Engine out routes and acceleration
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Planet earth
Engine out routes and acceleration
1) On the A 320 I am curious as to which procedures different companies use.
Like you have a engine out in your go around ( engine lost at moment of go around ) in Barcelona on runway 25R for example.
What acceleration height does your company with one engine climbing to 3000 feet in the go around ?
By levelling say at 1500 or 200O AGL ( push to level ) and cleaning up at standard conditions, 61 tons then continuing to climb clean, at this point while you are cleaning up, you are not climbing, or what about the pundit who says you must climb constantly with a constant climb gradient to 3000, with the aircraft dirty with Flaps 3 and climb at 3000 feet agl ?
In a go around
Can anyone provide data respect to the performance of climbing constantly one engine out with flaps 3 to 3000 AGL and the clean up procedure at 1500AGL, go around one engine out and clean up and continue climb to 3000
2) Engine out SID routes
Like in Rome FCO taking off of 25 which engine out procedure does your company have,? the normal SID has quite a high climb gradient.
Which engine out SID does your compan follow in BCN 25L ? and ORY off of 26 or 24 ? or AMS off of 24 or 18L ?
Thanks a lot in advance
would like to compare
Like you have a engine out in your go around ( engine lost at moment of go around ) in Barcelona on runway 25R for example.
What acceleration height does your company with one engine climbing to 3000 feet in the go around ?
By levelling say at 1500 or 200O AGL ( push to level ) and cleaning up at standard conditions, 61 tons then continuing to climb clean, at this point while you are cleaning up, you are not climbing, or what about the pundit who says you must climb constantly with a constant climb gradient to 3000, with the aircraft dirty with Flaps 3 and climb at 3000 feet agl ?
In a go around
Can anyone provide data respect to the performance of climbing constantly one engine out with flaps 3 to 3000 AGL and the clean up procedure at 1500AGL, go around one engine out and clean up and continue climb to 3000
2) Engine out SID routes
Like in Rome FCO taking off of 25 which engine out procedure does your company have,? the normal SID has quite a high climb gradient.
Which engine out SID does your compan follow in BCN 25L ? and ORY off of 26 or 24 ? or AMS off of 24 or 18L ?
Thanks a lot in advance
would like to compare
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
From: The Land Downunder
We use the appropriate 'go-around' altitude for the approach as the Engine Out Acceleration, so therefore in your example we would not clean up until 3000'. At my previous company it was just 1000' AGL. So everyone has a slightly different slant on these things.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 1
From: Playing Golf!
AH, has your company actually checked that each and everyone of your airports you can fly the MA with one engine inop?
Many airlines are very weak on tis subject and dont provide proper information to their crews.
PT6A
Many airlines are very weak on tis subject and dont provide proper information to their crews.
PT6A
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 149
Likes: 1
From: canada
In my experience most companies that have put any thought into this will mandate that on any go around you should accelerate at MAP Atlitude.
Unfortunately, Mr. Boeing in his FCTM says words to the effect that during training an acceleration altitude of 1000 ft. AGL will be used. This statement has muddied the waters and is used by some as justification for a 1000 ft. acceleration. I think this was just ass covering by Boeiing. Fortunaltely we don't do many go-arounds, especially with engine(s) out, or we'd see the headlines resulting from this folly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Boeing in his FCTM says words to the effect that during training an acceleration altitude of 1000 ft. AGL will be used. This statement has muddied the waters and is used by some as justification for a 1000 ft. acceleration. I think this was just ass covering by Boeiing. Fortunaltely we don't do many go-arounds, especially with engine(s) out, or we'd see the headlines resulting from this folly.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
From: in the mix muff
In my current company we used EFBs that gives us Engine out acceleration altitude and SID for different runways using terrain into conditions,weight and weather.For instance the EOSID on one runway isn't the same on the opposite side.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Planet earth
Info on EO Acceleration
PT6A
I do however like the simplicity of boeing 1000agl, Airbus not as good at being simple.
your are right and if anyone could pass on some perf links on the subject it would be appreciated.
Also on take off it is debatable a decent maximum engine out acceleration altitude. on the A 320 yes, limited by MCT limit, but many guys dont use the max eo altitude.
I do however like the simplicity of boeing 1000agl, Airbus not as good at being simple.
your are right and if anyone could pass on some perf links on the subject it would be appreciated.
Also on take off it is debatable a decent maximum engine out acceleration altitude. on the A 320 yes, limited by MCT limit, but many guys dont use the max eo altitude.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 422
Likes: 5
From: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Regarding question 1, if you're flying a small turboprop in mountainous terrain and the missed approach altitude is "high", say 11000ft, what is the procedure? Should you fly an EOSID for the airport or should you depart your origin airport accounting to meet the missed approach performance by the time you are to land, i.e. takeoff weight restricted by landing performance at destination
