Approach Climb/Landing Climb in Engine out situation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2024
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach Climb/Landing Climb in Engine out situation
I have a question,
If a departing part 121 aircraft suffers an engine failure and the actual weight does not comply with Approach Climb/Landing Climb capabilities, this aircraft may initiate the approach or must burn fuel/dump fuel for get the weight for Approach Climb/landing Climb performance before initiate the approach?
Thanks.
If a departing part 121 aircraft suffers an engine failure and the actual weight does not comply with Approach Climb/Landing Climb capabilities, this aircraft may initiate the approach or must burn fuel/dump fuel for get the weight for Approach Climb/landing Climb performance before initiate the approach?
Thanks.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pretty simple - you must always have a 'way out', unless we're talking an emergency where the crew have deemed that a missed approach is not an option and that the aircraft will be landed - or 'landed' - no matter what.
So - when deciding to make an overweight landing, the CDR have to satisfy themself that the aircraft can either a) stop on the available runway or b) execute a missed approach. When you're able to execute either option, you're ready for the approach.
So - when deciding to make an overweight landing, the CDR have to satisfy themself that the aircraft can either a) stop on the available runway or b) execute a missed approach. When you're able to execute either option, you're ready for the approach.
You can still go around below minima, in which case the higher minima did nothing to help your situation and all bets are off. I'd rather follow the engine failure procedure for the applicable runway.
Moderator
Some thoughts, if I may ?
(a) OEI, the landing climb case is not a useful option. That is to say, you need a commit point in mind for when the wheels are down and landing flap is taken. One of the reasons most opt for a reduced landing flap configuration OEI, distance permitting.
(b) for an intended return to the departure aerodrome, one would expect that weight is reduced appropriately prior to landing for other than significant emergency situations.
(c) in a significant emergency, command perogative comes into play, following which the Monday morning armchair critics will be frothing at the mouth should the outcome not be comfortable.
(d) I'd rather follow the engine failure procedure for the applicable runway. Not quite as easy at that. A better option is for the operator to schedule defensible approach go around procedures for difficult aerodromes/runways.
(a) OEI, the landing climb case is not a useful option. That is to say, you need a commit point in mind for when the wheels are down and landing flap is taken. One of the reasons most opt for a reduced landing flap configuration OEI, distance permitting.
(b) for an intended return to the departure aerodrome, one would expect that weight is reduced appropriately prior to landing for other than significant emergency situations.
(c) in a significant emergency, command perogative comes into play, following which the Monday morning armchair critics will be frothing at the mouth should the outcome not be comfortable.
(d) I'd rather follow the engine failure procedure for the applicable runway. Not quite as easy at that. A better option is for the operator to schedule defensible approach go around procedures for difficult aerodromes/runways.
Our operator stipulates balked landing procedures for go around below minima in case of significant terrain risk. That said if terrain is the reason for the G/A gradient, as opposed to noise/airspace, I'd be inclined to have the EFATO procedure in the secondary flight plan just in case...
