Engine Failure on Takeoff! Flight Path?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This part of the same article deals with the Missed Approach!
FAR 121.195 which specifies maximum landing weight requirements, refers to FAR25 aircraft for approach climb gradient requirements. For a 3 engine aircraft the required engine failure climb gradient at maximum landing weight is 2.4%. This gradient is the equivalent to 145 feet per nautical mile which is well below the minimum TERPS required climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile and the TERPS obstruction clearance plane of 152 feet per nautical mile. When you include the acceleration/clean up segment of an engine failure missed approach, the resulting actual climb gradient is even lower. From this information you can see that you are not guaranteed obstruction clearance on a TERPS procedure during and engine failure missed approach!
Mutt
FAR 121.195 which specifies maximum landing weight requirements, refers to FAR25 aircraft for approach climb gradient requirements. For a 3 engine aircraft the required engine failure climb gradient at maximum landing weight is 2.4%. This gradient is the equivalent to 145 feet per nautical mile which is well below the minimum TERPS required climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile and the TERPS obstruction clearance plane of 152 feet per nautical mile. When you include the acceleration/clean up segment of an engine failure missed approach, the resulting actual climb gradient is even lower. From this information you can see that you are not guaranteed obstruction clearance on a TERPS procedure during and engine failure missed approach!
Mutt
Moderator
Having great trouble logging this post ... hopefully it appears only once ..
Seldom do I have the chills up my spine which I have from reading this thread.
Most airlines schedule for a V1 failure only .. with an escape path if necessary. They ignore the case of a failure post V1 on the climb to enroute conditions. This I know applies in a number of quite large international airlines. I have just started a contract with such an operator and sat in on a pilot performance lecture this morning. When I asked the PE lecturer this question his answer was to the effect that it was the pilot's problem.
A sensible flight department will ensure that its ops eng support team provides analyses of failure at ANY POINT in the post takeoff flight path until enroute clearance has been attained... certainly that is what my operator clients get.
What it boils down to is this ...if YOUR people only look at the V1 failure case and you have a failure airborne .. then you are on your Pat Malone my dear .. if there are any hills of note around then you are, very likely, DEAD MEAT !!
Forget SIDs ... they have nothing to do with OEI escape paths and generally the relevant preambles make this quite quite clear.
Please do ask your ops engineers what they do and do not include before you go off assuming things which, perhaps, you ought not to .....
Seldom do I have the chills up my spine which I have from reading this thread.
Most airlines schedule for a V1 failure only .. with an escape path if necessary. They ignore the case of a failure post V1 on the climb to enroute conditions. This I know applies in a number of quite large international airlines. I have just started a contract with such an operator and sat in on a pilot performance lecture this morning. When I asked the PE lecturer this question his answer was to the effect that it was the pilot's problem.
A sensible flight department will ensure that its ops eng support team provides analyses of failure at ANY POINT in the post takeoff flight path until enroute clearance has been attained... certainly that is what my operator clients get.
What it boils down to is this ...if YOUR people only look at the V1 failure case and you have a failure airborne .. then you are on your Pat Malone my dear .. if there are any hills of note around then you are, very likely, DEAD MEAT !!
Forget SIDs ... they have nothing to do with OEI escape paths and generally the relevant preambles make this quite quite clear.
Please do ask your ops engineers what they do and do not include before you go off assuming things which, perhaps, you ought not to .....
Grandpa Aerotart
Ahh, wonderful stuff this !!.
I think we are pretty much on our own a lot of the time. I used to fly for an airline that operated jets in very high DAs and we had Jepp Special Procedures that dumped us at 1500' AGL which was about 10000' below MORA, with terrain VERY HIGH and VERY CLOSE that went for F**KING MILES in every direction! We knew the area like the back of our proverbials and so had some more 'home grown stuff' that would give us maximum chance of surviving said V1 bad news.
Now I'm CP for a Bizjet op where we operate into places on 'one offs' or rarely. We go to Kunming for instance(6300amsl/MSA 11800ish) at 2am (twice lately) and I had to sit down with one of my Captains and work out WTF we would do in case of trouble.
We worked out that by following parts of several SIDs that dovtailed nicely we could make MSA on one engine and ended up at an NDB from where we could join an arc for an ILS back to land. Any one SID required a minimum of 5% climb gradient.
My/our SOP for Kunming requires that we fly our 'escape route' no matter what to MSA(night/IMC) just in case one fails below MSA but after V1.
Straight ahead is good often times but I only go to 10 nm and then turn back to overhead.
As a general rule I use CAT C or D circling minimas(Pan Ops version ie 4.2nm for C or 5.28nm for D. TERPS 1.7nm for C how do you guys do it??) as accel alt and if an IMC departure was the go and I was not familiar with the surrounds would usually look carefully at the Missed Approach Procedure for the runway I'm using and maybe follow that.
If terrains not an issue but traffic is following a SID is good, particularly in less 'developed' parts of the globe.
Don't give a rats about noise and if I can roar over an MPs house and ruin his day well that's a bonus
Bottom line? A dogmatic approach will kill you! Every departure is different and requires thought. Even different times of the day off the same runway in severe clear VMC could require a different plan of action for one reason or another.
Just bloody glad the weather is not THAT BAD THAT OFTEN so can 'manouvre visually clear of terrain' totherwise I might get stressed
Chuckles.
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
I think we are pretty much on our own a lot of the time. I used to fly for an airline that operated jets in very high DAs and we had Jepp Special Procedures that dumped us at 1500' AGL which was about 10000' below MORA, with terrain VERY HIGH and VERY CLOSE that went for F**KING MILES in every direction! We knew the area like the back of our proverbials and so had some more 'home grown stuff' that would give us maximum chance of surviving said V1 bad news.
Now I'm CP for a Bizjet op where we operate into places on 'one offs' or rarely. We go to Kunming for instance(6300amsl/MSA 11800ish) at 2am (twice lately) and I had to sit down with one of my Captains and work out WTF we would do in case of trouble.
We worked out that by following parts of several SIDs that dovtailed nicely we could make MSA on one engine and ended up at an NDB from where we could join an arc for an ILS back to land. Any one SID required a minimum of 5% climb gradient.
My/our SOP for Kunming requires that we fly our 'escape route' no matter what to MSA(night/IMC) just in case one fails below MSA but after V1.
Straight ahead is good often times but I only go to 10 nm and then turn back to overhead.
As a general rule I use CAT C or D circling minimas(Pan Ops version ie 4.2nm for C or 5.28nm for D. TERPS 1.7nm for C how do you guys do it??) as accel alt and if an IMC departure was the go and I was not familiar with the surrounds would usually look carefully at the Missed Approach Procedure for the runway I'm using and maybe follow that.
If terrains not an issue but traffic is following a SID is good, particularly in less 'developed' parts of the globe.
Don't give a rats about noise and if I can roar over an MPs house and ruin his day well that's a bonus
Bottom line? A dogmatic approach will kill you! Every departure is different and requires thought. Even different times of the day off the same runway in severe clear VMC could require a different plan of action for one reason or another.
Just bloody glad the weather is not THAT BAD THAT OFTEN so can 'manouvre visually clear of terrain' totherwise I might get stressed
Chuckles.
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Mutt
Thankyou for the Vegas scenario - I used to
do some flying at the quiet little military
place just down the road - I well remember
the size of some of f*****g hills !
When I quoted 3000agl I did so as a figure
on the top of my head - time taken to reach
that altitude will of course depend upon all
the usual factors associated with aircraft
performance - I'm glad to say that my jet
is not short of poke even single engined at
high groos weight. The essential fact stands
that options ON THE DAY have to be thought
out prior to departure.
Thankyou for the Vegas scenario - I used to
do some flying at the quiet little military
place just down the road - I well remember
the size of some of f*****g hills !
When I quoted 3000agl I did so as a figure
on the top of my head - time taken to reach
that altitude will of course depend upon all
the usual factors associated with aircraft
performance - I'm glad to say that my jet
is not short of poke even single engined at
high groos weight. The essential fact stands
that options ON THE DAY have to be thought
out prior to departure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
First of all, the posting by 'flier tuck' was by me.
I can't seem to understand how it got under his name. replied to my email from pprune in this hotel here and clicked to reply and posted. It did under his name, which I realised after it went back to the forum. In a rush to catch the transport and missed apologising earlier. :o
Back to the forum -
Mutt - 'All ' SIDs don't guarantee an engine failure obstacle clearance. I believe it's the operators responsibility to verify obstacle clearances for its type of aircraft at the fields it operates out of, and then if necessary create an EOSID/Emergency Turn 'guaranteeing' obstacle clearance!
How far do you go straight ahead? - 10 minutes! I 'think' this distance (varying speeds) can be determined by the operator using Max Structural TOW. All obstacles in this 'cone' will have to be considered, otherwise an ET (emergency turn) produced.
I quite agree with the MAP. You 'may' not be guaranteed obstacle clearance as in the SID. An ET, single engine missed approach point will have to be created (height/altitude).
John, I agree with you, however, to consider various points in a SID at which a pilot can have an engine failure and then work out the obstacle clearances from those various points is a very, very hard task.
The norms for creating an ET will have to be determined first, before studying the obstacles around the airfield (range? To be determined!)
I don't think all situations can be covered. The pilot has to know his airfield as well. One can always ask their 'performance man' questions. Talk to the boss and create a rule for ET.
Beamer - absolutely right! The options for the 'day' have to be thought out and briefed on the apron.
Still no ATC input? Their story is also quite interesting!
First of all, the posting by 'flier tuck' was by me.
I can't seem to understand how it got under his name. replied to my email from pprune in this hotel here and clicked to reply and posted. It did under his name, which I realised after it went back to the forum. In a rush to catch the transport and missed apologising earlier. :o Back to the forum -
Mutt - 'All ' SIDs don't guarantee an engine failure obstacle clearance. I believe it's the operators responsibility to verify obstacle clearances for its type of aircraft at the fields it operates out of, and then if necessary create an EOSID/Emergency Turn 'guaranteeing' obstacle clearance!
How far do you go straight ahead? - 10 minutes! I 'think' this distance (varying speeds) can be determined by the operator using Max Structural TOW. All obstacles in this 'cone' will have to be considered, otherwise an ET (emergency turn) produced.
I quite agree with the MAP. You 'may' not be guaranteed obstacle clearance as in the SID. An ET, single engine missed approach point will have to be created (height/altitude).
John, I agree with you, however, to consider various points in a SID at which a pilot can have an engine failure and then work out the obstacle clearances from those various points is a very, very hard task.
The norms for creating an ET will have to be determined first, before studying the obstacles around the airfield (range? To be determined!)
I don't think all situations can be covered. The pilot has to know his airfield as well. One can always ask their 'performance man' questions. Talk to the boss and create a rule for ET.
Beamer - absolutely right! The options for the 'day' have to be thought out and briefed on the apron.
Still no ATC input? Their story is also quite interesting!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just be VERY careful as to when you do not follow the SID. Some companies predicate emergency turns ONLY when the EO SID flight path is unsafe and you MUST be very sure before continuing straight ahead (or, equally, accepting an ATC 'early left-turn direct XYZ approved', etc BEFORE the donk goes), that you have satisfied the ANO and you have ensured a safe flight path in the event. As JT and others say, know the basis of your company's calculations.
My understanding is that ATC will expect you always to follow the SID unless you tell them.
Pilot (Old)
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
My understanding is that ATC will expect you always to follow the SID unless you tell them.
Pilot (Old)
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't an EOSID an 'emergency turn' of sorts?
Remember we are considering twins on this thread. I don't fly airbus. I thought an EOSID may be -
a. the SID itself with different gradients as opposed to the SID itself.
b. straight ahead(?)
c. emergency turn back ending back at the airport VOR/NDB/IAF
d. ?????
Where are the ATC (opinions) when you need them?
Remember we are considering twins on this thread. I don't fly airbus. I thought an EOSID may be -
a. the SID itself with different gradients as opposed to the SID itself.
b. straight ahead(?)
c. emergency turn back ending back at the airport VOR/NDB/IAF
d. ?????
Where are the ATC (opinions) when you need them?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for any confusion here. By 'EO SID flight path' I mean the flight path following the NORMAL SID, engine out. I am not aware of such a thing as an 'EOSID'- surely it could not be 'standard' by definition?
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Worker. you're correct. An EOSID is designed to keep you out of the hills with one donkey on strike. It has been designed taking into account the known performance of the aeroplane in the engine out config.
BOAC - it's Airbus terminology, don't suppose they had those in your day
BOAC - it's Airbus terminology, don't suppose they had those in your day
Very interesting thread, there is a bit of a debate going on in our company at the moment about this very question. The two sides of the debate are: 1) If there is no engine out SID, obstacle turn etc. then follow the normal SID and 2). Go straight ahead UNLESS there is an EO SID or obstacle turn. Assuming the worst case of failure at V1 then
in my opinion the second option, straight ahead, is the ONLY safe option for the following reasons.
Firstly consider how Perf A. (or whatever it's called under JAA) calculates obstacle clearance. At the end of the TODA an area begins that is 100m + a wing span wide. This expands at a rate of 12.5% of distance out to a maximum of 1800m. This area extends unitl the a/c reaches 1500ft agl. This area has been surveyed and any obstacles in it are noted, following an engine failure at V1 these obstacles must be cleared by 35ft. If the a/c will not achieve this you must reduce weight or increase VR (runway length permitting) to improve the climb gradient. If the resulting weight is very low it is also possible to fly a procedure that takes the a/c on a flight path that allows the 35ft clearance to be achieved, again this is based on survey data of the area, the max weight that can be lifted will be lower however because as we know on one engine the a/c will climb more slowly during turning flight than wings level. At high weights it probably not possible to turn, climb and accelerate at the same time which why many procedures tell you to ignore accel. height until a certain point during the turn.
It seems to me that there are a few vital implications that come out of the above.
If you do not fly straight ahead you are turning out of the flight path funnel in which your obstacle clearance in assured. You are on your own now, nobody has surveyed the area you are climbing in. You may or may not clear any obstructions that are in the way. 35ft is not much clearance and even in day VMC you will not be able to eyeball it. The rules of course only consider IMC. Outside the funnel something like a power pylon, tall building or gently rising ground could be right in your flighpath and you may not clear it. These obstacles may be present within the funnel but your RTOW will have taken account of them. If you do turn you are also reducing your climb performance and it is likely that at high weights you will not achieve the required gradient. If you are flying an obstacle clearance turn then your RTOW will have taken account of the fact that you will not climb as well during the turn.
Engine out performance planning is a very complex subject and just after a engine failure is not the time to start messing with it. In an airline, someone has done the work for you. (not sure what the biz. jet drivers do)
Look out of the window now and imagine an airliner, on one engine, clearing the house next door by 35ft. Scary isn't it, and that would be legal!
So I reckon that unless there is a published engine out turn you MUST climb straight ahead to 1500ft. If you do anything else you are not doing a Perf A. take-off, you are making it up as you go along and may put yourself in a very dangerous situation.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Angle ]
in my opinion the second option, straight ahead, is the ONLY safe option for the following reasons.
Firstly consider how Perf A. (or whatever it's called under JAA) calculates obstacle clearance. At the end of the TODA an area begins that is 100m + a wing span wide. This expands at a rate of 12.5% of distance out to a maximum of 1800m. This area extends unitl the a/c reaches 1500ft agl. This area has been surveyed and any obstacles in it are noted, following an engine failure at V1 these obstacles must be cleared by 35ft. If the a/c will not achieve this you must reduce weight or increase VR (runway length permitting) to improve the climb gradient. If the resulting weight is very low it is also possible to fly a procedure that takes the a/c on a flight path that allows the 35ft clearance to be achieved, again this is based on survey data of the area, the max weight that can be lifted will be lower however because as we know on one engine the a/c will climb more slowly during turning flight than wings level. At high weights it probably not possible to turn, climb and accelerate at the same time which why many procedures tell you to ignore accel. height until a certain point during the turn.
It seems to me that there are a few vital implications that come out of the above.
If you do not fly straight ahead you are turning out of the flight path funnel in which your obstacle clearance in assured. You are on your own now, nobody has surveyed the area you are climbing in. You may or may not clear any obstructions that are in the way. 35ft is not much clearance and even in day VMC you will not be able to eyeball it. The rules of course only consider IMC. Outside the funnel something like a power pylon, tall building or gently rising ground could be right in your flighpath and you may not clear it. These obstacles may be present within the funnel but your RTOW will have taken account of them. If you do turn you are also reducing your climb performance and it is likely that at high weights you will not achieve the required gradient. If you are flying an obstacle clearance turn then your RTOW will have taken account of the fact that you will not climb as well during the turn.
Engine out performance planning is a very complex subject and just after a engine failure is not the time to start messing with it. In an airline, someone has done the work for you. (not sure what the biz. jet drivers do)
Look out of the window now and imagine an airliner, on one engine, clearing the house next door by 35ft. Scary isn't it, and that would be legal!
So I reckon that unless there is a published engine out turn you MUST climb straight ahead to 1500ft. If you do anything else you are not doing a Perf A. take-off, you are making it up as you go along and may put yourself in a very dangerous situation.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Angle ]
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tired - quite right! When the old flying boats retired my heart went too!
Max Angle
Remember, 'Perf A' is only a grouping. It does not stipulate 'straight ahead' only, and has factors for turning flight paths.
Boeing (the only one I know well), run climb performance programmes for all SIDs and will tell you whether you will achieve screen height or not engine out. If not, you publish an 'Emergency Turn' (old guy's speak, I guess, for an EOSID!)
As has been said a couple of times above, make sure you KNOW how your company calculate terrain clearance on SID's - and it is a brave and possibly foolish person who makes up their own! I repeat, Perf A considerations do NOT require you to fly only in a straight line!
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
Max Angle
Remember, 'Perf A' is only a grouping. It does not stipulate 'straight ahead' only, and has factors for turning flight paths.
Boeing (the only one I know well), run climb performance programmes for all SIDs and will tell you whether you will achieve screen height or not engine out. If not, you publish an 'Emergency Turn' (old guy's speak, I guess, for an EOSID!)
As has been said a couple of times above, make sure you KNOW how your company calculate terrain clearance on SID's - and it is a brave and possibly foolish person who makes up their own! I repeat, Perf A considerations do NOT require you to fly only in a straight line!
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have performance that says follow the SID unless there is a turn published.UK JAR operator.
Now,for example, the Dean Cross SID off Edinburgh 06 requires I believe an 8% gradient to 5000 ft, the 25 mile MSA being 3500 to the north where the SID turns.Two miles off the end of 06 is the North Sea, which I know is flat!In a 737 what would you do?
Now,for example, the Dean Cross SID off Edinburgh 06 requires I believe an 8% gradient to 5000 ft, the 25 mile MSA being 3500 to the north where the SID turns.Two miles off the end of 06 is the North Sea, which I know is flat!In a 737 what would you do?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Angle,
Straight out departure information is usually based on “Type A” AIP charts, these usually go out to around 12 miles, are you sure that you will get to 1500 feet in this distance???
BOAC,
Boeing build aircraft, they most certainly do not analyze SID departures of any kind! I would be surprised if ANY airline receives takeoff data directly from Boeing! I sincerely suggest that you go talk to your ops people!
In my present drunken state (thank you EI) I’m going to be blunt!!!! You guys (not just the 2 mentioned) are scaring the hell out of ME!!!!!! Nobody really appears to know what route to follow once your engine fails!
I’m off to the pub!
Mutt
Straight out departure information is usually based on “Type A” AIP charts, these usually go out to around 12 miles, are you sure that you will get to 1500 feet in this distance???
BOAC,
Boeing build aircraft, they most certainly do not analyze SID departures of any kind! I would be surprised if ANY airline receives takeoff data directly from Boeing! I sincerely suggest that you go talk to your ops people!
In my present drunken state (thank you EI) I’m going to be blunt!!!! You guys (not just the 2 mentioned) are scaring the hell out of ME!!!!!! Nobody really appears to know what route to follow once your engine fails!
I’m off to the pub!
Mutt
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max angle - I don't agree with your items 1 and 2. However I agree with your choice of 2, though not entirely!
Here are some technical extracts from DOC 8168 in the Jeppesen, ATC Chapter: Departure Procedures - page 202 -
"A departure procedure will be established for each runway where instrument departures are expected to be used and will define a departure procedure for the various categories of aircraft based on ALL-ENGINE 'procedure design gradient' (PDG) of 3.3% or an increased PDG if required to achieve minimum obstacle clearance.
NOTE: Development of contingency procedures is the responsibility of the operator.
Unless otherwise promulgated, a PDG of 3.3% is ASSUMED."
Regarding Missed Approach Procedures-page217-
"Normally procedures are based on a nominal missed approach climb gradient of 2.5%."
"It is emphasized that the missed approach procedure which is based on the nominal climb gradient of 2.5% CANNOT be used by ALL aeroplanes when operating at or near Max Certificated Gross Mass and ENGINE OUT CONDITIONS. The operation of such aeroplanes needs SPECIAL CONSIDERATION at aerodromes which are critical due to obstacles on the missed approach area and MAY result in a SPECIAL PROCEDURE being established with a possible INCREASE in DA/DH or MDA/MDH"
So figure it out with your operator/state authority.
By the way, an extract from a wonderful book by Dr. Tony Kern's "Flight Discipline" (1998) page 18 - "Jeppesen is a company which merely publishes approaches given to them by the host nations and they are exceedingly clear on this point. In fact they publish a disclaimer stating that they 'do not review or approve the adequacy, reliability, accuracy or safety of the approach procedures they publish"
Real interesting inputs. Thanks all. Still no ATC input. Will ask some and post their 'technical know-how'.
Here are some technical extracts from DOC 8168 in the Jeppesen, ATC Chapter: Departure Procedures - page 202 -
"A departure procedure will be established for each runway where instrument departures are expected to be used and will define a departure procedure for the various categories of aircraft based on ALL-ENGINE 'procedure design gradient' (PDG) of 3.3% or an increased PDG if required to achieve minimum obstacle clearance.
NOTE: Development of contingency procedures is the responsibility of the operator.
Unless otherwise promulgated, a PDG of 3.3% is ASSUMED."
Regarding Missed Approach Procedures-page217-
"Normally procedures are based on a nominal missed approach climb gradient of 2.5%."
"It is emphasized that the missed approach procedure which is based on the nominal climb gradient of 2.5% CANNOT be used by ALL aeroplanes when operating at or near Max Certificated Gross Mass and ENGINE OUT CONDITIONS. The operation of such aeroplanes needs SPECIAL CONSIDERATION at aerodromes which are critical due to obstacles on the missed approach area and MAY result in a SPECIAL PROCEDURE being established with a possible INCREASE in DA/DH or MDA/MDH"
So figure it out with your operator/state authority.
By the way, an extract from a wonderful book by Dr. Tony Kern's "Flight Discipline" (1998) page 18 - "Jeppesen is a company which merely publishes approaches given to them by the host nations and they are exceedingly clear on this point. In fact they publish a disclaimer stating that they 'do not review or approve the adequacy, reliability, accuracy or safety of the approach procedures they publish"
Real interesting inputs. Thanks all. Still no ATC input. Will ask some and post their 'technical know-how'.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slick...point taken I was looking at the failure at Vef case...However in the case where an aircraft,having climbed above the MFRA for that runway and has started on a relevent published SID, or say the published missed approach procedure...now suffers an engine out, and this routing is significantly different from the Vef case or emergency turn case then it is more prudent to continue on the procedure being flown...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True TR3. Once you are on the SID an experience an engine failure, it's a totally different ball game. It's up to the pilots to know the safest route out of the 'valley'. Performance-wise one is 'probably' better off than if the failure occured at V1.
As stated earlier, a good 'briefing' covering all possibilities is a necessity towards safety!
As stated earlier, a good 'briefing' covering all possibilities is a necessity towards safety!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
".....a dozen pilots will come up with a dozen different ideas ...." 
Reading back through the thread, this is exactly the reason why I posted this. The confusion is not acceptable. We should know what our company does, what the regulations are and what safety we are assured. If not we tell the company, and prepare ourselves for the safest course of action.
Hope this thread enlightens all of us and makes us safer.
Mutt - I am indeed concerned as you. Hope you enjoyed that pint. I am off flying...safe flights to all of you.
Reading back through the thread, this is exactly the reason why I posted this. The confusion is not acceptable. We should know what our company does, what the regulations are and what safety we are assured. If not we tell the company, and prepare ourselves for the safest course of action.
Hope this thread enlightens all of us and makes us safer.
Mutt - I am indeed concerned as you. Hope you enjoyed that pint. I am off flying...safe flights to all of you.
Mutt,
Sorry if we are scaring you, I'm open to suggestions if you have any, what would you do?. I know exactly what I am going to do if an engine expires and we are both briefed on the plan of action before take-off. 12 miles is enough to reach 1500ft, after which you are on your own anyway so you have to have a plan for that bit. Obstacle turns on runways that need them tend to have taken you away from the high ground but some don't. I seem to remember Zurich was one place where you were not pointing in the correct direction.
BOAC.
I agree that Perf A (or JAR whatever) is just a grouping. It is a grouping whose take-off and climb performance is certified using a set of rules and parmeters that ensure that various safety margins are met, to meet those margins you must operate within the regs. The a/c manufactures do supply take-off performance software and that is what churns out the figures on the specific runways pages in the manuals. As you said Perf A does allow turns in the take-off flight path and these can be entered in the software for places that require obstacle clearance procedures. If the page makes no mention of a turn then these figures will be based on straight ahead not on the SID from the runways, at least in our company and I suspect most others, it's hard to imagine someone keeping all the hundreds of pages updated for SID changes etc.
My first post was a dry look at the regulations, of course normallly you are not at max. weight and not obstacle limited and turning into the SID may be quite safe. You must realise that however that it is very unlikley that the figures you used cover the path you are now following.
Most of the time you will also miss any obstacles by a lot more than 35ft, if you are obstacle limited at max. weight or at reduced thrust you won't have much more than that. You may have less if you have rotated too slowly or have a slight tail wind above the runway that you were unaware of.
As Safety-worker says, a very interesting thread, I hope I never have to put theory into practice.
Sorry if we are scaring you, I'm open to suggestions if you have any, what would you do?. I know exactly what I am going to do if an engine expires and we are both briefed on the plan of action before take-off. 12 miles is enough to reach 1500ft, after which you are on your own anyway so you have to have a plan for that bit. Obstacle turns on runways that need them tend to have taken you away from the high ground but some don't. I seem to remember Zurich was one place where you were not pointing in the correct direction.
BOAC.
I agree that Perf A (or JAR whatever) is just a grouping. It is a grouping whose take-off and climb performance is certified using a set of rules and parmeters that ensure that various safety margins are met, to meet those margins you must operate within the regs. The a/c manufactures do supply take-off performance software and that is what churns out the figures on the specific runways pages in the manuals. As you said Perf A does allow turns in the take-off flight path and these can be entered in the software for places that require obstacle clearance procedures. If the page makes no mention of a turn then these figures will be based on straight ahead not on the SID from the runways, at least in our company and I suspect most others, it's hard to imagine someone keeping all the hundreds of pages updated for SID changes etc.
My first post was a dry look at the regulations, of course normallly you are not at max. weight and not obstacle limited and turning into the SID may be quite safe. You must realise that however that it is very unlikley that the figures you used cover the path you are now following.
Most of the time you will also miss any obstacles by a lot more than 35ft, if you are obstacle limited at max. weight or at reduced thrust you won't have much more than that. You may have less if you have rotated too slowly or have a slight tail wind above the runway that you were unaware of.
As Safety-worker says, a very interesting thread, I hope I never have to put theory into practice.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good stuff this! I think if you do not give careful consideration to every different departure i.e should i fly the sid, or go straight ahead or whatever you could be paying lip service to a companies sops. Just a thought, if the sid gradient happened to be 3.3% and the departure is NOT WAT limited and you know that a 757/767 can achieve 5 % single engine at max landing weight why not do the sid.
Grandpa Aerotart
Mutt, sorry if I frighten you. On the other hand are you suggesting there is always only one correct flight path?
Those of you flying for airlines should have strict procedures to follow at each port you service, surveyed flight paths.
Those of us in the 'Bizjet' world don't as it would be impossible.
I do my best to ensure that my pilots, some of whom don't have an airline background, know and understand their responsibilities under CAO 20.7.1b and can apply that to the many 'one offs' that we face daily.
We are based in, and fly, the length and breadth of Asia. In the last few months we've operated into and out of Shiraz(Iran), Karachi,Quetta,Dhaka,Chennai,Saigon,Kunming(see previous post),Bangkok,Bali,Bandung(Indonesian mountain valley at night),Colombo,Hanoi,Danang,Minado, Siem Riep(where Angkor Wat is in Cambodia),Kathmandu,Padang and a swag of other places. Some like BKK,HCM are easy but many are surrounded by high terrain and have performance limitations due to high DAs.
Unlike many airline pilots who follow parrot fashion the Company published SOPs for assy considerations with little understanding or thought my guys have to think hard about what they are about to do and come up with a suitable plan of action. The list of ports we operate into enough times to build up some 'corporate knowledge' of is short indeed.
I'm blessed, as CP, with a VERY good group of pilots who allow me the luxury of a good nights sleep no matter where they are heading. One thing I take great pride in is that we hire VERY inexperienced F/Os and they get to see an airline standard Bizjet op in and out of VERY interesting ports in all sorts of weather, day/night,high terrain,poor ATC(sometimes) and as a result won't develope into automatons but rather really understand what they are doing and have a flexible approach to staying out of the trees/someones living room.
Chuck.
Those of you flying for airlines should have strict procedures to follow at each port you service, surveyed flight paths.
Those of us in the 'Bizjet' world don't as it would be impossible.
I do my best to ensure that my pilots, some of whom don't have an airline background, know and understand their responsibilities under CAO 20.7.1b and can apply that to the many 'one offs' that we face daily.
We are based in, and fly, the length and breadth of Asia. In the last few months we've operated into and out of Shiraz(Iran), Karachi,Quetta,Dhaka,Chennai,Saigon,Kunming(see previous post),Bangkok,Bali,Bandung(Indonesian mountain valley at night),Colombo,Hanoi,Danang,Minado, Siem Riep(where Angkor Wat is in Cambodia),Kathmandu,Padang and a swag of other places. Some like BKK,HCM are easy but many are surrounded by high terrain and have performance limitations due to high DAs.
Unlike many airline pilots who follow parrot fashion the Company published SOPs for assy considerations with little understanding or thought my guys have to think hard about what they are about to do and come up with a suitable plan of action. The list of ports we operate into enough times to build up some 'corporate knowledge' of is short indeed.
I'm blessed, as CP, with a VERY good group of pilots who allow me the luxury of a good nights sleep no matter where they are heading. One thing I take great pride in is that we hire VERY inexperienced F/Os and they get to see an airline standard Bizjet op in and out of VERY interesting ports in all sorts of weather, day/night,high terrain,poor ATC(sometimes) and as a result won't develope into automatons but rather really understand what they are doing and have a flexible approach to staying out of the trees/someones living room.
Chuck.