Single Engine GA
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Cologne, Germany
Single Engine GA
Regulations define a minimum gradient of 2.1 % for Instrument approach procedures respectively 2.5 % for low visibility approaches. Sometimes higher gradients are defined according to the obstacle situation. Lets assume an approach where the minimum gradient is 4 %. The Airbus LPCNG is showing a 4% gradient. So far so good. Now in you have to perform a go around below the minimum one eng out you wont be safe anymore.
Safer would be to fly the one eng out procedure. But how do I know that this will bei safe as well and how much is the gradient it is based on. The lpcng landing module of Airbus doesnt calculate for the obstacles. It calculates with a gradient of 2.1 %. But if the eng out procedure is obstacle limited the resulting max landing weight would be wrong.
Any recommendations on that ?
Safer would be to fly the one eng out procedure. But how do I know that this will bei safe as well and how much is the gradient it is based on. The lpcng landing module of Airbus doesnt calculate for the obstacles. It calculates with a gradient of 2.1 %. But if the eng out procedure is obstacle limited the resulting max landing weight would be wrong.
Any recommendations on that ?
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 102
From: IRS NAV ONLY
EOSID is based on you being 35ft at the end of runway/clearway at V2 with weights higher than your normal landing weight.
One would think that if you go around at let's say 50ft over the landing threshold, you would have quite a substantial advantage compared to the conditions above.
One would think that if you go around at let's say 50ft over the landing threshold, you would have quite a substantial advantage compared to the conditions above.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 310
From: various places .....
EOSID is based on you being 35ft at the end of runway/clearway at V2 with weights higher than your normal landing weight.
Not necessarily the case. GW and V2 (or overspeed V2) comment should be OK but the net height, generally, will be higher, depending on the runway/obstacle profile (ie which case is limiting) and how the ops eng folk did the sums.
One would think that if you go around at let's say 50ft over the landing threshold, you would have quite a substantial advantage compared to the conditions above.
Concerns here are
(a) tracking into and then maintaining the takeoff escape path
(b) speed and configuration differences
For a difficult runway, not an easy ask at all ...
Ask your operator:
Absolutely ...
Not necessarily the case. GW and V2 (or overspeed V2) comment should be OK but the net height, generally, will be higher, depending on the runway/obstacle profile (ie which case is limiting) and how the ops eng folk did the sums.
One would think that if you go around at let's say 50ft over the landing threshold, you would have quite a substantial advantage compared to the conditions above.
Concerns here are
(a) tracking into and then maintaining the takeoff escape path
(b) speed and configuration differences
For a difficult runway, not an easy ask at all ...
Ask your operator:
Absolutely ...
