2.4% regulatory climb gradient for single engine
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[IMG]
Oops, thats the problem of only using Jeppesen for my guesses!
I cant read the heights on the Topo, but it looks like 6900 feet for twin peaks, so that would be an obstacle measured from the adjusted runway end. Then it would depend on how much of an impact it had on the takeoff weight. If the impact was too severe, then i would add the 6400 feet obstacle straight ahead, and define a turning point back to the right that would increase the track distance to the 6900 feet point.
Almost forgot, as i operate under FAR91, all that i legally have to do it look at the obstacle, decide that i can clear it, and yee haw, advance the power
Mutt
Oops, thats the problem of only using Jeppesen for my guesses!
I cant read the heights on the Topo, but it looks like 6900 feet for twin peaks, so that would be an obstacle measured from the adjusted runway end. Then it would depend on how much of an impact it had on the takeoff weight. If the impact was too severe, then i would add the 6400 feet obstacle straight ahead, and define a turning point back to the right that would increase the track distance to the 6900 feet point.
Almost forgot, as i operate under FAR91, all that i legally have to do it look at the obstacle, decide that i can clear it, and yee haw, advance the power
Mutt
Last edited by mutt; 31st Jul 2012 at 18:16.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt:
Oops, thats the problem of only using Jeppesen for my guesses!
I cant read the heights on the Topo, but it looks like 6900 feet for twin peaks, so that would be an obstacle measured from the adjusted runway end. Then it would depend on how much of an impact it had on the takeoff weight. If the impact was too severe, then i would add the 6400 feet obstacle straight ahead, and define a turning point back to the right that would increase the track distance to the 6900 feet point.[/quote]
The twin peaks are 6,900, plus vegetation. The ridge line to the west is 7,200, plus vegetation. Byond the 7,200' ridge line is a small lake then the terrain slopes up quite rapidly to almost 10,000.
Exactly!
Oops, thats the problem of only using Jeppesen for my guesses!
I cant read the heights on the Topo, but it looks like 6900 feet for twin peaks, so that would be an obstacle measured from the adjusted runway end. Then it would depend on how much of an impact it had on the takeoff weight. If the impact was too severe, then i would add the 6400 feet obstacle straight ahead, and define a turning point back to the right that would increase the track distance to the 6900 feet point.[/quote]
The twin peaks are 6,900, plus vegetation. The ridge line to the west is 7,200, plus vegetation. Byond the 7,200' ridge line is a small lake then the terrain slopes up quite rapidly to almost 10,000.
Almost forgot, as i operate under FAR91, all that i legally have to do it look at the obstacle, decide that i can clear it, and yee haw, advance the power 
How would the feds know that someone got "too close" to an obstacle?
And, are you speaking of all engines operating or OEI?
And, are you speaking of all engines operating or OEI?
ratted out by ATC (Radar)...exclaim over the radio that you were almost killed, something like that...and don't think filing an ASR is fully protective, I know that they have ways to get you despite filing one...
'OEI'
Zeffy
Far more responsible would be to engage the services of a profession performance engineering company whose runway analysis products are compliant with AC 120-91.
With respect to the opinion that "making the DP OEI" would be a good idea, what would the advocate of such a solution propose to do at KLAS on the COWBY4 SID?
...but, I'm not reducing to MCT until I'm sure,...but yeah but that would be a long long climb..you'd definitely can't pretend that's a real OEI procedure that's for sure 
.....let'em boroscope the engine far cheaper than slamming into a mountain.... yes, I do understand the many differences between a real NTOFP and a DP...Some FAR 23 jets also use FAR 25 net flight path data, kind of a mixed bag certification...and have the published data...I actually found an interesting article on that particular topic but I can't seem to find it now, if I do I'll link it...
Sully means Captain Chesley `Sully' Sullenberger III, the Captain of U.S. Airways Flight 1549.
.Although I respect Sully, my real 'heroes' wrt to miracles are Al Haynes and his crew and that DHL Airbus crew
all I do nowadays is show folks how to fly little baby planes-part time... I'm no longer current in anything, and not very 'experienced' comparatively, so I really don't worry anymore about these things, I always used let the captain worry anyway
...this markets really sucks, airlines suck... don't wanna fly regional...rather teach...I guess
