the missed? Where the heck does that come from?
3.68 GPA???? CAT C...wow...VGSI and GPA not coincident...no ****...
one has to love the FAA exempting themselves from the criteria...
The minimum holding altitude in that valley is 13,000 feet, thus the climb to 13,000. If there were no hold the missed approach would still have to go to 12,500 to 13,000.
Did you check the "Y" procedure for the average performing aircraft?
Obviously, this procedure is impractical for other than turbine airplane.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
j.t.,
We maintain that configuration until the missed approach altitude is reached where we level off and clean up to hold or enroute speeds
That gets us out of the configuration change/gradient problem. However, given that thrust for GA generally is the same as/similar to TO, do we give any concern to time limits at GA thrust ?
Also if a turn is required we must allow for 0.9%.
Good (although a tad higher than I might have expected) but how do we account for turn radius/terrain ?
All factors in why more than one OEI route is required for a complex location, as recommened in AC 90-121.
Using the Bishop RNAV RWY 12 "Z" IAP as the case study:
1. If the engine fails at MDA the OEI path should depart the missed approach path at ROCOS and proceed down the valley on a preplanned database RNAV OEI route. Clean up would be complete at 1,500 feet with acceleration to enroute climb and a left turn out of the valley perhaps many miles later when terrain on the east side of the valley could be safety overflown.
2. If the engine failure doesn't occur until PULIE and if we are adhering to the normal ops climb gradient we are long since cleaned up, at almost 11,000 and probably 250 KIAS. So, another evaluation needs to be preplanned at that point as to whether to continue to 13,000 along the missed approach path, or depart into the adjacent valley to the east passing TEVOC.
This can be so easily accomplished with today's state-of-the-art FMS flight plan options. It has indeed been tailored into some air carriers FMS/navigation systems by the likes of Naverus.
Alas, the industry in general is way, way, behind in taking full advantage of the capabilities of their FMS/navigation system.
Sensing an engine failure, the system could offer the crew the OEI RNAV flight path options, depended upon ship's position. The required vertical profile could also be displayed at that time.
and we suffer an engine failure then we raise the acceleration altitude to MSA
We maintain that configuration until the missed approach altitude is reached where we level off and clean up to hold or enroute speeds
That gets us out of the configuration change/gradient problem. However, given that thrust for GA generally is the same as/similar to TO, do we give any concern to time limits at GA thrust ?
Also if a turn is required we must allow for 0.9%.
Good (although a tad higher than I might have expected) but how do we account for turn radius/terrain ?
Using the Bishop RNAV RWY 12 "Z" IAP as the case study:
1. If the engine fails at MDA the OEI path should depart the missed approach path at ROCOS and proceed down the valley on a preplanned database RNAV OEI route. Clean up would be complete at 1,500 feet with acceleration to enroute climb and a left turn out of the valley perhaps many miles later when terrain on the east side of the valley could be safety overflown.
2. If the engine failure doesn't occur until PULIE and if we are adhering to the normal ops climb gradient we are long since cleaned up, at almost 11,000 and probably 250 KIAS. So, another evaluation needs to be preplanned at that point as to whether to continue to 13,000 along the missed approach path, or depart into the adjacent valley to the east passing TEVOC.
This can be so easily accomplished with today's state-of-the-art FMS flight plan options. It has indeed been tailored into some air carriers FMS/navigation systems by the likes of Naverus.
Alas, the industry in general is way, way, behind in taking full advantage of the capabilities of their FMS/navigation system.
Sensing an engine failure, the system could offer the crew the OEI RNAV flight path options, depended upon ship's position. The required vertical profile could also be displayed at that time.
Last edited by aterpster; 29th Jul 2011 at 22:59. Reason: added word "one"
Join Date: May 2008
Location: dubai
Age: 52
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sorry, but I really think that banning FF was not justified at all. I read these posts, and i know that he must be very experienced and has alot to offer to this discussion. He is the reason the thread evolved to this depth. I like to keep an open mind at all times. I dont think he insulted anyone. Some peoples ego might be so high that they refuse any suggestion that they may be wrong. So you ban him because he is politically incorrect with not much finesse. I can tell that he has alot of common sense and very experienced and is quite intelligent... and you decide to ban him...
My thoughts, you have Approach Climbs requirements (1 engine inop.), you have Landing Climb requirements (all engines), both based on airport altitude. You have Missed Approach requirements which are published on the chart and based on DA or MDA. The chart might specify a gradient, and this gradient must be satisfied. My understanding is that what FF was saying is that this gradient must be MET point. If you cannot meet it because you are performing an overweight landing, or if your engine is out, or your gear is stuck down, you must find an alternate path which operations will work out for you, this alternate path might be the same as the T/O engine inop path. This is what I think FF is saying. You seemed to be all ganging up on him to tell him read this and read that, as if he is illiterate. You insulted him as much as he insulted others. BTW, please dont ban me, i meant no harm...
My thoughts, you have Approach Climbs requirements (1 engine inop.), you have Landing Climb requirements (all engines), both based on airport altitude. You have Missed Approach requirements which are published on the chart and based on DA or MDA. The chart might specify a gradient, and this gradient must be satisfied. My understanding is that what FF was saying is that this gradient must be MET point. If you cannot meet it because you are performing an overweight landing, or if your engine is out, or your gear is stuck down, you must find an alternate path which operations will work out for you, this alternate path might be the same as the T/O engine inop path. This is what I think FF is saying. You seemed to be all ganging up on him to tell him read this and read that, as if he is illiterate. You insulted him as much as he insulted others. BTW, please dont ban me, i meant no harm...
Moderator
I really think that banning FF was not justified at all.
Your opinion is respected.
Some peoples ego might be so high that they refuse any suggestion that they may be wrong.
Not at all a problem if a poster wishes to indicate that he/she considers someone else's comments to be incorrect. If it were not for incorrect opinions sites such as PPRuNe would lose their way, I suspect.
The problem is the manner of so indicating.
BTW, please dont ban me
We don't ban folks for holding opinions.
Your opinion is respected.
Some peoples ego might be so high that they refuse any suggestion that they may be wrong.
Not at all a problem if a poster wishes to indicate that he/she considers someone else's comments to be incorrect. If it were not for incorrect opinions sites such as PPRuNe would lose their way, I suspect.
The problem is the manner of so indicating.
BTW, please dont ban me
We don't ban folks for holding opinions.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: dubai
Age: 52
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your reply JT.
Some gradient requirements have to do with OBSTACLE clearance, some dont. For example Landing Climb or Approach Climb gradients dont consider obstacles. They are just gradients that must be satisfied.
However, SIDS coinsider Obstacles with a 3.3% gradient. If you cannot meet this 3.3% for ANY reasons whatsoever, you need an alternate path (the companies engine out procedure) otherwise you might fly into an obstacle.
Similarly, the Missed Approach also considers OBSTACLES in the path. If you cannot meet this gradient for ANY reasons whatsoever, you might fly into an obstacle. So whether it considers engine out or not is irrelevant. I dont understand the question. If you follow the missed approach but cannot meet the gradient for obstacle clearance you might fly into something. So yes, if you have to limit your landing weight, but most probably you would simply raise your landing minimums or follow your companies engine out procedure for that runway.
Some gradient requirements have to do with OBSTACLE clearance, some dont. For example Landing Climb or Approach Climb gradients dont consider obstacles. They are just gradients that must be satisfied.
However, SIDS coinsider Obstacles with a 3.3% gradient. If you cannot meet this 3.3% for ANY reasons whatsoever, you need an alternate path (the companies engine out procedure) otherwise you might fly into an obstacle.
Similarly, the Missed Approach also considers OBSTACLES in the path. If you cannot meet this gradient for ANY reasons whatsoever, you might fly into an obstacle. So whether it considers engine out or not is irrelevant. I dont understand the question. If you follow the missed approach but cannot meet the gradient for obstacle clearance you might fly into something. So yes, if you have to limit your landing weight, but most probably you would simply raise your landing minimums or follow your companies engine out procedure for that runway.
Last edited by stormyweathers; 7th Aug 2011 at 12:52.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it were not for incorrect opinions sites such as PPRuNe would lose their way, I suspect.
Moderator
So are you actually admitting that there are correct and/or incorrect opinions ... or ... you are more interested in outcomes?
Not quite sure where you are leading.
However, all of the above. Correct/incorrect refers to factual basis for an opinion, in which case some are correct, others incorrect.
If an opinion is a value judgement, rather than a point of fact, then correct/incorrect is not the consideration, rather reasonableness and, to a large extent, that involves peer review.
.. and we should all have a directed interest in outcomes as those are what gets us to the other aerodrome in one piece or find us scattered about the hillside.
Not quite sure where you are leading.
However, all of the above. Correct/incorrect refers to factual basis for an opinion, in which case some are correct, others incorrect.
If an opinion is a value judgement, rather than a point of fact, then correct/incorrect is not the consideration, rather reasonableness and, to a large extent, that involves peer review.
.. and we should all have a directed interest in outcomes as those are what gets us to the other aerodrome in one piece or find us scattered about the hillside.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure where you are leading.
reasonableness and, to a large extent, that involves peer review
.. and we should all have a directed interest in outcomes as those are what gets us to the other aerodrome in one piece or find us scattered about the hillside.
