Go around Climb Gradient with Single Engine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Test
Age: 35
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go around Climb Gradient with Single Engine
Hi there,
May I ask in the event of a single engine GA, does the climb gradient pertaining to local charts say VHHH 7% apply? OR we just have to meet the discontinued approach climb gradient of 2.5% (EU OPS)
Thanks
May I ask in the event of a single engine GA, does the climb gradient pertaining to local charts say VHHH 7% apply? OR we just have to meet the discontinued approach climb gradient of 2.5% (EU OPS)
Thanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Test
Age: 35
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must comply with the charted MACG both for OEI and AEO cases, unless your company has a OEI contingency procedure for that specific IAP.
Only exception would be where a MACG is specified for ATC/airspace reasons only, prior coordination with ATC required.
Only exception would be where a MACG is specified for ATC/airspace reasons only, prior coordination with ATC required.
My (out of town) take: doesn't matter how many engines you have going. If you can make 7%, use the 222ft/122ft minimums. If you can only make 2.5%, then you have to use the 1332ft minimum (as shown in the Missed Approach procedure text). Those gradients merely provide suitable obstacle clearance. How you achieve them on 1, 2, 3, or 4 engines is entirely up to you/you company.
"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?
"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Test
Age: 35
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see, I thought as long as we abide by the 2.5%, we'll have satisfied the regulation portion of it. Guess the 7% is under the regulatory requirements too.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On A320 and I believe on all modern airliners you are never climb gradient limited with all engines running. So you can always use the lowest minima applicable to your aircraft. When you do the landing performance computation, it will give you the climb gradient in case of engine out. If in your case, if it’s below 7%, you still use the lowest minima but you have to mention that in the very unlikely case of an engine failure below 1332 feet and you have to perform a go around then you must follow the EOSID and not the standard missed approach from the chart. The only reason to use the DA of 1332 would be if you had an engine failure before starting an approach and you don’t have an EOSID for HK which is very unlikely. In HK, it’s better to request 07R in case of engine failure for landing if you are climb gradient limited as it’s 4% instead of 7%. The EOSID for 07L is a total mess.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: retirement home soon
Age: 71
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regulations require missed approach climb gradients to be achieved with one-engine-inoperative.
therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.
it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.
the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)
therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.
it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.
the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s why we have EOSID. We never use the highest minima in normal conditions. =)
I’m not based in HK but we use it daily as alternate and that’s what we were told.
I’m not based in HK but we use it daily as alternate and that’s what we were told.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think EOSID and OEO missed approach is getting mixed up. It is quite possible that their paths may be different and they are not same. When the required OEO missed approach gradient cannot be met then that restricts the RTOW at departure airport and it may not be commercially viable. To avoid this a OEO missed approach is designed.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes what I mean is EO missed approach procedure even tho in our Flysmart it’s written as EOSID and is the same path as EOSID. In our home based the missed approach climb gradient is 5.4% minimum with only one published DA.
So it’s common use for us to mention when we are heavy and the climb gradient is less than 5.4% on the performance calculation in case of engine out we will follow the EO missed approach ( which is exactly the same as the EOSID) and not the standard missed approach published on the chart.
So it’s common use for us to mention when we are heavy and the climb gradient is less than 5.4% on the performance calculation in case of engine out we will follow the EO missed approach ( which is exactly the same as the EOSID) and not the standard missed approach published on the chart.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NW England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My (out of town) take: doesn't matter how many engines you have going. If you can make 7%, use the 222ft/122ft minimums. If you can only make 2.5%, then you have to use the 1332ft minimum (as shown in the Missed Approach procedure text). Those gradients merely provide suitable obstacle clearance. How you achieve them on 1, 2, 3, or 4 engines is entirely up to you/you company.
"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?
"OCA/H" an odd way of saying DA/DH?
Jeppesen and other companies do this for you, AIP's do not!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regulations require missed approach climb gradients to be achieved with one-engine-inoperative.
therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.
it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.
the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)
therefore, unless you are able to climb with 7% in the case of an engine-failure, you cannot use the 222ft minimum.
it is the responsibility of the airline to provide this data.
the obstacles in front of you do not move out of your way just because you lost an engine ;-)
Last edited by poldek77; 12th Jan 2020 at 15:16.