Climb Gradient Requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climb Gradient Requirements
Hi Folks,
I'm really curious about the calculation of the possible climb gradient on departure. This question came up the other day when we departed from Chicago o'Hare Airport. In the departure plate it says the o'hare departure needs you to be in 5NM at 3000ft and in 8NM at 5000ft. How can you calculate if you are able to do it if you fly an e.g. A340-600 or a B747 or a A320 etc. When can you accept this departure or when is it better to refuse it. I would really appreciate any rule of thumb or detailed formula.
Thanks
I'm really curious about the calculation of the possible climb gradient on departure. This question came up the other day when we departed from Chicago o'Hare Airport. In the departure plate it says the o'hare departure needs you to be in 5NM at 3000ft and in 8NM at 5000ft. How can you calculate if you are able to do it if you fly an e.g. A340-600 or a B747 or a A320 etc. When can you accept this departure or when is it better to refuse it. I would really appreciate any rule of thumb or detailed formula.
Thanks
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H-Pork:
I don't find that on my Jepp charts.
I'm really curious about the calculation of the possible climb gradient on departure. This question came up the other day when we departed from Chicago o'Hare Airport. In the departure plate it says the o'hare departure needs you to be in 5NM at 3000ft and in 8NM at 5000ft. How can you calculate if you are able to do it if you fly an e.g. A340-600 or a B747 or a A320 etc. When can you accept this departure or when is it better to refuse it. I would really appreciate any rule of thumb or detailed formula.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi HPork,
I do see the requirment on the plate, basically comes down to a 600 ft/nm climb, which at typical speeds is around 1800 ft/pm, just go full blast and that should work out even on the 74 just don't accelerate at 3000ft
Alternatively you can input ORD on your fix page, draw a 5 mile ring and input the intersection on your legs page with a 3000 ft or above constriction, if it starts blaring inform ATC.
I do see the requirment on the plate, basically comes down to a 600 ft/nm climb, which at typical speeds is around 1800 ft/pm, just go full blast and that should work out even on the 74 just don't accelerate at 3000ft
Alternatively you can input ORD on your fix page, draw a 5 mile ring and input the intersection on your legs page with a 3000 ft or above constriction, if it starts blaring inform ATC.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whip out your trusty E6B/CR-3/CR-2, set the planned ground speed at the speed index and read the required FPM above the required feet per nm.
Theory: If you are doing the set GS, you'll have the GS in nm per minute above 10 on the inner scale. Multiply nm per minute by feet per nm, i e read above the feet per nm rather than above 10, and you get the fpm.
Cheers,
Fred
Theory: If you are doing the set GS, you'll have the GS in nm per minute above 10 on the inner scale. Multiply nm per minute by feet per nm, i e read above the feet per nm rather than above 10, and you get the fpm.
Cheers,
Fred
Bottums Up
The Douglas/Boeing 717 FMS will make the calculations for you, once final weights have been entered, based on internal performance data, and entered weather/wind data.
If unable to comply, the FMS will annunciation "Alt error at XXXXX". Additionally, if actual performance isn't as expected, it'll produce the aforementioned error.
The flip side of this, is for example the SIDs off RWY29 at YPDN (Darwin) where there is a 3000 requirement at NASUX, some 9.5NM from the upwind threshold. It's quite common to have an ALT ERROR AT NASUX, in the early climb out, as the aircraft accelerates & is reconfigured. Reality is that the limit is easily achieved in this type, even at MAUW on a hot day, with full flex power (assuming 21k engines).
If unable to comply, the FMS will annunciation "Alt error at XXXXX". Additionally, if actual performance isn't as expected, it'll produce the aforementioned error.
The flip side of this, is for example the SIDs off RWY29 at YPDN (Darwin) where there is a 3000 requirement at NASUX, some 9.5NM from the upwind threshold. It's quite common to have an ALT ERROR AT NASUX, in the early climb out, as the aircraft accelerates & is reconfigured. Reality is that the limit is easily achieved in this type, even at MAUW on a hot day, with full flex power (assuming 21k engines).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gradient
HP, here goes : 5NM @ 3000 ft AGL = a grad of 600 FPM or 5.67 degrees
8NM @ 4000 ft AGL = a grad of 500 FPM or 4.72 degrees
The way to calculate is to divide the height by the distance to get the gradient.
Then divide the gradient by 6076 (ft in 1 NM). Then go ARC Sin on a scientific
calc to get the angle in degrees.
EG: 3000/5=600/6076=0.987491 (% grad), arc sin =5.67
Since DME is slant range, we use the SIN (hypotenuse) of the angle.
Always have a scientific calc with you.
8NM @ 4000 ft AGL = a grad of 500 FPM or 4.72 degrees
The way to calculate is to divide the height by the distance to get the gradient.
Then divide the gradient by 6076 (ft in 1 NM). Then go ARC Sin on a scientific
calc to get the angle in degrees.
EG: 3000/5=600/6076=0.987491 (% grad), arc sin =5.67
Since DME is slant range, we use the SIN (hypotenuse) of the angle.
Always have a scientific calc with you.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW I think there is only one SID. Hard to refuse it
SERIOUSLY guys why dont you for once listen to someone with sense and knowledge :
Intruder Just like the name, you can't do it. Climb gradient info isn't part of the performance manuals.
just go full blast and that should work out even on the 74 just don't accelerate at 3000ft
Last edited by de facto; 4th Feb 2012 at 08:58.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really can't find the climb gradient in your performance manuals, I have a feeling you may have a hard time complying with certain requirements to show that you can depart without hitting anything.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FT,
Many of the newer aircraft no longer have this information in their manuals, because they now use AFM DPI (digital perfomance information)
For example, you will (assuming you have paper manuals onboard) see a reference to consult the PEP (perfomance engineers program)
In my company we have the EFB and that is the only source of perf information we have... You wont find any books to look this stuff up in..
This does give us the climb gradient we can achieve for the current conditions both all engine and OEI..
Many of the newer aircraft no longer have this information in their manuals, because they now use AFM DPI (digital perfomance information)
For example, you will (assuming you have paper manuals onboard) see a reference to consult the PEP (perfomance engineers program)
In my company we have the EFB and that is the only source of perf information we have... You wont find any books to look this stuff up in..
This does give us the climb gradient we can achieve for the current conditions both all engine and OEI..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ft,
Can't manage the postcard... But here is the extract from the EASA Approved AFM.
TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE Ident.: PERF-TO-00006904.0001001 / 23 NOV 09 EASA APPROVED Criteria: SA
For takeoff performance determination on dry and wet runway, the Performance Engineer's Programs/AFM_OCTO approved FM module at the latest approved revision must be used. Refer to PERF-OCTO Performance Database. CAUTION For takeoff performance on wet runways the takeoff weight must be the lowest of the computed one on dry runways and the computed one on wet runways.
Can't manage the postcard... But here is the extract from the EASA Approved AFM.
TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE Ident.: PERF-TO-00006904.0001001 / 23 NOV 09 EASA APPROVED Criteria: SA
For takeoff performance determination on dry and wet runway, the Performance Engineer's Programs/AFM_OCTO approved FM module at the latest approved revision must be used. Refer to PERF-OCTO Performance Database. CAUTION For takeoff performance on wet runways the takeoff weight must be the lowest of the computed one on dry runways and the computed one on wet runways.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point-in-case:
The data is there, as part of the data package. Part of the AFM has moved into a piece of software referenced from the AFM. Doesn't really change anything, except for the fact that it will worry me and other members of the Neo-Luddite Society who believe that someone will, sooner or later (and probably me/sooner, according to member of very high standing Mr. Murphy), end up without precalculated take-off data, batteries, power outlets, phone and paddle in Stercus Creek, WI.
(We maintain that electronic-only data critical to flight is an evil only slightly lesser than that new-fangled reaction engine which is getting all the hoopla nowadays.)
Arguing the form of data when meeting the statement that it "cannot be done as it's not in the perf manual" is semantics. And I want my post card!
The data is there, as part of the data package. Part of the AFM has moved into a piece of software referenced from the AFM. Doesn't really change anything, except for the fact that it will worry me and other members of the Neo-Luddite Society who believe that someone will, sooner or later (and probably me/sooner, according to member of very high standing Mr. Murphy), end up without precalculated take-off data, batteries, power outlets, phone and paddle in Stercus Creek, WI.
(We maintain that electronic-only data critical to flight is an evil only slightly lesser than that new-fangled reaction engine which is getting all the hoopla nowadays.)
Arguing the form of data when meeting the statement that it "cannot be done as it's not in the perf manual" is semantics. And I want my post card!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 42
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These questions are rhetorical...
So in the above examples... have we not forgot that ORD probably has an elevation, meaning the 3000ft MSL will mean an altitude of 2800ft* ish to climb? (This may be food for thought only for "academics"/calculator-pilots).
*) Did not remember the elevation, but it was 200something.
Another thought... Is the DME adjusted to read ZERO at DER of RWY in use? If the DME reads other than ZERO at DER, how much will that affect the gradient?
And will SLANTrange versus geographical 5 nautical miles be an issue (give large errors in calculation) when we talk about a climb gradient of 10%?
I am pleased to read the rules of thumb regarding calculation of climb gradients. There is a lot of knowledge within this forum, no doubt!
Boeingisgoing:
Well, it is an even greater coincidence that any climb gradient in per cent (%) multiplied by the ground speed (GS) in knots will give you the required rate of climb (ft/min). This will be an estimate within limits that will vanish in the effect of i.e. wind.
200x10% = 2000fpm, 180x3,3% (200ft/nm) = 594 (rounded 600fpm)
Back to the O'Hare example, it may be so that the sources for error I am referring to above may be so small that they are negligible, but I think this is the right place to ask such questions. -So being a relatively junior pilot, I dare ask these questions and wait for my head to be chopped off (which happens often at these forums).
So in the above examples... have we not forgot that ORD probably has an elevation, meaning the 3000ft MSL will mean an altitude of 2800ft* ish to climb? (This may be food for thought only for "academics"/calculator-pilots).
*) Did not remember the elevation, but it was 200something.
Another thought... Is the DME adjusted to read ZERO at DER of RWY in use? If the DME reads other than ZERO at DER, how much will that affect the gradient?
And will SLANTrange versus geographical 5 nautical miles be an issue (give large errors in calculation) when we talk about a climb gradient of 10%?
I am pleased to read the rules of thumb regarding calculation of climb gradients. There is a lot of knowledge within this forum, no doubt!
Boeingisgoing:
And by coincidence it works out that a given climbgradient multiplied by 2 is the climb per minute in feet at 200 kts groundspeed.
In this example: 10% X 2 = 2,000 feet per minute at 200 kts groundspeed. And if you are doing 250 kts, add 25% which will be 2,500 feet per minute.
In this example: 10% X 2 = 2,000 feet per minute at 200 kts groundspeed. And if you are doing 250 kts, add 25% which will be 2,500 feet per minute.
200x10% = 2000fpm, 180x3,3% (200ft/nm) = 594 (rounded 600fpm)
Back to the O'Hare example, it may be so that the sources for error I am referring to above may be so small that they are negligible, but I think this is the right place to ask such questions. -So being a relatively junior pilot, I dare ask these questions and wait for my head to be chopped off (which happens often at these forums).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just simplify things.
When you call delivery tell them you are unable 3000' at ORD 5 DME. (Just like the jepp plate says.) This is what a major local airline does (United).
ORD ATC is well aware that a heavy B744 etc. probably won't meet the restriction.
UA accelerates at 800' AGL with CLB thrust at flaps 5. At MTOW on the B744 they will definitely not meet 3000' or above at ORD 5 DME.
LH on the other hand simply accelerates at 3000' with thrust reduction at 1500' on the B744 out of ORD. Of course they never go out anywhere near MTOW on a ORD-FRA flight.
When you call delivery tell them you are unable 3000' at ORD 5 DME. (Just like the jepp plate says.) This is what a major local airline does (United).
ORD ATC is well aware that a heavy B744 etc. probably won't meet the restriction.
UA accelerates at 800' AGL with CLB thrust at flaps 5. At MTOW on the B744 they will definitely not meet 3000' or above at ORD 5 DME.
LH on the other hand simply accelerates at 3000' with thrust reduction at 1500' on the B744 out of ORD. Of course they never go out anywhere near MTOW on a ORD-FRA flight.