Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Delaying Radar Vectors Or Holding One Engine Inop

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Delaying Radar Vectors Or Holding One Engine Inop

Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Above & Beyond
Posts: 323
Delaying Radar Vectors Or Holding One Engine Inop

Hello Boys and Girls,

I am looking for advice and/or opinions regarding delaying radar vectors and holds after an engine failure.

I was taught delaying radar vectors to give you time to fulfill the necessary checklist(s) but wouldn't a hold be a better option for ATC?

What would you do?

Regards,

Punk
punk666 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 1,969
Holding is obviously less work for everyone,less work,less chance of errors.
de facto is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
I have worked with aircraft with such tech problems. At a major airfield, the main holds are likely to be some distance away and require a climb to maybe 7-8,000 feet. My personal preference was to hold the aircraft on radar - simple racetrack close to the downwind leg which required only instructions to turn at either end. The crew could then deal with their problems and the aircraft would always be close enough to a quick approach when the crew was ready. Of course, a lot depends on local traffic and procedures so this may not work everywhere.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:43
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Above & Beyond
Posts: 323
Thank you for your responses Heathrow regarding your comment, im guessing you would do that if the flight crew request the vectors correct.

I guess the vectors are more practical in the sim because we have the clock ticking against us but on the line I think a hold is more practical.
punk666 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 14:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,255
punk666:

I guess the vectors are more practical in the sim because we have the clock ticking against us but on the line I think a hold is more practical.
In the real world not every airport has radar. At a non-radar terminal areas the company is well-advised to design its OEI procedures with a holding pattern included for just such reasons. Otherwise, you are opening up the possibility of ATC assigning an unapproved non-radar holding pattern. Those mistakes do happen when urgency enters the picture and can be risky, at the least, where there is higher terrain nearby.
aterpster is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 15:10
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Above & Beyond
Posts: 323
Aterpster

That is true and I will take note of that. I should of mentioned I was referring to busy airports such as MAN, LGW LHR etc etc or Class Bravo airports as you guys call it over the pond.

I personally couldnt see ATC being to happy with an aircraft buzzing around its airspace getting in the way of other aircraft if its busy (obviously it would be controlled by atc).
punk666 is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 15:23
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
...but wouldn't a hold be a better option for ATC?
With respect to ATC, but when you have an engine you should really be insisting on getting what is easiest for you. However, my experience with ATC is that they'll do all they can to help whenever you have a problem. And this should also be reflected in the sim. I've been taught that the sim. is "real" and you should act in the sim. the same way as you would on line. To come out of the sim. and say "But in real life I would..." is not acceptable.

PM
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2012, 15:36
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
It shouldn't take an entire turn in a holding pattern to complete an engine failure check list so if you have radar contact just get a momentary vector to make life simple. If you are in a valley with no radar don't wander into terrain but hold. We had a 727 lose an engine right after takeoff at Guatemala City heading west into terrain so they did a 90/270 and landed VFR. The engine out procedure would have taken him over 30 miles to complete. I asked the captain what checklists he did? He said the appropriate ones and smiled.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2012, 14:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 1,969
He said the appropriate ones and smiled.
No comment
de facto is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 15:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 42
Posts: 1,037
HD,

We have our own holding patterns as part of our EOSID so no need for us to travel across to the ones published on the STAR.

Generally, unless they have had to design something otherwise due to terrain it would be on runway heading and then into the hold. They have been very good and had all of this coded into FMS and LPC database for us.

For the more "interesting" EOSIDs we also get a charted version of the procedure.

*As we are reminded on all of our company information, ATC are not aware of these procedures as they are company specific and ATC must be informed what we WILL be doing.

Last edited by PT6A; 20th Apr 2012 at 15:48.
PT6A is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 15:33
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
PT6A.. Guess you don't operate in the UK?
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2012, 15:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 42
Posts: 1,037
Yes we do.

Our procedure is also the same as that of a very large orange airline.

HD, from your comment.. What is it that surprised you? Because we are not using a published hold or navigation aid?

A few years ago we started to have all of our EOSIDs designed so the navigation reference was based on RNAV, then the procedure designers were free to place the holding point and track pretty much as needed. (subject to obstacle's etc)

There is a document floating about on the Internet that has all of the criteria for the design of EO procedures and the various differences depending on what form of navigation you use to accomplish the procedure.

The procedure that we use is far from unusual and I would imagine almost every airline has done the same thing.

Runway heading until x altitude then hold. My company along with others have gone that one step further and made the procedures available in our FMS database (and as such created our own waypoints)

On a day to day basis makes things very simple as at the briefing the actions in the event of a failure after V1 are simply "standard" except for a few airports where we fly a "non-standard" which would be briefed in detail before departure.

In the event we actually have a problem, we would declare an emergency and expect ATC to clear and protect the airspace around us until we have done what we need to and then return.

It just removes the chance for us to make a navigational error, intercept the wrong radial or wrong DME for a turn.. Reducing the workload in an emergency can only be a good thing right?

Last edited by PT6A; 20th Apr 2012 at 16:27.
PT6A is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.