Engine Failure on Takeoff! Flight Path?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all seem to be speaking the same language, with different accents?
1. No one is asking pilots to assess obstacle clearances. They should make sure that they have a flight ops perf centre that does. Find out what criteria they use. Pilots should follow their SOP procedure laid down. If you don't find it safe or correct, change it!
2. Obviously the RTOW will have the most restrictive obstacles considered stated on the chart, and if necessary the EOSID/ET will be stated - if you can't go straight ahead (distance equated to 10mins?)
3.RTOW charts have acceleration heights. The same as for the ET/EOSID, or, it may have a point (fix) if a turn is a factor (at V2 - V2+15, or whatever speed the norm dictates) that will have to be followed. ( sometimes you might have achieved your min ht for accel, but haven't got to the point for the turn on the EOSID/ET)
4. 10min eng limitations are also used, aren't they in your perf?
1. No one is asking pilots to assess obstacle clearances. They should make sure that they have a flight ops perf centre that does. Find out what criteria they use. Pilots should follow their SOP procedure laid down. If you don't find it safe or correct, change it!
2. Obviously the RTOW will have the most restrictive obstacles considered stated on the chart, and if necessary the EOSID/ET will be stated - if you can't go straight ahead (distance equated to 10mins?)
3.RTOW charts have acceleration heights. The same as for the ET/EOSID, or, it may have a point (fix) if a turn is a factor (at V2 - V2+15, or whatever speed the norm dictates) that will have to be followed. ( sometimes you might have achieved your min ht for accel, but haven't got to the point for the turn on the EOSID/ET)
4. 10min eng limitations are also used, aren't they in your perf?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flanker - sorry to be awhile replying, I've been away. Its a while since I EDI'd, but I think from memory our ET for R06 is ................ out to sea and I would follow it, to answer your question, because it has been researched.
There seem to be a lot of people here who are prepared to make up their own procedures. That is extremely unwise. Required climb gradient is easily available for all SIDs; manufacturers will tell you what climb gradient you will achieve on the flight path selected, engine out; thus the need for an 'escape route' can be determined. If you do not like your company's procedures or do not understand them, do something about it! The ice is extremely thin if you start changing your mind on the day or 'doing your own thing'.
There seem to be a lot of people here who are prepared to make up their own procedures. That is extremely unwise. Required climb gradient is easily available for all SIDs; manufacturers will tell you what climb gradient you will achieve on the flight path selected, engine out; thus the need for an 'escape route' can be determined. If you do not like your company's procedures or do not understand them, do something about it! The ice is extremely thin if you start changing your mind on the day or 'doing your own thing'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got this dug out -
Assuming engine failure at V1 and maintaining V2 or not exceeding V2+15 (TAS of say 170KTS) for a given weight/wind/temp, the distance that can be covered in 10 minutes would be (170/60)x 10 = 28NM
This is the obstacle range considered for 'straight ahead'. If we can't meet it we construct an ET/EOSID.
We consider obstacles in the takeoff path for both straight ahead and whenever there is a turn requirement.
We consider obstacles from end of runway along the Engine Failure Procedure(EFP) path up to the approach fix or holding point.
We have EFP on all runways, either standard (straight ahead) or non-standard EFPs (ET/EOSID).
What do you have?
An engine failure once established in the SID, is something the 'pilot(s)' should be prepared for...until enroute MSA (say)?
Assuming engine failure at V1 and maintaining V2 or not exceeding V2+15 (TAS of say 170KTS) for a given weight/wind/temp, the distance that can be covered in 10 minutes would be (170/60)x 10 = 28NM
This is the obstacle range considered for 'straight ahead'. If we can't meet it we construct an ET/EOSID.
We consider obstacles in the takeoff path for both straight ahead and whenever there is a turn requirement.
We consider obstacles from end of runway along the Engine Failure Procedure(EFP) path up to the approach fix or holding point.
We have EFP on all runways, either standard (straight ahead) or non-standard EFPs (ET/EOSID).
What do you have?
An engine failure once established in the SID, is something the 'pilot(s)' should be prepared for...until enroute MSA (say)?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting....My feelings are to follow the Emergency Turn, or if none published, the SID (not straight out). Why?
Because it is our SOP. Published in writing in the big book of our roolz and regs.
Secondly, I know that our operator checks terrain clearance out on SID's that we use. It does not check terrain on SIDS that we do not use. Hence, if you invent a procedure relevant to you, maybe for good reason, a class #1 diamond geezer hasn't done his sums on your behalf. If should something happen you will open a can of worms for yourself when you could be Mr Cool in the Bar instead.
By the way - Emerg turn EDI 06 (737) - Track 070 and turn once you are happy to do so (i.e. above MSA)
Just spent 2p. £1.98 to go - I'm skint this month. Pilot (Baby!)
[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: Cough ]
Because it is our SOP. Published in writing in the big book of our roolz and regs.
Secondly, I know that our operator checks terrain clearance out on SID's that we use. It does not check terrain on SIDS that we do not use. Hence, if you invent a procedure relevant to you, maybe for good reason, a class #1 diamond geezer hasn't done his sums on your behalf. If should something happen you will open a can of worms for yourself when you could be Mr Cool in the Bar instead.
By the way - Emerg turn EDI 06 (737) - Track 070 and turn once you are happy to do so (i.e. above MSA)
Just spent 2p. £1.98 to go - I'm skint this month. Pilot (Baby!)
[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: Cough ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I have to explain one thing, It isn’t you hurting me, it’s me hurting you!!!!!!! Because I’m the guy who sits in an office and decides what path I expect you to follow!
Needless to say for the 100 or so aircraft that we operate, it most certainly isn’t the SID!
You may think that your airline is different, but I could name at least 15 major airlines that share our procedures!
BOAC has stated that Boeing checks all SIDS!!!!!!!!! Nope, this most certainly isn’t true. Mainly because MOST of us cant afford their RATES! I would love to know of ANY airline that was actually getting this level of support!
What Boeing does supply is a takeoff program based on either the Mark7 program logic or SCAP logic; it most certainly doesn’t follow SI Departures. (Airbus is different and has introduced a Flight Path Program this year, which I know very little about)
So guys and gals, its simple!
If there is an engine failure takeoff published, follow IT.
If not go straight ahead and start yelling to ATC!
DON’T FOLLOW THE SID……… unless of course you happen to work for an airline that states….”takeoff weight based on SIDXX departure”.
Have fun now…….
Mutt
BTW, tomorrow we are heading south east from GVA on a SID (B777) which we have problems achieving on TWO engines! Needless to say if we based this departure on an engine failure, we wouldn’t even takeoff!
Needless to say for the 100 or so aircraft that we operate, it most certainly isn’t the SID!
You may think that your airline is different, but I could name at least 15 major airlines that share our procedures!
BOAC has stated that Boeing checks all SIDS!!!!!!!!! Nope, this most certainly isn’t true. Mainly because MOST of us cant afford their RATES! I would love to know of ANY airline that was actually getting this level of support!
What Boeing does supply is a takeoff program based on either the Mark7 program logic or SCAP logic; it most certainly doesn’t follow SI Departures. (Airbus is different and has introduced a Flight Path Program this year, which I know very little about)
So guys and gals, its simple!
If there is an engine failure takeoff published, follow IT.
If not go straight ahead and start yelling to ATC!
DON’T FOLLOW THE SID……… unless of course you happen to work for an airline that states….”takeoff weight based on SIDXX departure”.
Have fun now…….
Mutt
BTW, tomorrow we are heading south east from GVA on a SID (B777) which we have problems achieving on TWO engines! Needless to say if we based this departure on an engine failure, we wouldn’t even takeoff!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cough ...just curious. What's the MSA for EDI06? How far is straight ahead?
Why is your perf calculator checking SIDs?
Don't you think he should be checking airfield obstacles instead
rather than which SIDs will clear obstacles (single engine?) and which won't! What does he do when he finds a SID that won't clear obstacles (SEngine) 
?
SIDs change, obstacles 'tend' to remain where they are.....unless they are blown up, blown away, removed..
Just curious all, how about posting your Engine Failure Flight Path definitions (when does your company find it necessary to introduce an ET)
Are your ETs in your FMGS as EOSIDs?
Ta.
Why is your perf calculator checking SIDs?
Don't you think he should be checking airfield obstacles instead
rather than which SIDs will clear obstacles (single engine?) and which won't! What does he do when he finds a SID that won't clear obstacles (SEngine) ?SIDs change, obstacles 'tend' to remain where they are.....unless they are blown up, blown away, removed..
Just curious all, how about posting your Engine Failure Flight Path definitions (when does your company find it necessary to introduce an ET)
Are your ETs in your FMGS as EOSIDs?
Ta.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutt, what I said (21/7 and 24/7) was that performance info is available for operators to check ANY SID. In my case provided by Boeing and published SID required gradient. The company I am with DO check all SIDs, incidentally, Cough, you never know whether you may have to fly one!
I think we are talking the same language really! SE from GVA? Don't think I have flown it, but I guess it has min en-route altitudes published, and I hope you have SOPs which tell you what to do if you do not achieve these, and that you brief and fly them! Surely any operator would take into account any terrain avoidance turns before accel is complete in the RTOW figures, and this info is also available? Naturally individual SIDs are not catered for in RTOW charts, (unless there is a 'common' obstacle avoidance turn on all deps), but ETs cover these.
SW, RTOW handles local obstructions, doesn't it? Once clean and climbing away on a departure, achievable climb gradient is the key. If you cannot achieve it go somewhere else, but I DO suggest you go where your perf. dept suggest. They will know more than you.
I think we are talking the same language really! SE from GVA? Don't think I have flown it, but I guess it has min en-route altitudes published, and I hope you have SOPs which tell you what to do if you do not achieve these, and that you brief and fly them! Surely any operator would take into account any terrain avoidance turns before accel is complete in the RTOW figures, and this info is also available? Naturally individual SIDs are not catered for in RTOW charts, (unless there is a 'common' obstacle avoidance turn on all deps), but ETs cover these.
SW, RTOW handles local obstructions, doesn't it? Once clean and climbing away on a departure, achievable climb gradient is the key. If you cannot achieve it go somewhere else, but I DO suggest you go where your perf. dept suggest. They will know more than you.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mutt - Yup. But given any sort of restriction I guess that the company would prefer to publish an emergency turn than suffer any sort of restriction.
Safety Worker - The general MSA out of EDI is 4.6 for us, BUT the more dominant 25nm MSA is much lower (I seem to remember 3.4 in the NE sector & 3.8 overall?) and that would be far more relevant.
Got to remember that our ops manual states that we MUST fly the SID in the absence of an emerg.turn. So that is what we do!
737 - We have no EOSID's in the FMC - Think that this is a Airbus thang! So when we need to we hit the button 'heading' and steer!
Safety Worker - The general MSA out of EDI is 4.6 for us, BUT the more dominant 25nm MSA is much lower (I seem to remember 3.4 in the NE sector & 3.8 overall?) and that would be far more relevant.
Got to remember that our ops manual states that we MUST fly the SID in the absence of an emerg.turn. So that is what we do!
737 - We have no EOSID's in the FMC - Think that this is a Airbus thang! So when we need to we hit the button 'heading' and steer!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Worker - GVA
05 Climb to SPR and hold.
23 Turn L to SPR (with speed restriction until turn complete) and hold.
Complete the SID single engine - Not on ure nelly! Bear in mind we have A LOT of ET's published!
05 Climb to SPR and hold.
23 Turn L to SPR (with speed restriction until turn complete) and hold.
Complete the SID single engine - Not on ure nelly! Bear in mind we have A LOT of ET's published!
Moderator
Sorry to be a little tardy in wading back in, chaps ... only just organised myself a new ISP hookup in the current transient locale ....
Northern Sky,
We are, indeed, of similar accord. The sums are pretty straight forward if the operator bothers to spend a little effort on the problem ... what is needed is for the flightcrews to jump up and down a bit more to get some action. Making a call at the time is fine .. but it doesn't win any points in court after the prang ... quite the reverse... which is why I exhort people to read some relevant transcripts .. all quite sobering.
If the turn doesn't give you extra weight, then you won't be turning .. the operator will be doing something else .. sometimes even going straight ahead. However, if the straight flight path is not optimum for RTOW, then one looks for a more useful turning escape path (read "more payload").
Capn Laptop,
One of the problems is that some operators and service providers most certainly don't worry about the latter parts of the initial climb.
Safety_Worker,
One ought not to forget the 4th segment as well .... for a twin ... 40-odd miles under limiting conditions is a good figure in the back of the mind ...
Mutt, old mate, ought we to consider running a symposium on the general subject of terrifying takeoffs ?
Northern Sky,
We are, indeed, of similar accord. The sums are pretty straight forward if the operator bothers to spend a little effort on the problem ... what is needed is for the flightcrews to jump up and down a bit more to get some action. Making a call at the time is fine .. but it doesn't win any points in court after the prang ... quite the reverse... which is why I exhort people to read some relevant transcripts .. all quite sobering.
If the turn doesn't give you extra weight, then you won't be turning .. the operator will be doing something else .. sometimes even going straight ahead. However, if the straight flight path is not optimum for RTOW, then one looks for a more useful turning escape path (read "more payload").
Capn Laptop,
One of the problems is that some operators and service providers most certainly don't worry about the latter parts of the initial climb.
Safety_Worker,
One ought not to forget the 4th segment as well .... for a twin ... 40-odd miles under limiting conditions is a good figure in the back of the mind ...
Mutt, old mate, ought we to consider running a symposium on the general subject of terrifying takeoffs ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you should ever takeoff from runway 23 in GVA and turn left, the word terrain has a whole new meaning. In the TriStar, used to hold at the PAS NDB until FL140 before proceeding SE bound.
Mutt, you may be interested to know that the procedures at your airline (follow EO turn or straight ahead, not SID) have remained unchanged from 1979.
Mutt, you may be interested to know that the procedures at your airline (follow EO turn or straight ahead, not SID) have remained unchanged from 1979.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Yep that sounds like the procedure that we just removed. The 777 is capable of meeting the SID requirements on two engines provided that the weight is 240,000 kgs or below. (MTOW 286,000 kgs) otherwise they get a spin around the hold.
J_T,
Actually idea, we could make a fortune!
Safety_worker,
If you are in EK/DXB, go chat with the Frenchman in your Operational Engineering department.
Mutt.
Yep that sounds like the procedure that we just removed. The 777 is capable of meeting the SID requirements on two engines provided that the weight is 240,000 kgs or below. (MTOW 286,000 kgs) otherwise they get a spin around the hold.
J_T,
Actually idea, we could make a fortune!
Safety_worker,
If you are in EK/DXB, go chat with the Frenchman in your Operational Engineering department.
Mutt.
Moderator
Mutt, mate, is that fortune referring to before or after the bar sessions ... sorry post-seminar think tanks ?
..seriously .. how do we convince a few of our colleagues that the square-jawed Brick Bradford type is not really what it is all about ?
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]
..seriously .. how do we convince a few of our colleagues that the square-jawed Brick Bradford type is not really what it is all about ?
[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Some relevant reading:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0614.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0718.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form144.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form860.pdf
I have quoted these because the Australian contributors are talking about life under CAO 20.7.1B which, unlike most international standards, demands full accountability essentially from chock to chock. The take-off splay does not truncate but continues to expand (to cater for dinosaur aeroplanes in real wind) until the aircraft reaches MSA/LSA. As this is OEI, many of the considerations that eventually result in the RTOW may be far from obvious to the crew and hence they are actively discouraged from deviating from the one true path- ie the flight path that has been analysed as producing max payload!!
For those of you out there who are not legally required to be provided with the sort of data to which we are referring - best of luck. Dare I suggest that those of you who are mesmerised several times a day by the awesome AEO performance of your machines need to get a grip on how different life is when you are hot, heavy and OEI. You may well spend your whole life never having to face the reality of an engine failure - I do hope so - but don't be caught short because you didn't understand.
Some relevant reading:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0614.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0718.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form144.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form860.pdf
I have quoted these because the Australian contributors are talking about life under CAO 20.7.1B which, unlike most international standards, demands full accountability essentially from chock to chock. The take-off splay does not truncate but continues to expand (to cater for dinosaur aeroplanes in real wind) until the aircraft reaches MSA/LSA. As this is OEI, many of the considerations that eventually result in the RTOW may be far from obvious to the crew and hence they are actively discouraged from deviating from the one true path- ie the flight path that has been analysed as producing max payload!!
For those of you out there who are not legally required to be provided with the sort of data to which we are referring - best of luck. Dare I suggest that those of you who are mesmerised several times a day by the awesome AEO performance of your machines need to get a grip on how different life is when you are hot, heavy and OEI. You may well spend your whole life never having to face the reality of an engine failure - I do hope so - but don't be caught short because you didn't understand.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arabian Gulf
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"seriously .. how do we convince a few of our colleagues that the square-jawed Brick Bradford type is not really what it is all about ?"
J_T - that's why I started this thread. Hoping!
Ta all for the inputs.
Ta Richard for the sites.
4th segment? 40Nm? Hmmm! Back to the Perf man.
J_T - that's why I started this thread. Hoping!
Ta all for the inputs.
Ta Richard for the sites.
4th segment? 40Nm? Hmmm! Back to the Perf man.
Moderator
Richard,
One of the problems is that some operators in the Antipodes, and elsewhere, pay only lip service to the regulatory intent.
From my viewpoint, regardless of jurisdiction and local requirement... it is somewhat pointless to worry only about part(s) of the flight when the critical situation, on a given occasion, may well be during the bit which is ignored.
On another point, the Australian regulator has some practical difficulty in that the organisation is not well off for operations engineering experience. I can bring to mind only one person who has had airline experience, two others with a sensibly reasonable background, and another two who have the basics under control. This makes it very difficult for the flying types in the organisation to administer the regulations when they don't always have rapid and direct access to practical competence for the necessary backup to control some elements in the industry .. especially when several of the above people work in unrelated areas ..
I concur heartily with your observation that impressive AEO performance, allied with little outside the simulator exposure, does tend to give the average pilot a trust in his/her aeroplane's capabilities which might not be entirely justified. This is, of course, most pronounced in the two-motor models ..
safety_worker,
Peace, brother ... I know that .. and we are of one accord.
.. 4th segment ? ...Many pilots blythely look at second segment matters and forget that
(a) off a shorter runway, the first segment can often be very limiting with respect to obstacles in the early climb .. or even an uphill terrain slope ..
(b) for a jet, the third segment acceleration phase can go on for a long distance due to the big speed split between second and fourth segment climb
(c) fourth segment climb is hardly the stuff of the US space program ...
Now, we are all comfortable with the gross to nett idea .. but, throw in a little turbulence with the failure .. and see how the comfort zone squeezes up real tight ... or rather worse ..
Two observations ..
(a) under reasonable limiting conditions, it can take a LONG time and distance to get to LSA/MSA, or even just above the local terrain ..
(b) if a pilot doesn't quite know the details of what is out there ..and the ops eng support is a bit thin, then, consistent with the specific terrain, it might be a good idea to look at turning back toward the aerodrome so that, at the very least, the plate data can give some comfort ... mind you, that doesn't always work .. I have seen the occasional plate where navaid data blocks inadvertantly have been placed in a neat and eye-catching manner on top of the critical terrain data ...
One of the problems is that some operators in the Antipodes, and elsewhere, pay only lip service to the regulatory intent.
From my viewpoint, regardless of jurisdiction and local requirement... it is somewhat pointless to worry only about part(s) of the flight when the critical situation, on a given occasion, may well be during the bit which is ignored.
On another point, the Australian regulator has some practical difficulty in that the organisation is not well off for operations engineering experience. I can bring to mind only one person who has had airline experience, two others with a sensibly reasonable background, and another two who have the basics under control. This makes it very difficult for the flying types in the organisation to administer the regulations when they don't always have rapid and direct access to practical competence for the necessary backup to control some elements in the industry .. especially when several of the above people work in unrelated areas ..
I concur heartily with your observation that impressive AEO performance, allied with little outside the simulator exposure, does tend to give the average pilot a trust in his/her aeroplane's capabilities which might not be entirely justified. This is, of course, most pronounced in the two-motor models ..
safety_worker,
Peace, brother ... I know that .. and we are of one accord.
.. 4th segment ? ...Many pilots blythely look at second segment matters and forget that
(a) off a shorter runway, the first segment can often be very limiting with respect to obstacles in the early climb .. or even an uphill terrain slope ..
(b) for a jet, the third segment acceleration phase can go on for a long distance due to the big speed split between second and fourth segment climb
(c) fourth segment climb is hardly the stuff of the US space program ...
Now, we are all comfortable with the gross to nett idea .. but, throw in a little turbulence with the failure .. and see how the comfort zone squeezes up real tight ... or rather worse ..
Two observations ..
(a) under reasonable limiting conditions, it can take a LONG time and distance to get to LSA/MSA, or even just above the local terrain ..
(b) if a pilot doesn't quite know the details of what is out there ..and the ops eng support is a bit thin, then, consistent with the specific terrain, it might be a good idea to look at turning back toward the aerodrome so that, at the very least, the plate data can give some comfort ... mind you, that doesn't always work .. I have seen the occasional plate where navaid data blocks inadvertantly have been placed in a neat and eye-catching manner on top of the critical terrain data ...
