Missed Approach Climb Gradient question?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than being a little rude I can't see where ff has gone wrong. All he is saying is that a pilot should ensure that the A/C meets or beats the one engine out performance requirements for a departure or an arrival with a missed approach.
As to how all these requirements are developed, I don't think that was his argument.
The way i read the circular it seems that One engine out performance is considered in the missed approach.
As to how all these requirements are developed, I don't think that was his argument.
The way i read the circular it seems that One engine out performance is considered in the missed approach.
Moderator
theficklefinger's technical concerns and inferred questions were fine.
However,
(a) his comments were suggestive of a lack of detail knowledge as to how things can be done and a lack of interest in pursuing technical discussion on the same
(b) there comes a time when gratuitous insults thrown in the face of folks who are endeavouring to help out gets to the point of being a tad over the top
(c) there are other forums where such combatant behaviour is more welcome than here
However,
(a) his comments were suggestive of a lack of detail knowledge as to how things can be done and a lack of interest in pursuing technical discussion on the same
(b) there comes a time when gratuitous insults thrown in the face of folks who are endeavouring to help out gets to the point of being a tad over the top
(c) there are other forums where such combatant behaviour is more welcome than here
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough.
I got the impression that some posters were suggesting that one engine out performance was not considered when developing missed approach procedures. The way I read the posted circular suggests that it is.
Show me the error of my ways.
Thanks.
I got the impression that some posters were suggesting that one engine out performance was not considered when developing missed approach procedures. The way I read the posted circular suggests that it is.
Show me the error of my ways.
Thanks.
Moderator
I got the impression that some posters were suggesting that one engine out performance was not considered when developing missed approach procedures
I think that's precisely what some posters were suggesting. FlightPathOBN, aterpster, and others, such as OzExpat (who hasn't spotted this thread yet) are expert in the procedures discipline and I defer to their expertise.
The OEI case is left to the airline operator and, for other operations, (quite inappropriately) the poor old pilot who has next to no real chance of figuring it out on the run.
OPS 1.510 goes some of the way to a sensible protocol but is still rather lacking, especially for the twin fraternity.
Checking the OEI gradient capability (for which configuration ?) is false comfort and doesn't consider performance capability with respect to reconfiguration during the miss.
Attempting to use the takeoff escape procedure for a miss carries with it a number of uncomfortable problems, potential and real.
For a difficult terrain runway, the only sensible way to approach the OEI problem is to have the ops eng folks do a relevant study for the miss. Any suggestion that the pilot can wing it on the day works only for benign terrain situations.
theficklefinger, having ventured into subject material in which his/her knowledge appears to be a little lacking in detail then received a bit of a friendly bollocking from the residents - goes with the territory in technical discussions and is something one needs to be able to withstand.
The post grad student has a far more intense time of it when defending his/her thesis.
I think that's precisely what some posters were suggesting. FlightPathOBN, aterpster, and others, such as OzExpat (who hasn't spotted this thread yet) are expert in the procedures discipline and I defer to their expertise.
The OEI case is left to the airline operator and, for other operations, (quite inappropriately) the poor old pilot who has next to no real chance of figuring it out on the run.
OPS 1.510 goes some of the way to a sensible protocol but is still rather lacking, especially for the twin fraternity.
Checking the OEI gradient capability (for which configuration ?) is false comfort and doesn't consider performance capability with respect to reconfiguration during the miss.
Attempting to use the takeoff escape procedure for a miss carries with it a number of uncomfortable problems, potential and real.
For a difficult terrain runway, the only sensible way to approach the OEI problem is to have the ops eng folks do a relevant study for the miss. Any suggestion that the pilot can wing it on the day works only for benign terrain situations.
theficklefinger, having ventured into subject material in which his/her knowledge appears to be a little lacking in detail then received a bit of a friendly bollocking from the residents - goes with the territory in technical discussions and is something one needs to be able to withstand.
The post grad student has a far more intense time of it when defending his/her thesis.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere
Age: 42
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry JT...
It comes down to this...your either planning/recognizing for single engine performance to exceed any all obstacle and navigational aspects of your flight...or your not.
It's immaterial whether you can figure it out, or whether it's required, or whether your told to do it.
Simply put, if you can't meet Part 25 specs to fly around on one engine at any phase of flight, then you shouldn't be there.
It comes down to this...your either planning/recognizing for single engine performance to exceed any all obstacle and navigational aspects of your flight...or your not.
It's immaterial whether you can figure it out, or whether it's required, or whether your told to do it.
Simply put, if you can't meet Part 25 specs to fly around on one engine at any phase of flight, then you shouldn't be there.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC No: 120-91
(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.
NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.
Gents. This tells me that OEI climb gradients are considered.
Also one can refer to FCOM 3.05.35 Approach Climb Gradient (%) to determine any odd %, other than the standard 2.5%.
17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.
a. General.
(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
a. General.
(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.
NOTE: Operators should incorporate procedures for converting required climb gradients to required climb rates in pilot and dispatcher airplane performance sections of their approved training programs.
Gents. This tells me that OEI climb gradients are considered.
Also one can refer to FCOM 3.05.35 Approach Climb Gradient (%) to determine any odd %, other than the standard 2.5%.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply put, if you can't meet Part 25 specs to fly around on one engine at any phase of flight, then you shouldn't be there.
Prior to the AC, there was no FAA guidance telling airlines to do anything apart from clear all obstacles in the takeoff flight path. For Missed Approach procedures there was even less information.
I find it disappointing that the FAA have only issued an Advisory Circular, as they are there for information, you don't have to adhere to them. I would much prefer to see the word "MUST" used rather than "SHOULD". (Its the same with AC-91-6A regarding contaminated runways!)
Airbus757, even before the AC, we were reducing landing weights to comply with Missed Approach Climb Gradients in certain airports, even though this had a significant commercial impact on the operation.
Moderator
Good development of the discussion in my view.
[First, for those who may not be aware, Mutt is (was ?) an ops engineering specialist (in his previous life and looked after this sort of stuff for a fairly large operation).]
Second, the problem which is being missed a little is that there are two supposedly complementary (but, often, in opposition) things in play -
(a) Design Standards - eg FAR 25
(b) Operational Standards - eg FAR 121, 135
The Design Standard gives you an aeroplane which is certificated to be compliant with a bunch of requirements and capabilities specified in the Standard. In general, however, it doesn't address much about what, when, where and how the operator might or should go about doing operational things.
The Operational Standard addresses what the Operator is required to do as a minimum.
For performance, one generally uses the data output from (a) via the AFM to figure out how to meet the requirements of (b). It helps if (a) and (b) are compatible and, while this usually is the case, one often sees the odd case of the left and right hands not knowing what the other is doing.
your either planning/recognizing for single engine performance to exceed any all obstacle and navigational aspects of your flight...or your not.
Considering OEI one should certainly be doing. The relevant question is how do you go about doing that ? FAR 25 gives you some data but not much in the way of tools. FAR 121/135 spells out some requirements but doesn't give you much in the way of how to meet them. Enter ops engineering (or those pilots who have made it their task to get up to speed on the ways of doing performance work).
It's immaterial whether you can figure it out, or whether it's required, or whether your told to do it.
I'm not sure that I understand where you are going with this comment. Figuring it out is mechanistic, requirements are in the Regulations or follow from sensible governance considerations and "told" is a combination of airmanship and corporate/regulatory governance.
Simply put, if you can't meet Part 25 specs to fly around on one engine at any phase of flight, then you shouldn't be there.
Not quite the case but near enough for government business. However, FAR 25 only gives you some data - it doesn't bridge the gap between data and not bending the aeroplane.
do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis ... it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required
Now I'm only a dumb PE with a bit of airline flying experience - just how does one provide information on the safest way to perform such a manoeuvre without doing some analysis ? Sounds like black magic mumbo jumbo to this little black duck.
To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
I suspect that that goobledegook means "do some analyses" ?
Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance
they left out the bit which says "for minimum terrain requirements and AEO operations"
Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement
this might require a reduction in weight but still only is considering AEO
Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient
if nothing else this alerts everyone to the idea that we have some serious terrain here ..
A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required
often this will have little to do with the missed approach ?
There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff
the "why ?" is important but the inference still suggests the need for a closer looksee at things.
Gents. This tells me that OEI climb gradients are considered
ah, no, not at all. Main shoot down is how do you consider OEI for twins, three holers, and quads simultaneously without specifying a lot of information ?
Also one can refer to FCOM 3.05.35 Approach Climb Gradient (%) to determine any odd %, other than the standard 2.5%.
How do you intend to account for the progressive clean up from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration to the enroute configuration .. with varying gradient capabilities throughout ? Not to mention the hills here and there and the possible need for turns ?
[First, for those who may not be aware, Mutt is (was ?) an ops engineering specialist (in his previous life and looked after this sort of stuff for a fairly large operation).]
Second, the problem which is being missed a little is that there are two supposedly complementary (but, often, in opposition) things in play -
(a) Design Standards - eg FAR 25
(b) Operational Standards - eg FAR 121, 135
The Design Standard gives you an aeroplane which is certificated to be compliant with a bunch of requirements and capabilities specified in the Standard. In general, however, it doesn't address much about what, when, where and how the operator might or should go about doing operational things.
The Operational Standard addresses what the Operator is required to do as a minimum.
For performance, one generally uses the data output from (a) via the AFM to figure out how to meet the requirements of (b). It helps if (a) and (b) are compatible and, while this usually is the case, one often sees the odd case of the left and right hands not knowing what the other is doing.
your either planning/recognizing for single engine performance to exceed any all obstacle and navigational aspects of your flight...or your not.
Considering OEI one should certainly be doing. The relevant question is how do you go about doing that ? FAR 25 gives you some data but not much in the way of tools. FAR 121/135 spells out some requirements but doesn't give you much in the way of how to meet them. Enter ops engineering (or those pilots who have made it their task to get up to speed on the ways of doing performance work).
It's immaterial whether you can figure it out, or whether it's required, or whether your told to do it.
I'm not sure that I understand where you are going with this comment. Figuring it out is mechanistic, requirements are in the Regulations or follow from sensible governance considerations and "told" is a combination of airmanship and corporate/regulatory governance.
Simply put, if you can't meet Part 25 specs to fly around on one engine at any phase of flight, then you shouldn't be there.
Not quite the case but near enough for government business. However, FAR 25 only gives you some data - it doesn't bridge the gap between data and not bending the aeroplane.
do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis ... it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required
Now I'm only a dumb PE with a bit of airline flying experience - just how does one provide information on the safest way to perform such a manoeuvre without doing some analysis ? Sounds like black magic mumbo jumbo to this little black duck.
To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.
I suspect that that goobledegook means "do some analyses" ?
Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance
they left out the bit which says "for minimum terrain requirements and AEO operations"
Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement
this might require a reduction in weight but still only is considering AEO
Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient
if nothing else this alerts everyone to the idea that we have some serious terrain here ..
A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required
often this will have little to do with the missed approach ?
There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff
the "why ?" is important but the inference still suggests the need for a closer looksee at things.
Gents. This tells me that OEI climb gradients are considered
ah, no, not at all. Main shoot down is how do you consider OEI for twins, three holers, and quads simultaneously without specifying a lot of information ?
Also one can refer to FCOM 3.05.35 Approach Climb Gradient (%) to determine any odd %, other than the standard 2.5%.
How do you intend to account for the progressive clean up from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration to the enroute configuration .. with varying gradient capabilities throughout ? Not to mention the hills here and there and the possible need for turns ?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi JT,
In my company, if the published MAP climb gradient is >2.5%, we are required to calculate the "Approach Climb Gradient" (from the lap top) using Estimated Landing weight, Airfield conditions, Landing Config. If we can't make it - then we have to use the higher published minima.
If we can satisfy the required OEI climb gradient, and we suffer an engine failure then we raise the acceleration altitude to MSA or 1st published stop Altitude or level acceleration Alt (when published).
How do you intend to account for the progressive clean up from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration to the enroute configuration .. with varying gradient capabilities throughout ? Not to mention the hills here and there and the possible need for turns ?
If we can satisfy the required OEI climb gradient, and we suffer an engine failure then we raise the acceleration altitude to MSA or 1st published stop Altitude or level acceleration Alt (when published).
To add a bit to mutt's comments, FAR 25 deals only with certification while Tprocedures drawn using TERPS, PANS-OPS or any national standards differing from them (unusual, granted) are designed to achieve the lowest reasonable minimums and compatibility with the ATC structure. Many procedures, especially SIDs are drawn, not to optimize payloads or to minimize climb gradients, they are drawn to meet ATC needs. The procedure designer cannot anticipate the performance characteristics of each plane using the procedure, he assumes AEO operations. It is up to the operator to plan for the engine failure case, not the designer. Meeting FAR 25 OEI climb gradients is irrelevant to DP or MAP and to achieving optimum gross weights may not happen by using the published procedure and using the published procedure may not (likely not, in many cases) provide the greatest margins in the event of OEI.
It is, in many cases, erroneous to plan meeting the specified climb gradients means the operation is being done in the safest manner. Many think planning to fly the SID or MAP using OEI performance data is best, many would be wrong.
It is, in many cases, erroneous to plan meeting the specified climb gradients means the operation is being done in the safest manner. Many think planning to fly the SID or MAP using OEI performance data is best, many would be wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you intend to account for the progressive clean up from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration to the enroute configuration .. with varying gradient capabilities throughout ? Not to mention the hills here and there and the possible need for turns ?
As with most things there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. Other options are available if required gradients are not attainable.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mutt:
If AC 120-91 stated "must" or "shall" then instead of being an advisory circular, it would be a de facto amendment of F.A.R. 121.189 and related regulatory sections. The FAA cannot make rules via ACs. If they tried to do that, it would likely throw the entire issue into a "full press" rule-making process, including formal public hearings, etc. Simply put, there are marginal operators that do not wish to be bound by AC 120-91. Rather, they use a very sharp pencil to "comply" with the 600 foot wide 121.189 OEI path beyond the airport boundary.
Having said that, for benefit of the lurkers, a very good example of the missed approach case, and how it bears absolutely no relationship to FAR 121.189 is KBIH, Bishop, California. Bishop has a good RNP AR IAP to Runway 30, but Runway 12 would not qualify. So, two LNAV IAPs were developed to Runway 12, one with very low straight-in minimums for this airport and a climb-gradient missed approach, and the other with a missed approach that is 40:1 clear and, thus, with much higher minimums. These IAPs are strictly TERPs. The procedures folks who designed them know nothing about performance engineering, nor should they. They are making normal ops IAPs for every conceivable type of airplane, from a well-performing light airplane to an Airbus 320 or Boeing 767.
Low minimums with climb gradient:
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/05737RZ12.PDF
High minimums with 40:1 clear missed approach (assumes not less than 200 feet per mile CG):
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/05737RY12.PDF
As you can readily see the missed approach flight track for either of these IAPs, particulary the "Z" (low minimums) approach is very likely where the performance engineer would not want to send his airplane in the event of an engine failure at, or near, MDA. He might rather continue down the valley, where there are airspace and steeper terrain problems, nonetheless a fairly wide valley for 70 miles, or so.
What makes this airport and, in particular, Runway 12 very interesting is that IFR takeoff minimums are not authorized because of the close proximity of terrain to the D.E.R. (This issue is avoided with the IAPs by having the MAP prior to the runway threshold, plus even being at the lower MDA, you have a "running start" as opposed to an engine failure just above V1 on takeoff).
KBIH takeoff minimums (you have to scroll down a bit to located Bishop):
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/SW2TO.PDF
Now, let's say the missed approach engine failure occurs after turning east into the "merry go round" missed approach track. Do I want to continue around towards higher terrain or do I want to escape through the saddle into the valley to the east? Only performance engineering tailored to the specific airplane type can make that determination. Because engines can fail at varying points from MDA (or even prior to MDA) to infinately varying points along the missed approach flight track, is the very reason why AC 120-91 states that more than one OEI missed approach path may have to be provided for a given runway at a location as complex (terrain rich) as Bishop.
Another aspect, if the decision is to continue with the missed approach path back to BIH VOR because of an engine failure fairly late in the game, does holding have to be considered? Of course not, the holding pattern is what drives the 13,000 final altitude. Proceeding OEI up the valley to the north could result in a less demanding OEI path.
What is very apparent to the trained person is that none of this bears any relationship to TERPs, other than the performance engineer may elect to continue with the charted missed approach flight track, albeit without TERPs containment assessments.
In my considered opinion AC 120-91 should be regulatory and it should be updated to provide RNAV and even tight RNP OEI flight path options. But, this is a classic case of the "tombstone factor" at the FAA when something as critical as payload politics is involved. If the day comes when a marginal operator who does not use AC 120-91 pastes a bird on a mountain side while OEI then that would get things moving.
Finally, I can come up with many airports with OEI issues every bit as demanding as Bishop. And, as we know, these types of airports exist throughout the world. Latin American is rich with them.
Note: The URLs provided here will expire on August 25. But, the same charts would be available after that with a bit more searching at:
Digital Terminal Procedures/Airport Diagrams
Prior to the AC, there was no FAA guidance telling airlines to do anything apart from clear all obstacles in the takeoff flight path. For Missed Approach procedures there was even less information.
I find it disappointing that the FAA have only issued an Advisory Circular, as they are there for information, you don't have to adhere to them. I would much prefer to see the word "MUST" used rather than "SHOULD".
I find it disappointing that the FAA have only issued an Advisory Circular, as they are there for information, you don't have to adhere to them. I would much prefer to see the word "MUST" used rather than "SHOULD".
If AC 120-91 stated "must" or "shall" then instead of being an advisory circular, it would be a de facto amendment of F.A.R. 121.189 and related regulatory sections. The FAA cannot make rules via ACs. If they tried to do that, it would likely throw the entire issue into a "full press" rule-making process, including formal public hearings, etc. Simply put, there are marginal operators that do not wish to be bound by AC 120-91. Rather, they use a very sharp pencil to "comply" with the 600 foot wide 121.189 OEI path beyond the airport boundary.
Having said that, for benefit of the lurkers, a very good example of the missed approach case, and how it bears absolutely no relationship to FAR 121.189 is KBIH, Bishop, California. Bishop has a good RNP AR IAP to Runway 30, but Runway 12 would not qualify. So, two LNAV IAPs were developed to Runway 12, one with very low straight-in minimums for this airport and a climb-gradient missed approach, and the other with a missed approach that is 40:1 clear and, thus, with much higher minimums. These IAPs are strictly TERPs. The procedures folks who designed them know nothing about performance engineering, nor should they. They are making normal ops IAPs for every conceivable type of airplane, from a well-performing light airplane to an Airbus 320 or Boeing 767.
Low minimums with climb gradient:
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/05737RZ12.PDF
High minimums with 40:1 clear missed approach (assumes not less than 200 feet per mile CG):
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/05737RY12.PDF
As you can readily see the missed approach flight track for either of these IAPs, particulary the "Z" (low minimums) approach is very likely where the performance engineer would not want to send his airplane in the event of an engine failure at, or near, MDA. He might rather continue down the valley, where there are airspace and steeper terrain problems, nonetheless a fairly wide valley for 70 miles, or so.
What makes this airport and, in particular, Runway 12 very interesting is that IFR takeoff minimums are not authorized because of the close proximity of terrain to the D.E.R. (This issue is avoided with the IAPs by having the MAP prior to the runway threshold, plus even being at the lower MDA, you have a "running start" as opposed to an engine failure just above V1 on takeoff).
KBIH takeoff minimums (you have to scroll down a bit to located Bishop):
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1108/SW2TO.PDF
Now, let's say the missed approach engine failure occurs after turning east into the "merry go round" missed approach track. Do I want to continue around towards higher terrain or do I want to escape through the saddle into the valley to the east? Only performance engineering tailored to the specific airplane type can make that determination. Because engines can fail at varying points from MDA (or even prior to MDA) to infinately varying points along the missed approach flight track, is the very reason why AC 120-91 states that more than one OEI missed approach path may have to be provided for a given runway at a location as complex (terrain rich) as Bishop.
Another aspect, if the decision is to continue with the missed approach path back to BIH VOR because of an engine failure fairly late in the game, does holding have to be considered? Of course not, the holding pattern is what drives the 13,000 final altitude. Proceeding OEI up the valley to the north could result in a less demanding OEI path.
What is very apparent to the trained person is that none of this bears any relationship to TERPs, other than the performance engineer may elect to continue with the charted missed approach flight track, albeit without TERPs containment assessments.
In my considered opinion AC 120-91 should be regulatory and it should be updated to provide RNAV and even tight RNP OEI flight path options. But, this is a classic case of the "tombstone factor" at the FAA when something as critical as payload politics is involved. If the day comes when a marginal operator who does not use AC 120-91 pastes a bird on a mountain side while OEI then that would get things moving.
Finally, I can come up with many airports with OEI issues every bit as demanding as Bishop. And, as we know, these types of airports exist throughout the world. Latin American is rich with them.
Note: The URLs provided here will expire on August 25. But, the same charts would be available after that with a bit more searching at:
Digital Terminal Procedures/Airport Diagrams
Last edited by aterpster; 26th Jul 2011 at 17:54. Reason: added some expansion and clarifying comments shorting after posting
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding to the specifics of my Bishop message a better overview of the topography is provided by an overlay of the missed approach flight track on the 1:500,000 San Francisco visual sectional aeronautical chart:
http://tinyurl.com/3j338o9
This clearly shows the option to design the OEI flight path down the Owens Valley instead of encountering the mountains overflown in the TERPS missed approach procedure. If the engine failure occurred between MDA and PULIE, it very well may be better to have the OEI flight path depart the TERPS track at, or prior to, PULIE and continue down the valley.
Or, if the engine failure occurred well after PULIE it might be desirable to depart the TERPs track between TEVOC and NEBSE and proceed over lower terrain to the valley to the northeast.
The OEI assessment, just like a TERPs assessment, should be done on the best available topographic data. In the case of the US this is the USGS 1:24,000 topographic map. (I have found to my distress that some performance engineering entities do not use topographical data this good).
To the USGS topo map the procedures designer (for TERPs) or the performance engineer (for OEI) must plot and add all antennas or other structures of record. In the U.S. all such structures of 200' height or greater are recorded (lower heights close to the airport in accordance with the FAR 77 model).
The FAA has all of this high-fidelity and recorded structures in an automated system. And, they have all the TERPs design criteria semi-automated. Designing an OEI procedure in the U.S. would be far easier if the performance engineer had access to this FAA system (known as IAPA).
Here is a portion of the Bishop missed approach track at 1:24,000:
http://tinyurl.com/3l7jwsn
http://tinyurl.com/3j338o9
This clearly shows the option to design the OEI flight path down the Owens Valley instead of encountering the mountains overflown in the TERPS missed approach procedure. If the engine failure occurred between MDA and PULIE, it very well may be better to have the OEI flight path depart the TERPS track at, or prior to, PULIE and continue down the valley.
Or, if the engine failure occurred well after PULIE it might be desirable to depart the TERPs track between TEVOC and NEBSE and proceed over lower terrain to the valley to the northeast.
The OEI assessment, just like a TERPs assessment, should be done on the best available topographic data. In the case of the US this is the USGS 1:24,000 topographic map. (I have found to my distress that some performance engineering entities do not use topographical data this good).
To the USGS topo map the procedures designer (for TERPs) or the performance engineer (for OEI) must plot and add all antennas or other structures of record. In the U.S. all such structures of 200' height or greater are recorded (lower heights close to the airport in accordance with the FAR 77 model).
The FAA has all of this high-fidelity and recorded structures in an automated system. And, they have all the TERPs design criteria semi-automated. Designing an OEI procedure in the U.S. would be far easier if the performance engineer had access to this FAA system (known as IAPA).
Here is a portion of the Bishop missed approach track at 1:24,000:
http://tinyurl.com/3l7jwsn
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus757
Yes, it is possible for a pilot to make a few spot checks of expected climb gradients in various configurations and compare them to the overall gradient required by a Missed Approach.
But doing so is not the same as a full performance analysis computed by the professional engineering entities.
As you are no doubt aware, airplanes do NOT climb along linear paths -- aka "gradients".
During climb (all engines or OEI) thrust is decaying, time limits for power settings are reached, acceleration segments are required for cleanup, etc.
Our actual climb paths are anything BUT "gradients".
On the airbus these figures are presented on three charts. For a missed approach we select TOGA, gear up, and move flaps up one step to conf 3, conf 2, or conf 1+F. From their respective charts we can see the expected climb gradient and as long as it is equal to or greater than the required gradient all is good. This required gradient is listed on lido charts. It is 2.5% or a non standard requirement. Also if a turn is required we must allow for 0.9%. We maintain that configuration until the missed approach altitude is reached where we level off and clean up to hold or enroute speeds.
But doing so is not the same as a full performance analysis computed by the professional engineering entities.
As you are no doubt aware, airplanes do NOT climb along linear paths -- aka "gradients".
During climb (all engines or OEI) thrust is decaying, time limits for power settings are reached, acceleration segments are required for cleanup, etc.
Our actual climb paths are anything BUT "gradients".
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my considered opinion AC 120-91 should be regulatory and it should be updated to provide RNAV and even tight RNP OEI flight path options. But, this is a classic case of the "tombstone factor" at the FAA when something as critical as payload politics is involved.
In working with these performance profiles, it really is very difficult given the number of variants, engines, configurations, bleeds, etc that is would be difficult for the FAA to regulate how this is accomplished.
For the most part, when the carrier is shown the EO performance, it is usually a bit of a shock with the weight limits or temperature limits. Many regulators then default to EO as 'emergency operations' and let it go at that, again, thank goodness for the reliability of todays engines.
For the most part, the people back at Ops are using BCOP or something similar, to load the aircraft, with assumptions for the destination, as well as departure.
The pilot should do a quick check on approach to make sure the assumptions are close to real time conditions, namely temperature and weight, and adjust if necessary.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a test example.
Input
Resultant performance...note the difference even between same aircraft type, F30 vs F40, and add icing makes a huge hit...or temps above 30.
Input
Resultant performance...note the difference even between same aircraft type, F30 vs F40, and add icing makes a huge hit...or temps above 30.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terpster,
in answer to your very well presented case...
in regards to the OE path following the published missed, or an EO departure following anything published, 2 points...1. Cant do it the 70% answer...2. Dont even think about it.. 30%
in answer to your very well presented case...
in regards to the OE path following the published missed, or an EO departure following anything published, 2 points...1. Cant do it the 70% answer...2. Dont even think about it.. 30%
Moderator
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 ?
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 ?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and we suffer an engine failure then we raise the acceleration altitude to MSA
Policies like that are why a full-route OEI path is needed where radar services are not available. The MSA may be several thousand feet higher than is necessary.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rrr
How well would that method work in the example procedure provided by aterpster?
MDA = 4580
First published altitude = 13,000
Would the company have us going all the way from 4580 to 13,000 in an approach climb configuration?
MSA = 15,500
And as JT noted, we probably shouldn't omit to take into account the time limit at GA thrust...
If we can satisfy the required OEI climb gradient, and we suffer an engine failure then we raise the acceleration altitude to MSA or 1st published stop Altitude or level acceleration Alt (when published).
MDA = 4580
First published altitude = 13,000
Would the company have us going all the way from 4580 to 13,000 in an approach climb configuration?
MSA = 15,500
And as JT noted, we probably shouldn't omit to take into account the time limit at GA thrust...