Engine out track/SID please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Doha
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine out track/SID please.
Is there any collection of engine out tracks for international airports?
I now work for an airline that does not publish them and I'm well aware that in an EFATO situation the a/c may not meet the normal SID gradients at all times.
I'm initially after info for PEK, CAN, SZX, FCO, MUC, ATH, SYD and ARN.
Any helpers?
I now work for an airline that does not publish them and I'm well aware that in an EFATO situation the a/c may not meet the normal SID gradients at all times.
I'm initially after info for PEK, CAN, SZX, FCO, MUC, ATH, SYD and ARN.
Any helpers?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9 points
If your airline does not publish them then who is going to do it for you? EOSID is your airline's concern and you need file the procedure to the DCA. You should not just follow anybody's procedure on your own.
If your airline does not publish them then who is going to do it for you? EOSID is your airline's concern and you need file the procedure to the DCA. You should not just follow anybody's procedure on your own.
The vast majority of the worlds airports do not require specific tracking for the engine out case....maintain RWY HDG, notify ATC, request radar vectors, they will keep you clear of terrain, restricted airspace etc....some airports like HKG, RWY 07 require a specific procedure to avoid terrain....with regard to SYD my old airline in OZ off RWY 34 was RWY heading to 6 DME, turn right to HDG 060, I later flew for an Asian Carrier and their procedure was a left turn after take-off heading 150...go figure..?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi zlin77,
It's not necessarily so....!
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGAV.pdf
I know of an aircraft which departed RW21 Athens and suffered an engine failure. Helpful ATC radar vectored them towards KEA which resulted in a GPWS.
notify ATC, request radar vectors, they will keep you clear of terrain,
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGAV.pdf
I know of an aircraft which departed RW21 Athens and suffered an engine failure. Helpful ATC radar vectored them towards KEA which resulted in a GPWS.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zlin77:
Every runway requires a takeoff flight path assessment. The local ATC is not in that business, nor could they possibly be. Also, not every airport by any means has terminal ATC radar. And, where they do, controllers can not and do not have knowledge of the exact location of obstacles below MVA.
The vast majority of the worlds airports do not require specific tracking for the engine out case....maintain RWY HDG, notify ATC, request radar vectors, they will keep you clear of terrain, restricted airspace etc....some airports like HKG, RWY 07 require a specific procedure to avoid terrain....with regard to SYD my old airline in OZ off RWY 34 was RWY heading to 6 DME, turn right to HDG 060, I later flew for an Asian Carrier and their procedure was a left turn after take-off heading 150...go figure..?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zlin
maintain RWY HDG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Doha
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who responded without insult, thanks. As for the other, grow up.
The RTOW charts do cover you up to 1500' gross flight path. Beyond that is up to the airline.
Thanks again.
The RTOW charts do cover you up to 1500' gross flight path. Beyond that is up to the airline.
Thanks again.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<And, where they do, controllers can not and do not have knowledge of the exact location of obstacles below MVA.>>
They ought to have a good idea of major ones. It is (was?) called "local knowledge" and questions about such used to feature in validation boards and annual checks.
They ought to have a good idea of major ones. It is (was?) called "local knowledge" and questions about such used to feature in validation boards and annual checks.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9 points
The RTOW charts do cover you up to 1500' gross flight path. Beyond that is up to the airline.
that allows a net takeoff flight path that clears all obstacles
Perf A planning requires that an aircraft is able to avoid all obstacles during the entire flight even when subject to specified failures (clue; that does not only mean engine failure before or just after V1).
Last edited by Onceapilot; 27th Jul 2013 at 18:47.
9 Points,
if Your airline does not publish EOSIDs for the airports You named, it may well be that Your single engine performance is sufficient for them without requiring deviation from the SIDs. I seem to remember that LIRF, EDDM, ESSA and LGAV are not exactly terrain challenged and most - if not all - departures lead via flat terrain or even the sea for a long while.
So in absence of other information from Your performance department, the figures You are provided now ought to cover an engine failure at these fields as they are. We only get EOSIDs for runways that require them in order to get more weight out of them; if none has been found required or helpful, the section in the perfomance table simply reads "No note".
Simply adopting procedures picked up from here that are not calculated for Your type would seem unwise by contrast.
if Your airline does not publish EOSIDs for the airports You named, it may well be that Your single engine performance is sufficient for them without requiring deviation from the SIDs. I seem to remember that LIRF, EDDM, ESSA and LGAV are not exactly terrain challenged and most - if not all - departures lead via flat terrain or even the sea for a long while.
So in absence of other information from Your performance department, the figures You are provided now ought to cover an engine failure at these fields as they are. We only get EOSIDs for runways that require them in order to get more weight out of them; if none has been found required or helpful, the section in the perfomance table simply reads "No note".
Simply adopting procedures picked up from here that are not calculated for Your type would seem unwise by contrast.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9 points
To those who responded without insult, thanks. As for the other, grow up.
a.) claims to be a pilot for an airline which doesn't supply OEI performance analysis for airports into which they operate.
and
b.) is proposing to use OEI performance date from some other airline for some other aircraft type.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if Your airline does not publish EOSIDs for the airports You named, it may well be that Your single engine performance is sufficient for them without requiring deviation from the SIDs.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Aloft
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9 Points
Under ICAO Annex 6 (Part 1, Attach C - ref sections 5 & 6.2), which the regulator in the jurisdiction in which the airline's AOC is held should have encoded somewhere in their regs (even if the airline is Chinese?), the operator is responsible for establishing net take-off performance calculations for obstacle clearance and EO performance calculations and a logical extension of this are EOSID SOPs - which include published instructions with or without charts.
Your airline should do this for every port that you fly into - and as A2 has pointed out - for every aircraft type/config.
And it seems sensible to say that you shouldn't really be looking for examples from other operators (even if nominally same aircraft) - because different configs/FMS and operator SOPs may all result in a different outcome should someone else's procedure be used.
[For example, I've seen many different EOSIDs for say SYD, from different operators and for different aircraft. They were all presented differently and some had charts and some didn't. Others had only different breakout points, performance statuses & consequent actions (sometimes including flight paths or HDGs/ALTs). Two of the EOSIDs were essentially for the same aircraft, but from different operators.]
I can't remember what's in EU-OPS (for the European destinations) with regard to these requirements, but it's quite likely that there are relevant requirements stated in that doc too.
Under ICAO Annex 6 (Part 1, Attach C - ref sections 5 & 6.2), which the regulator in the jurisdiction in which the airline's AOC is held should have encoded somewhere in their regs (even if the airline is Chinese?), the operator is responsible for establishing net take-off performance calculations for obstacle clearance and EO performance calculations and a logical extension of this are EOSID SOPs - which include published instructions with or without charts.
Your airline should do this for every port that you fly into - and as A2 has pointed out - for every aircraft type/config.
And it seems sensible to say that you shouldn't really be looking for examples from other operators (even if nominally same aircraft) - because different configs/FMS and operator SOPs may all result in a different outcome should someone else's procedure be used.
[For example, I've seen many different EOSIDs for say SYD, from different operators and for different aircraft. They were all presented differently and some had charts and some didn't. Others had only different breakout points, performance statuses & consequent actions (sometimes including flight paths or HDGs/ALTs). Two of the EOSIDs were essentially for the same aircraft, but from different operators.]
I can't remember what's in EU-OPS (for the European destinations) with regard to these requirements, but it's quite likely that there are relevant requirements stated in that doc too.
Last edited by roulette; 28th Jul 2013 at 06:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Doha
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my first post I stated that my airline does not provide them, that is what I was told by some of my new expat colleagues.
It now appears that perhaps they do but getting information on this has proved difficult in the first few days of employment as I don't speak the language and don't yet know my way around.
I hope to resolve this issue in the coming week.
I asked for the info in good faith with no intention of using it in an unprofessional manner but rather to have it as an emergency backup. PIC authority in an emergency and so on.
I continue to explore the issue and again thank the positive posters for their guidance.
I do feel insulted by some of the posts. I have been flying for 30 years with >13000hrs jet. I am not playing a virtual game. So think before you post such comments because they are insulting.
However it is possible that the comments were just a wind up so for that reason I will not look at or think about this thread again.
It now appears that perhaps they do but getting information on this has proved difficult in the first few days of employment as I don't speak the language and don't yet know my way around.
I hope to resolve this issue in the coming week.
I asked for the info in good faith with no intention of using it in an unprofessional manner but rather to have it as an emergency backup. PIC authority in an emergency and so on.
I continue to explore the issue and again thank the positive posters for their guidance.
I do feel insulted by some of the posts. I have been flying for 30 years with >13000hrs jet. I am not playing a virtual game. So think before you post such comments because they are insulting.
However it is possible that the comments were just a wind up so for that reason I will not look at or think about this thread again.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Heart of Europe
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may come down to takoff calculations. In my outfit we have EOSID's at some airports because of the take-off penalty when using standard SID or standard 1500' before a turn back to airport procedures.
That means that in some cases using an EOSID can get you a huge increase in payload. LSGG (GVA) is such a place. While on RWY 05 you may climb straight ahead over the lake, obstacle clearance is not an issue further away but only the minimum holding altitude at the only published place some 17 NM away from RWY 05.
While RWY23 has some mountains 7 - 8NM from the DER. Climbing with the 1500' and turn back before the mountains in order to meet the minimum gradients to be safe, your your MTOM is way down. While using a predetermined left turn (EOSID) raises the MTOM to normal operating values.
EOSID's are figured out by our performance teams and ultimately calculated by the provider of the take-off calculation software (the same guys which do the take-off tables). It clearly shows in the take-off tables or on the calculation software which has been used and of course you need to adhere to the EOSDI track when it has been calculated that way.
IMHO it is possible to fly without EOSID's just your MTOM will be very low in some places.
That means that in some cases using an EOSID can get you a huge increase in payload. LSGG (GVA) is such a place. While on RWY 05 you may climb straight ahead over the lake, obstacle clearance is not an issue further away but only the minimum holding altitude at the only published place some 17 NM away from RWY 05.
While RWY23 has some mountains 7 - 8NM from the DER. Climbing with the 1500' and turn back before the mountains in order to meet the minimum gradients to be safe, your your MTOM is way down. While using a predetermined left turn (EOSID) raises the MTOM to normal operating values.
EOSID's are figured out by our performance teams and ultimately calculated by the provider of the take-off calculation software (the same guys which do the take-off tables). It clearly shows in the take-off tables or on the calculation software which has been used and of course you need to adhere to the EOSDI track when it has been calculated that way.
IMHO it is possible to fly without EOSID's just your MTOM will be very low in some places.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RunSick & A Squared, congrats for playing in the Major ligues where almost everything is like it should be. Let me give you a heads-up: there is life beyond your perfect world, I can name a few flag carriers that don't provide EO SIDs beyond what's written on the airport analysis, you know, the rwy hdg till xxxx stuff.
As for using other people's stuff, you would be amazed by the suggestions I hear too often coming from people who I otherwise would expect, given their background, to act professionally and in an educated and civilized way.
SFI145, I agree with you, in fact the people I respect most have a I life, don't even bother reading this forum much less writing. Let's not hang around here more than strictly necessary to collect those few gems among
loads of croc.
As for using other people's stuff, you would be amazed by the suggestions I hear too often coming from people who I otherwise would expect, given their background, to act professionally and in an educated and civilized way.
SFI145, I agree with you, in fact the people I respect most have a I life, don't even bother reading this forum much less writing. Let's not hang around here more than strictly necessary to collect those few gems among
loads of croc.
Last edited by ant1; 28th Jul 2013 at 11:29.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why take it all so personal?
Cloud 9
Donīt feel insulted man. Iīm sure you are well aware of the amount of pseudo pilots that lurk in this forum. Thatīs the reason why there is so much nonsense written around and people, at least me, become a bit suspicious. If you are a 13000+ pilot then just have a laugh at my comment, clarify the situation and donīt take it so personal.
Anyway, I do humbly apologize and hope you find the information you need.
Happy flying.
Donīt feel insulted man. Iīm sure you are well aware of the amount of pseudo pilots that lurk in this forum. Thatīs the reason why there is so much nonsense written around and people, at least me, become a bit suspicious. If you are a 13000+ pilot then just have a laugh at my comment, clarify the situation and donīt take it so personal.
Anyway, I do humbly apologize and hope you find the information you need.
Happy flying.
