Eng out accel ht at 400ft again and again?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: BKK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bohol, Philippines
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obstacle clearance etc
Something that has always puzzled me. Why is the takeoff minimum acceleration height 400 ft but the go-around is 800 feet? Also, an obstacle must be cleared by 35 feet on the net flight path. Surely if I were repairing the roof on my local church and a B777 with one engine on fire came over my head 35 feet above me this would be somewhat alarming?
Only half a speed-brake
Per ICAO Pans-Ops Doc 8168 there is no such thing as acceleration during G/A, the gradient profile expects you to climb all the way to MisAp altitude.
Hopefully the aircraft will actually be climbing above the net profile, and there is a minimum gradient they need to achieve too. However in case where
- you are the critical limiting obstacle
- or you live at the end of TODA
Expect a lot of rattle and shake. You will be quite used to it somehow, as the quad engine airplanes (soon to be extinct tho) will be buzzing by even with all operative.
N. B. Fire is not your greatest concern. That is something which happens outside the casing, inside the nacelle. The core would still be thrusting rather well.
Hopefully the aircraft will actually be climbing above the net profile, and there is a minimum gradient they need to achieve too. However in case where
- you are the critical limiting obstacle
- or you live at the end of TODA
Expect a lot of rattle and shake. You will be quite used to it somehow, as the quad engine airplanes (soon to be extinct tho) will be buzzing by even with all operative.
N. B. Fire is not your greatest concern. That is something which happens outside the casing, inside the nacelle. The core would still be thrusting rather well.
Moderator
Why is the takeoff minimum acceleration height 400 ft but the go-around is 800 feet?
400 ft third segment is historical and based on early ICAO documents. I am not aware of any standardised requirement for a miss at 800 ft, although that is quite common throughout the Industry. Generally, you will be initiating the miss at or above whatever the relevant height is for the particular approach. Main thing to keep in mind is that the required configurations are different for OEI/AEO.
Also, an obstacle must be cleared by 35 feet on the net flight path. Surely if I were repairing the roof on my local church and a B777 with one engine on fire came over my head 35 feet above me this would be somewhat alarming?
Alarming all around. Keeping in mind that the gross gradient will be somewhat better than the net, and the height delta increases the further downstream we go, you should expect an increasing clearance as the takeoff continues. If the failure is well after V1 (ie better than the AFM story) then you should be well and truly higher than necessary in most situations. The crew should see the gross gradient (or a little bit better) while we run the clearance sums based on a degraded net gradient presumption.
400 ft third segment is historical and based on early ICAO documents. I am not aware of any standardised requirement for a miss at 800 ft, although that is quite common throughout the Industry. Generally, you will be initiating the miss at or above whatever the relevant height is for the particular approach. Main thing to keep in mind is that the required configurations are different for OEI/AEO.
Also, an obstacle must be cleared by 35 feet on the net flight path. Surely if I were repairing the roof on my local church and a B777 with one engine on fire came over my head 35 feet above me this would be somewhat alarming?
Alarming all around. Keeping in mind that the gross gradient will be somewhat better than the net, and the height delta increases the further downstream we go, you should expect an increasing clearance as the takeoff continues. If the failure is well after V1 (ie better than the AFM story) then you should be well and truly higher than necessary in most situations. The crew should see the gross gradient (or a little bit better) while we run the clearance sums based on a degraded net gradient presumption.
