Eng out accel height?

[RUMBEAR]

I don't disagree. However this question results in "normally" and "presumably" being included in almost all answers. I fly to many airports that don't have the standard 2.5% missed approach gradient. The charts also include the statement " MDA / DA based on 2.5% gradient not provided". Would should also say "hopefully" will not have to consider this situation for real!!

[john_tullamarine]

If you have a difficult runway approach, so far as the miss is concerned, then the ops engineers need to have a look at in a manner similar to the takeoff situation.

On another point, for takeoff, where terrain dictates, one can schedule a turn from runway head and 50ft.

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by john_tullamarine

If you have a difficult runway approach, so far as the miss is concerned, then the ops engineers need to have a look at in a manner similar to the takeoff situation.

On another point, for takeoff, where terrain dictates, one can schedule a turn from runway head and 50ft.

True, we used to have a couple of airports with engine-out procedures that started at 50 feet with a 15 degree bank through 180 degrees of turn to avoid close-in high terrain. I believe the company makes the choice of what altitude they want(or is it the manufacturer?). Over the years on various aircraft, I have seen 400, 600, 800, and 1000 feet. But on the most recent aircrat with 1000 foot acc heights, there are specific runways with slightly higher atitudes. The interseting thing is that the OPT might adjust them slightly based on the final numbers as compared to the original calculation, so you might want to double check the acc altitude after getting the loadsheet numbers into the performance calculator.

[ejet3]

Originally Posted by aterpster

Normally, you would be at, or below, max landing weight. Plus, you presumably begin the OEI missed approach at, or above DA. So, you are in better shape than OEI just above V1 on takeoff. If you are doing a OEI overweight landing, you might want to avoid using an IAP that doesn't have a 2.5% clear missed approach procedure.

Say your at MLW or over! either way you need to have something to hang your hat on in court.

I think the safest option would be to fly the jepp missed approach and clean up at the accel altitude that's in OTP (Boeing) or the 1 inop procedure (CDP)? if your below the MDA/DA or can't met the missed approach gradients fly the 1 inop take off procedure (CDP) and clean up at that accel altitude.

Thoughts? goes for both 1 and 2 engine!

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by JammedStab

True, we used to have a couple of airports with engine-out procedures that started at 50 feet with a 15 degree bank through 180 degrees of turn to avoid close-in high terrain. I believe the company makes the choice of what altitude they want(or is it the manufacturer?).

It's up to the operator. The manufacturers don't concern themselves with obstacle clearance, per se, or with the manner in which the takeoff path is flown. The manufacturers assure the aircraft with meet the Part 25 takeoff flight path at MTOW under optimum conditions, and provides OEI data for various weights, elevations, temperatures and runway lengths.

The operator then has to assure compliance with 121.189, or its equivalent. Many today now use the Part 25 takeoff path applied to AC 120-91, rather than the impossibly narrow lateral limits specified in 121.189.

AC 120-91:

https://tinyurl.com/ydd9e7zp

Large operators have their own planning and performance departments. Smaller operators often use contract planning and performance companies.

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by ejet3

Say your at MLW or over! either way you need to have something to hang your hat on in court.

Should be provided by the company for every approved IAP.