EO Go-Around at Max TOW
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said - if you're returning that quickly, unplanned - you're already time critical and committed, and you can't plan for every eventuality such as a blocked runway in that scenario. In fact you probably wouldn't have time to discuss the engine out procedure and would be looking at landing ASAP however you can (taxiway / ditching?) if you're about to burn out of the sky...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short..:
If you took off from that runway you can land on it.
Go-round performance is assured by:
1) Check the Approach Climb gradient table to confirm available performance exceeds the MAP gradient (and Overweight Landing checklist if applicable).
2) If it doesn’t, OR a go-round is made from below the MDA/DA, then follow the engine out procedure ( which, in the case of a quick return you know because you just took off).
3) If there is a special published engine out MAP follow that instead.
Advise ATC of your intentions.
If you took off from that runway you can land on it.
Go-round performance is assured by:
1) Check the Approach Climb gradient table to confirm available performance exceeds the MAP gradient (and Overweight Landing checklist if applicable).
2) If it doesn’t, OR a go-round is made from below the MDA/DA, then follow the engine out procedure ( which, in the case of a quick return you know because you just took off).
3) If there is a special published engine out MAP follow that instead.
Advise ATC of your intentions.
Last edited by HPSOV L; 20th Sep 2018 at 21:06.
Moderator
Getting the information from Flight Ops is the best
D'accord, providing that the data is sourced from appropriate folk on a basis of integrity. Centaurus tells a tale of an operator of his acquaintance where management didn't like the numbers for one runway with the obstacles included so they contracted to get data based on the runway and obstacle information they provided to the contractor ... guess what ? Only a problem if one quits on takeoff, I guess.
Simply following the EOSID when going missed, especially as a blind statement, is fought with disaster.
The major problem is getting the aircraft onto the escape path at or above the takeoff computed elevation with appropriate speed and configuration in the first instance. The flight path during reconfiguration and acceleration is the difficulty for calculation as the AFM generally doesn't give you any information. Then you have to worry about traffic, as you suggest. Nothing's easy .. hence the way to go is have a pre-computed ops engineering procedure for a critical miss.
Go missed at the MAP, level, then follow the EOSID?
You tell me. Keep in mind that for the overweight case postulated, lose one with landing flap/gear down and you are likely to keep going down for some time until you get the aircraft reconfigured and faster .. I keep belabouring this as it is not generally well understood. A read of JW's mishap in the F27 (VH-FNH) at Launceston many years ago highlights the problems .. https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...st-1965-a.html has some recollections. Full flap, gear down with one out and you should expect to keep going down ... getting to the configuration and speed you need takes time, distance, and height compromises ... not nice stuff in a critical terrain situation ?
If you can follow it on takeoff you can definitely make it on a go-around!
That might be a tad optimistic if you are starting behind the play overweight, full flap and gear down .. Reality is that, for many cases, the only sensible solution is to adopt a higher missed approach point to accommodate the intervening bit of activity before you get to the takeoff configuration, speed and track.
If you took off from that runway you can land on it.
Again, not always a shoe-in .. depends on takeoff and landing configurations/speeds.
1) Check the Approach Climb gradient table to confirm available performance exceeds the MAP gradient (and Overweight Landing checklist if applicable).
Now, where did you figure in the distance and height delta requirements for reconfiguration and acceleration ?
2) If it doesn’t, OR a go-round is made from below the MDA/DA, then follow the engine out procedure ( which, in the case of a quick return you know because you just took off).
Same question ..
3) If there is a special published engine out MAP follow that instead.
Ah, that's the better way to approach things.
Again, I may appear just to be a silly old pharte worrying about this and that ... really, I'd just like to think that you good folk might think it a bit deeper than you appear to be doing.
Might I suggest, next sim session playtime, that folks have a look at a MLW, full flap, gear down, scheduled landing speed miss from the minimum .. with a failure just before .. and see just how different it is from the AEO miss .. chalk and cheese .. and then try it again at MTOW.
D'accord, providing that the data is sourced from appropriate folk on a basis of integrity. Centaurus tells a tale of an operator of his acquaintance where management didn't like the numbers for one runway with the obstacles included so they contracted to get data based on the runway and obstacle information they provided to the contractor ... guess what ? Only a problem if one quits on takeoff, I guess.
Simply following the EOSID when going missed, especially as a blind statement, is fought with disaster.
The major problem is getting the aircraft onto the escape path at or above the takeoff computed elevation with appropriate speed and configuration in the first instance. The flight path during reconfiguration and acceleration is the difficulty for calculation as the AFM generally doesn't give you any information. Then you have to worry about traffic, as you suggest. Nothing's easy .. hence the way to go is have a pre-computed ops engineering procedure for a critical miss.
Go missed at the MAP, level, then follow the EOSID?
You tell me. Keep in mind that for the overweight case postulated, lose one with landing flap/gear down and you are likely to keep going down for some time until you get the aircraft reconfigured and faster .. I keep belabouring this as it is not generally well understood. A read of JW's mishap in the F27 (VH-FNH) at Launceston many years ago highlights the problems .. https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...st-1965-a.html has some recollections. Full flap, gear down with one out and you should expect to keep going down ... getting to the configuration and speed you need takes time, distance, and height compromises ... not nice stuff in a critical terrain situation ?
If you can follow it on takeoff you can definitely make it on a go-around!
That might be a tad optimistic if you are starting behind the play overweight, full flap and gear down .. Reality is that, for many cases, the only sensible solution is to adopt a higher missed approach point to accommodate the intervening bit of activity before you get to the takeoff configuration, speed and track.
If you took off from that runway you can land on it.
Again, not always a shoe-in .. depends on takeoff and landing configurations/speeds.
1) Check the Approach Climb gradient table to confirm available performance exceeds the MAP gradient (and Overweight Landing checklist if applicable).
Now, where did you figure in the distance and height delta requirements for reconfiguration and acceleration ?
2) If it doesn’t, OR a go-round is made from below the MDA/DA, then follow the engine out procedure ( which, in the case of a quick return you know because you just took off).
Same question ..
3) If there is a special published engine out MAP follow that instead.
Ah, that's the better way to approach things.
Again, I may appear just to be a silly old pharte worrying about this and that ... really, I'd just like to think that you good folk might think it a bit deeper than you appear to be doing.
Might I suggest, next sim session playtime, that folks have a look at a MLW, full flap, gear down, scheduled landing speed miss from the minimum .. with a failure just before .. and see just how different it is from the AEO miss .. chalk and cheese .. and then try it again at MTOW.
Only half a speed-brake
I wonder about the LR quad airplanes, as for the popular SH twin:
A320/CFM (MTOW 77t, MLW 66t) on an ISA day and sea-level
with some precautions
.
.
@76,5t EO GA % = 3,9 with GA SPD = Vapp + 8kt
@90t EO GA % = 2,1 with GA SPD = Vapp + 13 kt
A320/CFM (MTOW 77t, MLW 66t) on an ISA day and sea-level
with some precautions
.
.
@76,5t EO GA % = 3,9 with GA SPD = Vapp + 8kt
@90t EO GA % = 2,1 with GA SPD = Vapp + 13 kt
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT
you make some excellent points but remember the OP was specifically referring to approach and landing at MTOW with one engine out and no other failures. I can only speak for the 777, but with that caveat I’d point out that a go around in that scenario would be at F5 which would provide a gradient to acceleration altitude equal or better than any takeoff configuration, given it’s initiated from a point a mile or so back and with no V1/VR gap.
I can’t prove that with graphs and numbers. However pilots do have to trust the company performance technical dept to develop and test generic strategies to cover most situations, and to publish any exceptions (KTM springs to mind). We simply don’t have the resources to create our own.
Having said that, I acknowledge I’m lucky enough to have worked for major well resourced airlines on modern large twins and my experience won’t be everyone’s.
Enjoying the discussion.
you make some excellent points but remember the OP was specifically referring to approach and landing at MTOW with one engine out and no other failures. I can only speak for the 777, but with that caveat I’d point out that a go around in that scenario would be at F5 which would provide a gradient to acceleration altitude equal or better than any takeoff configuration, given it’s initiated from a point a mile or so back and with no V1/VR gap.
I can’t prove that with graphs and numbers. However pilots do have to trust the company performance technical dept to develop and test generic strategies to cover most situations, and to publish any exceptions (KTM springs to mind). We simply don’t have the resources to create our own.
Having said that, I acknowledge I’m lucky enough to have worked for major well resourced airlines on modern large twins and my experience won’t be everyone’s.
Enjoying the discussion.
Last edited by HPSOV L; 21st Sep 2018 at 23:03.
Moderator
I haven't played with Airbus or the triple-7 so I have no specific data. The main thing people need to think about, though, is the time (and distance) taken for their particular aircraft to accelerate from a full flap/gear down landing approach - OEI - to whatever escape configuration and speed is pertinent. So long as the thread engenders sitting back with a coffee or port and what-iffing it will have been valuable to the readership.
I do commend having a looksee at the exercise in sim playtime, though.
I do commend having a looksee at the exercise in sim playtime, though.
