one engine out trap situation
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there really is a danger with terrain the emergency turn procedures normally cater for it. ie eng failure before 5 DME turn right hdg xxx, engine failure after 5D and before 12 DME turn left hdg xxx engine failure after 12 DME continue SID. I find time and time again that the people who try to complicate things and dissect minutiae are the same people who screw up the basics when things go wrong. Keep it simple.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think too many are missing the question asked, maybe simplified:
- solid IMC
- sea level airport, MSA 5000ft within 25nm
- predicated SID and company EFATO procedure
- just after the commencement point of EFATO procedure THEN you lose an engine (being fair a simple failure).
Watch ya gonna do, decisions ya gonna make, Sully, in the next 15-30 seconds regards your tracking??
Bear in mind few companies - probably most - will not provide crew with anything more than an EFATO procedure and only that because the insurance (apologies, regulators - silly me!) require it.
Cheers.
- solid IMC
- sea level airport, MSA 5000ft within 25nm
- predicated SID and company EFATO procedure
- just after the commencement point of EFATO procedure THEN you lose an engine (being fair a simple failure).
Watch ya gonna do, decisions ya gonna make, Sully, in the next 15-30 seconds regards your tracking??
Bear in mind few companies - probably most - will not provide crew with anything more than an EFATO procedure and only that because the insurance (apologies, regulators - silly me!) require it.
Cheers.
All you know is that there is terrain out there and the MSA is well above your altitude.
So how about after making sure that the aircraft is under control, that you select the terrain function to be displayed on your ND(if it wasn't already selected). The manual says that it is not to be used for navigation. But seeing as you could easily justify this as an emergency(even for an aircraft with more than two engines), consider using the terrain database for navigation. It may confirm that the SID route will clear the terrain as it was your lucky day and the routing goes through a valley. MSA of 5000 can sound bad but it could be just one peak that was off to one side of you and several miles away.
But if you can't clear the terrain on the SID route, it might be wise to stay slow to allow more time and tighter turn radius and avoid terrain using the terrain function(in other words. Worry about retracting flaps and accelerating later unless you really need to).
If close-in terrain is all around and is above your altitude, hopefully you have enough space to continuously circle and climb above the terrain or somehow set yourself up for a return to the airport. Remember to compensate for wind drift while doing your circling maneuver.
Last edited by JammedStab; 8th Jan 2017 at 01:47.
Hi MAAZ,
To explain the 'post procedure' I'll stick with the example of YSSY34R Marub 5 departure. Keep in mind that the Obstacle clearance procedure (OCP) and 'post' procedure are NOT published on the chart because they are aircraft dependant. In our case we use Airbus 'Flysmart' data which for each runway will show these on our iPads.
Luckily, this is not some sort of intuitive thing that you'll need to 'feel in your waters' on the day. You will do ONE of two things:
1) Should you lose an engine between V1 and 500 feet then you will follow the OCP which states that we maintain runway track of 335 and then at 10DME SY we turn right and track 090 degrees climbing to the MSA or until radar is happy to give us radar terrain vectors.
2) Should we lose an engine at anytime after 500 feet then we do not have any option but to commence the 'post' (after the first SID turn) procedure which in this case is to turn right and track 090.
The aim on this chart is to avoid bumping in the Sydney central business district including counterpoint tower. (C) marks the spot and (P) marks the post procedure or what we would do after we have already started the turn.
Prior to takeoff, all options are accounted for and understood as standard procedure. The only ambiguity will arise when you have a stalling or vibrating engine in which case once the initial startle factor subsides you will need to do what is most conservative. For my money in the above example, My clients would wish for me to do one of the two above options simply dependent on whether or not I had stared the turn. That is to say whether I am before or post the initial SID turn.
I hope that makes sense.
To explain the 'post procedure' I'll stick with the example of YSSY34R Marub 5 departure. Keep in mind that the Obstacle clearance procedure (OCP) and 'post' procedure are NOT published on the chart because they are aircraft dependant. In our case we use Airbus 'Flysmart' data which for each runway will show these on our iPads.
Luckily, this is not some sort of intuitive thing that you'll need to 'feel in your waters' on the day. You will do ONE of two things:
1) Should you lose an engine between V1 and 500 feet then you will follow the OCP which states that we maintain runway track of 335 and then at 10DME SY we turn right and track 090 degrees climbing to the MSA or until radar is happy to give us radar terrain vectors.
2) Should we lose an engine at anytime after 500 feet then we do not have any option but to commence the 'post' (after the first SID turn) procedure which in this case is to turn right and track 090.
The aim on this chart is to avoid bumping in the Sydney central business district including counterpoint tower. (C) marks the spot and (P) marks the post procedure or what we would do after we have already started the turn.
Prior to takeoff, all options are accounted for and understood as standard procedure. The only ambiguity will arise when you have a stalling or vibrating engine in which case once the initial startle factor subsides you will need to do what is most conservative. For my money in the above example, My clients would wish for me to do one of the two above options simply dependent on whether or not I had stared the turn. That is to say whether I am before or post the initial SID turn.
I hope that makes sense.
Moderator
If there really is a danger with terrain the emergency turn procedures normally cater for it.
Perhaps ... but, then again, more likely, probably not .. beyond the normal routine OEI failure. Highly dependent on the operator's integrity and the Regulator's oversight and technical competence re OEI escape planning.
avoid terrain using the terrain function
That's fine if there's one gynormous hill in an otherwise flat landscape .. the reality is that a pilot-interpreted radar image is of considerably less use than the Eyeball Mk 1 VMC terrain avoidance .. which, likewise, is only much use for the odd significant obstacle in an otherwise benign landscape.
The problem usually is (OEI) trying to match shallow climb gradient capability to one's perception of the terrain gradient ahead .. as a rule, it doesn't work too well at all.
So how to do it properly ? Someone has to do the work ahead of time in the traditional manner (either manually .. takes forever .. or using whatever fancy electonic aids might be available to save time on the number crunching).
Probable outcomes on the day if you don't have a well-engineered pre-planned escape protocol ? .. either you get away with it, go to the pub, get plastered, and sleep like a baby (depending on how big a fright you received ... or you, and your passengers die ... simple, really.
What saves the day overall is that
(a) most runways are reasonably benign and a half-intelligent pre-takeoff plan will see you right
(b) most failures are somewhat after V1 and, providing that you have kept your AEO climb profile well above the OEI animal .. you will have a measure of fat, the measure depending on how far out the failure occurs.
If (a) and (b) don't apply, then reality is that all the buzzwords and weasel words count for naught .. if you find yourself in a nasty terrain situation, OEI and post SID turn and the escape hasn't been figured out ahead of time and isn't right there on your pad in front of you .. then you are up that well-known creek without a paddle.
Perhaps ... but, then again, more likely, probably not .. beyond the normal routine OEI failure. Highly dependent on the operator's integrity and the Regulator's oversight and technical competence re OEI escape planning.
avoid terrain using the terrain function
That's fine if there's one gynormous hill in an otherwise flat landscape .. the reality is that a pilot-interpreted radar image is of considerably less use than the Eyeball Mk 1 VMC terrain avoidance .. which, likewise, is only much use for the odd significant obstacle in an otherwise benign landscape.
The problem usually is (OEI) trying to match shallow climb gradient capability to one's perception of the terrain gradient ahead .. as a rule, it doesn't work too well at all.
So how to do it properly ? Someone has to do the work ahead of time in the traditional manner (either manually .. takes forever .. or using whatever fancy electonic aids might be available to save time on the number crunching).
Probable outcomes on the day if you don't have a well-engineered pre-planned escape protocol ? .. either you get away with it, go to the pub, get plastered, and sleep like a baby (depending on how big a fright you received ... or you, and your passengers die ... simple, really.
What saves the day overall is that
(a) most runways are reasonably benign and a half-intelligent pre-takeoff plan will see you right
(b) most failures are somewhat after V1 and, providing that you have kept your AEO climb profile well above the OEI animal .. you will have a measure of fat, the measure depending on how far out the failure occurs.
If (a) and (b) don't apply, then reality is that all the buzzwords and weasel words count for naught .. if you find yourself in a nasty terrain situation, OEI and post SID turn and the escape hasn't been figured out ahead of time and isn't right there on your pad in front of you .. then you are up that well-known creek without a paddle.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASAland:
GM1 CAT.POL.A.210 Take-off obstacle clearance
CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES FOR OBSTACLES CLEARANCES
If compliance with CAT.POL.A.210 is based on an engine failure route that differs from the all engine departure route or SID normal departure, a ‘deviation point' can be identified where the engine failure route deviates from the normal departure route. Adequate obstacle clearance along the normal departure route with failure of the critical engine at the deviation point will normally be available.
However, in certain situations the obstacle clearance along the normal departure route may be marginal and should be checked to ensure that, in case of an engine failure after the deviation point, a flight can safely proceed along the normal departure route.
GM1 CAT.POL.A.210 Take-off obstacle clearance
CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES FOR OBSTACLES CLEARANCES
If compliance with CAT.POL.A.210 is based on an engine failure route that differs from the all engine departure route or SID normal departure, a ‘deviation point' can be identified where the engine failure route deviates from the normal departure route. Adequate obstacle clearance along the normal departure route with failure of the critical engine at the deviation point will normally be available.
However, in certain situations the obstacle clearance along the normal departure route may be marginal and should be checked to ensure that, in case of an engine failure after the deviation point, a flight can safely proceed along the normal departure route.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: italy
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Willie Nelson..Tnks for the explanation.
I'll take it as an interesting imput.
I understood that your performance team has calculated and make available more than one OCP depending on "when" the engine fail happen, ok..
do you know why, if you have an engine failure after passing 500' you dont fly the SID?
climb performance versus 3,3% SID gradient?
Do you have any EO Post Procedure which states to fly the SID?
tnks
The problem usually is (OEI) trying to match shallow climb gradient capability to one's perception of the terrain gradient ahead .. as a rule, it doesn't work too well at all.
A HUD is very useful here as the true horizon is superimposed on the view outside. The vast difference in AEO versus OEI performance is another factor. One gets used to AEO and its stunning what happens OEI.
GF
Our performance is checked out to MSA OEI, sometimes further. At terrain constrained airfields, there will often be a multi-part procedure, the action taken dependent on where the failure occurred, e.g. (made up example)
Engine failure before 5DME XYZ climb ahead to 1200FT QNH then right track 340DEG inform ATC.
Engine failure between 5DME XYZ and WPONT continue with SID, at WPONT turn left to UVW and enter the hold.
Engine failure after WPONT if below MSA turn left to UVW and enter the hold, otherwise continue or return.
At some places, like Islamabad, our OEI options were presented out to TOC and beyond, with escape routes coming into play once over the high ground (MSAs 27,000’+).
I’m not sure how I would feel about having a known “gap” in an OEI procedure. There are some things that are so unlikely they can be happily discounted but an engine failure in the climb out? At some airfields, it would be obvious what to do but at others, it would be easy to paint yourself into a corner and only realise this when the EGPWS starts giving input.
I am distinctly unhappy with radar departures from places where we have ETs, even though ATC should be looking after terrain clearance - unfortunately they won’t have much idea of the aircraft’s actual performance with an engine out (why should they?)
Engine failure before 5DME XYZ climb ahead to 1200FT QNH then right track 340DEG inform ATC.
Engine failure between 5DME XYZ and WPONT continue with SID, at WPONT turn left to UVW and enter the hold.
Engine failure after WPONT if below MSA turn left to UVW and enter the hold, otherwise continue or return.
At some places, like Islamabad, our OEI options were presented out to TOC and beyond, with escape routes coming into play once over the high ground (MSAs 27,000’+).
I’m not sure how I would feel about having a known “gap” in an OEI procedure. There are some things that are so unlikely they can be happily discounted but an engine failure in the climb out? At some airfields, it would be obvious what to do but at others, it would be easy to paint yourself into a corner and only realise this when the EGPWS starts giving input.
I am distinctly unhappy with radar departures from places where we have ETs, even though ATC should be looking after terrain clearance - unfortunately they won’t have much idea of the aircraft’s actual performance with an engine out (why should they?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: italy
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Gryphon..
Nice to see any colleague chewing Easa AirOps
That's I'm looking for... strategies and option of an engine failure after the deviation point... what other airlines do!..
how they calculate if they actually do.
As you know the GM you posted (Guidance Material) is just a guidance and not a rule to comply with. That is the reason not many Airlines follow this useful raccomandation which could give more tools to their pilots to solve in the correct way the unsafe situation. Far away from a screwed one.
If WE pilots could know, even before take-off that, today, if the engine fails after the deviation point I can safely continue flying the SID, I will probably avoid to maneuver the airplane to rejoin the EOP track increasing the level off stress and decreasing the safety.
Why request to pilots to use airwothness, authority and sound decision making leaving them alone to take this decision if the airline can put more energies to make a deeper study of the problem and give options as the Easa GM suggests?
flight operations don't has to count on heroes.. WE Pilots must use our sound decision making as the last resource available only when facing an unforseen circumstance or, let's say, any situation that cannot be planned or calculated.
"this" can be calculated and WE pilots should ask for it!
This is not to "complicate things and dissect minutiae" as somebody wrote here.
On the contrary I think is superficial not work on obtain any tool that can be delivered to professional pilots which can be extremely useful to avoid complicating the situation inflight.
This kind of planning has just one definition: SAFETY
Nice to see any colleague chewing Easa AirOps
That's I'm looking for... strategies and option of an engine failure after the deviation point... what other airlines do!..
how they calculate if they actually do.
As you know the GM you posted (Guidance Material) is just a guidance and not a rule to comply with. That is the reason not many Airlines follow this useful raccomandation which could give more tools to their pilots to solve in the correct way the unsafe situation. Far away from a screwed one.
If WE pilots could know, even before take-off that, today, if the engine fails after the deviation point I can safely continue flying the SID, I will probably avoid to maneuver the airplane to rejoin the EOP track increasing the level off stress and decreasing the safety.
Why request to pilots to use airwothness, authority and sound decision making leaving them alone to take this decision if the airline can put more energies to make a deeper study of the problem and give options as the Easa GM suggests?
flight operations don't has to count on heroes.. WE Pilots must use our sound decision making as the last resource available only when facing an unforseen circumstance or, let's say, any situation that cannot be planned or calculated.
"this" can be calculated and WE pilots should ask for it!
This is not to "complicate things and dissect minutiae" as somebody wrote here.
On the contrary I think is superficial not work on obtain any tool that can be delivered to professional pilots which can be extremely useful to avoid complicating the situation inflight.
This kind of planning has just one definition: SAFETY
Last edited by MAAZ; 8th Jan 2017 at 17:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: italy
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@FullWings..
Hell! that's how must work!
I do like.. you should be proud about your performance team!
behind all those options there is a big efford.
try to bring this to mine one..
Hell! that's how must work!
I do like.. you should be proud about your performance team!
behind all those options there is a big efford.
try to bring this to mine one..
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Down the Taxiway...
Age: 37
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every body points out every thing...!! I suggest you shouldn't have been on that SID.If the SE cceiling is lower than the MEA in that cas the route cannot be planned.
SID's may or may not have minimum climb gradients.It is required to be assured that in the case of the most critical engine failing the same can be adhered to if not then reduce the weight if that doesn't help you cannot be using that SID.Similarly a Miss App may have minimum gradients as well
More than airman ship its planning
SID's may or may not have minimum climb gradients.It is required to be assured that in the case of the most critical engine failing the same can be adhered to if not then reduce the weight if that doesn't help you cannot be using that SID.Similarly a Miss App may have minimum gradients as well
More than airman ship its planning
All SIDS and omnidirectional departures have a minimum gradient-3.3% unless specified higher. Using the SID gradients is unwise when a OEI emergency procedure can be drawn and one that uses a routing to optimize weight and provide better terrain clearance.
GF
GF
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avoid terrain using the terrain function
That's fine if there's one gynormous hill in an otherwise flat landscape .. the reality is that a pilot-interpreted radar image is of considerably less use than the Eyeball Mk 1 VMC terrain avoidance .. which, likewise, is only much use for the odd significant obstacle in an otherwise benign landscape.
That's fine if there's one gynormous hill in an otherwise flat landscape .. the reality is that a pilot-interpreted radar image is of considerably less use than the Eyeball Mk 1 VMC terrain avoidance .. which, likewise, is only much use for the odd significant obstacle in an otherwise benign landscape.
This is for the situation suggested where you had an engine failure and you are past the turning point for the engine out procedure and in high terrain.
Hi MAAZ,
I will defer to Gryphon for you local area, he knows more of the local rules than I ever will. Down in the antipodes we do things a little differently.
From the reference that Gryphon refers to it looks like EASA is placing the requirement back on the company to confirm obstacle clearance in all circumstances.
In my airline we have a performance engineering department that will do exactly that. Having said that we are not a small operator and I'm not aware of us having ever done a charter to an airfield for which we were not able to obtain the relevant obstacle and terrain data.
I will defer to Gryphon for you local area, he knows more of the local rules than I ever will. Down in the antipodes we do things a little differently.
From the reference that Gryphon refers to it looks like EASA is placing the requirement back on the company to confirm obstacle clearance in all circumstances.
In my airline we have a performance engineering department that will do exactly that. Having said that we are not a small operator and I'm not aware of us having ever done a charter to an airfield for which we were not able to obtain the relevant obstacle and terrain data.
Moderator
I am talking about using the EGPWS terrain function which paints a nice picture of the terrain around you and its altitude relative to you.
Didn't work too well, for instance, at Mt Erebus ? OK, I'm being a tad facetious. However, the EGPWS terrain databases are not worldwide and, I suspect, not of sufficient accuracy to support OEI planning. Better than nothing, certainly.
I'm not aware of us having ever done a charter to an airfield for which we were not able to obtain the relevant obstacle and terrain data
While satellite data makes a first cut much easier these days, I wouldn't discount your folk making the usual assumptions for one-off charters .. getting adequate terrain data can still entail considerable work and time. For many locations, there exists plenty of data .. can be a pain tracking it down, though, in a short timeframe.
Might be illuminating were you to have a discussion over coffee with your ops eng folks.
GF's observation re HUD is useful although (and I have never operated HUD) it probably is not in the class of an adequate preplanned escape.
Didn't work too well, for instance, at Mt Erebus ? OK, I'm being a tad facetious. However, the EGPWS terrain databases are not worldwide and, I suspect, not of sufficient accuracy to support OEI planning. Better than nothing, certainly.
I'm not aware of us having ever done a charter to an airfield for which we were not able to obtain the relevant obstacle and terrain data
While satellite data makes a first cut much easier these days, I wouldn't discount your folk making the usual assumptions for one-off charters .. getting adequate terrain data can still entail considerable work and time. For many locations, there exists plenty of data .. can be a pain tracking it down, though, in a short timeframe.
Might be illuminating were you to have a discussion over coffee with your ops eng folks.
GF's observation re HUD is useful although (and I have never operated HUD) it probably is not in the class of an adequate preplanned escape.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would absolutely need very precise charts to know where terrain is and figure out a way to avoid it.
The idea to simply circle in a climb sounds good. It just requires to know A/C radius of turn and its performance while in that turn.
(More precisely : figure out the maximum inclination which will still allow the 1 engine-out aircraft to climb, know the diameter of turn for that inclination and figure that if terrain allows for significantly more than that diameter of turn, everything should be all right)
Moderator
You would absolutely need very precise charts to know where terrain is and figure out a way to avoid it.
Crew data is of scant use for OEI clearance planning due extent and accuracy
The idea to simply circle in a climb sounds good
OEI, you need to factor in the loss of climb gradient in a turn and the very large turn radius for a small angle of bank. Good idea but generally doesn't cut the mustard.
Crew data is of scant use for OEI clearance planning due extent and accuracy
The idea to simply circle in a climb sounds good
OEI, you need to factor in the loss of climb gradient in a turn and the very large turn radius for a small angle of bank. Good idea but generally doesn't cut the mustard.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find time and time again that the people who try to complicate things and dissect minutiae are the same people who screw up the basics when things go wrong.