EO SID / Special Take-Off Procedure - Include in App. Brief?
 

I think it is good to have the oei t/o procedure in your head as to have a better situation awareness of the potential obstacles problem.(balked landing with one engine,very bad day indeed).
However an engine out special procedure at take off is there for takeoff NOT for a missed approach.
You must follow the std missed app,making sure that you can achieve the published DA goaround gradient(1engine at toga/flaps15) using you landing weight/oat/use of eai/wai.

If you cant make the go around gradient,the DA must be increased(by your airline) or your ldg weight decreased until you do.

you could also just advise atc that you are unable standard missed approach due to engine out and request alternate missed approach procedure.

At our airline, we brief it all. And a good pilot always has an idea about terrain.

Our landing performance manual would contain the information related to something like this, but that's in a simple old 727 without all those fancy gizmos up front.

Well, not exactly....
 

You have to remember that, for a missed approach, there is a certain required climb gradient. If there is no minimum climb gradient specified in the missed approach procedure, then the standard certification figure applies. (Can't remember off hand....I'm thinking it's 2.5%. Please refer to the Airbus doc "Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance.") If the requirement is greater, the approach plate will specify.

In the case of the standard required gradient, your aircraft should be able to make it with one engine inoperative. In the case of a higher-than-standard required gradient, well.....maybe yes, maybe no.

You'll have to get into the performance charts to make this determination. If the result of your research is positive, all is well. If not, there are two ways to go about this.

First, you can increase your DA, thereby giving your aircraft a 'head start' for the climb. For example, on an ILS with the typical 200 foot DA, you might increase your DA to 1000 feet.

Of course, you, as the pilot, cannot arbitrarily make this determination. This is part of the IAP certification. An example of this would be Hong Kong's ILS to runway 07L.

Or, second, you could fly the standard ILS, but, in the event of an engine failure at go-around, fly the 'engine failure on takeoff procedure'. In the case of your aircraft not being albe to maintain the higher-than-standard missed approach climb gradient, this would provide you with protection.
Doing so is perfectly legal, required, and expected......

So, to say that this procedure is for take off only, is incorrect.

In any event, either an engine failure on takeoff or missed approach, notification of ATC is required, so they are aware that you'll be flying the one-engine-inoperative profile and not the standard missed approach procedure.

Should you include all this in your standard approach briefing? What does your company's SOP say? My old company required it. Perhaps your company's SOP does or does not.

If it does not, then such a briefing falls, not into the 'SOP bucket', but, instead into the 'technique bucket'. I never chastised a pilot for anything in the technique bucket. If it's not explicitly stated in the SOP, but the pilot wishes to brief it, anyway....well, this, in my opinion, is good airmanship (airpersonship). Good airmanship is not stressed enough, these days, in both our fundamental training an our routine line operations.

I hope this provides some insight...

Fly safe,

PantLoad

This is NOT a guess game,it is a regulation.By JAA for sure.
If you fly 737,you must calculate your Go around climb gradient using the 'DISPATCH PERFOMANCE' provided by Boeing in the FCOM.
It is for the case when the go around climb gradient is higher than the standard (2.4%)(2 engines jet).
If your Minima say 4%, you must ensure that you can do it by CALCULATING it using the above performance tables.

Again,this is NOT a guess game.The RVR used with the DA must be followed,so if you put a DA of 1000ft,you wont see the runway anyway if you have the minimum DA RVR.
For example,4% gradient on the plate shows 300ft DA/RVR 800 but 2.5% gradient shows a DA of 200ft and RVR550, you cant legally start the approach with lets say with 600 RVR if you cant achieve the the 4% gradient.

If you have terrain during the go around and a standard missed approach is not possible,an escape route MUST be provided by Jeppesen and your company for you to follow.(example INNsbruck).

I try not to talk back and forth to myself to much, or the passengers might think I am nuts... But to answer your question...you don't go into a runway, without knowing whether you can get out...that's seems obvious to me.

de facto, you are correct....
 

With regard to changing the DA, the required visibility is increased, as well. This is not a guess, nor a subjective figure. It is a published IAP.
Again, the ILS to 07L at HKG illustrates.....a good example.

This confusion is my fault. I wasn't clear in my text.

Fly safe,


PantLoad

Or check the two ILSs to runway 11 at KMSO. The normal one gets you down to 1900 AGL and requires 7 miles vis, if you can meet the missed approach climb gradient of 410 feet per mile to 9800 feet, then you're good down to 300 feet AGL and only need 1/2 mile vis.

I thought what you said was perfectly clear. Indeed, our SOP is to consider the contingency procedure for OEI approaches. It seems pretty sensible to me, the objective is to maintain separation, then if you can do it heavy on take-off then you can do it lighter from an approach. Separation guaranteed, no guess or maybes required and no need to operate to significantly restrictive weights or minima.

How about flying an arrival in reverse? We're allowed to utilise that too.

Marker - I am NAPTN ILS approved into MSO. Did they change it so you don't have to get approval by the FAA now to take the lower approach.

Thanks all for the detailed replies.
The company does not have this practice as a written SOP but it is common place to brief the procedure although some take it more seriosuly than others. I was just curious what the rest of the world was doing. Cheers :ok:

Putting consideration of regulatory requirements to one side, I would expect the prudent company to provide emergency missed approach procedures (where appropriate) in the same way that EOI takeoff procedures are published.

Simple matter of corporate risk management and sensible governance. The opposing counsel at the Enquiry is very practiced in making the target in the box look a right idiot if the i's were not dotted and the t's not crossed in a defensible manner ...

Using the takeoff procedure is better than blindly applying power and pitching up. However, one needs to consider - at the very least -

(a) the relative position of the MAP and the runway BR point

(b) distance/gradient capability for the acceleration to the missed approach configuration, as appropriate

(c) initial tracking errors and how one might address the effect on the takeoff trapezoid - remembering that big, rocky bits might be just outside the trapezoid.

Exactly,
A t/o engine out procedure may require you to turn at V2 (not more) at lets say 400ft or DER to avoid terrain ahead.
What if you do a single engine go around ,will ur speed be correct hence your turn radius satisfactory?
Loads of shady area.
I wouldnt do it.
Either you have the perf required for the missed app or you need a company escape route if required.

De facto, everything you write is correct assuming that the missed approach is performed at or above the DA.

The problem is below the DA, then all bets are off and there are no longer any requirement that have to be meet according to regulations. If e.g. a runway incursion occurs and you have to make a go around or balked landing, you most likely wont have any problems following the standard missed approach with 2 engines. But if at the same time a flock of birds lift of an get ingested in one engine at the same time, your starting point and altitude for the missed approach is very different than what is assumed for the calculations. If there is already a contingency go around procedure it wont help. As this assumes that you engine failed before the approach and that you go around when reaching minimums as well.

In short, with engine failure and go around below minimums - the engine out procedure for the departure will most likely be the safer choice if operating around the limits.

But how likely is this scenario is another question. It would have to be special circumstances before I would waste my time including this in my briefing.

We do not.
Reason?
The go-around procedure is entirely different than the one engine failed heavy weight takeoff procedure.
And besides, we operate a three engine type.
Not a problem, except in exceptional circumstances.

Case closed....except for the B737 (etc) where this might be appropriate.:rolleyes:
IE: I don't fly small airplanes, in airline revenue service.
Sorry...not, and I'm not about to start...now.:eek:

I'm with Pantload on this one. A standard Cat I approach has a 2.1% missed climb approach gradient and a CAT II/III has a 2.5% gradient. A standard SID has a 3.3% gradient. So let's assume you are operating to a runway that has a non-standard N-1 procedure. Starting with a take-off (I know we are discussing landings), if you can't make 3.3% following an engine failure at V1 (which will be a fair point down the runway), you'll follow the non-standard N-1 procedure. So returning to the landing, you should not really be starting an approach if you are unable to make the required missed approach climb gradient. But (there's always one of these) if you do find yourself there or worse, find yourself making a go-around below MDA/DH you are possibly in uncharted territory. So the safest procedure is to nick a tool from the take-off box - follow the N-1 procedure. This may also save your bacon if you have a performance problem, like the gear failing to retract, following an N-1 go-around. The reasons for following the procedure will be that firstly, it will be executed before the start of the runway. Secondly it will be started with flying speed and lastly you will already have some height in the bag to start with. If you do find yourself following the N-1 procedure, don't forget to tell ATC - The'll be expecting you to follow the Standard Missed Approach and I'll bet they haven't a clue as to what your company specific N-1 Take-off procedure is.

As for including it in the brief? Well if that that's what you are going to do...

PM

we don't have specific EO for a missed, it's the same as for EO SID and must be followed in case aircraft can't comply with MA climb gradient (standard or non standard), overweight landing, Go around below DA MDA, bulked landing or abnormally hot temperatures, last but not least in case any doubts exist about the performance. Bear in mind that all the procedures were designed for normal operating conditions it's operators responsibility to cater for contingency. :ok:

de facto....
 

de facto,

You've made the point precisely. "Either you have the performance for a missed approach, or you need a company escape route if required." Perfectly stated....

So, you take off, what is your V2? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....

And, during your go around, what is your speed? Oh, depends on your weight, among other things, you say....

411A flies three engines or more....not the same animal. Performance, performance requirements, regulations....all different.

Suggestion: On your next sim, try it. Have a look at an airport that has one of these procedures, along with an ILS missed approach with an abnormally high climb gradient. (Again, Hong Kong 07L is a good one, but may not be in your sim's data base.) Set the weather on Vmc....so you can see the hills. Set the temperature at typical. Set the landing weight at maximum, first, then typical landing weights in a second trial. Do the published missed approach, first, then do the engine failure on takeoff.

We did this a few years back...trying to remember the airport (It was a U.S. airport, but can't remember the specifics.) Did it in the MiniBus...four trials....one at max landing weight, one at typical landing weight, and each of those two with the standard missed approach procedure and the engine failure on takeoff.

Have a look....

Our trials confirmed that our comapny's SOP is correct. At max landing weight, warm temps, one engine inoperative, flying the standard MAP, we DID miss the hills, but we got a lot of "WHOOP WHOOP UP". Simply, we did not meet the non-standard missed approach climb gradient with one engine inoperative. Flying the engine failure on takeoff procedure was a piece of cake.


Fly safe,

PantLoad

We cannot use any take off procedure during a go around. However before we start any approach we have to calculate the relevant go-around climb gradients (both all engines and OEI) during the normal landing performance calculation (done on the EFB and documented on the OFP) and if we do not meet the required gradient either wait until our weight is low enough or divert. The performance calculation has to conform with a normal dispatch performance calculation (factors for dispatch) as the lowest usable value in all circumstances. In a 737 i never had problems with landing performance though, even in places like LOWS, LOWK or LOWI (special performance approval for all of those).

We really must come to a definitive answer (and a legal one!) as we are giving a whole bunch of answers and, for example, those last two hardly have anything in common.

I was never told to "wait until you burn your weight off" in a place where there are higher than standard PDG's. I remember something like ...and quite frankly, that sounds more logical overall. I will obey one of my instructors who once told me "this shouldn't be called aviation, that's too much an impressive name. This should be called "common sense""

The original thread...
 

My former company's SOP had Jeppesen plates that read:

"Engine Failure on Takeoff or Missed Approach" It was a 10-7 plate (or a 20-7 plate, as required).

And, yes, it was a required briefing item.

And, yes, this was an FAA requirement...both to have the plate, to use it, and to brief it.

(This applied to those airports that had terrain such that made it necessary for an engine failure on takeoff or a missed approach with one engine inoperative.)

This answers the original question.


Fly safe,


PantLoad

The marketing department loves you....
 

Wow,

So, we circle and burn fuel to be light enough to do a single engine go around with the published missed approach.

Or, we limit the commercial payload...maybe only half passengers and no freight....

Yep, sounds like a plan....


Fly safe,

PantLoad

Off the subject of the original thread...
 

When flying over the Rockies, our routing was specific, due to drift-down requirements. Asking for 'direct' from ATC was illegal, as deviating from the filed routing wouold put you in ?????? (can we make it, if an engine fails?)

Same logic, folks.....


Fly safe,

PantLoad

Here's the regulatory reference:
EU - OPS 1.510 - Landing — Destination and alternate aerodromes
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with EU - OPS 1.475
(a) does not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate aerodrome.
(b) For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2,5 % an operator shall verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one-engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed (see applicable requirements on certification of large aeroplanes). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. IOW fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2,5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater (see CS AWO 243). The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. Once again fly ESCAPE ROUTE.

It's complete bollocks to maintain a diversion or burning fuel is required for compliance with regs. Whether the operator choses to entertain commercially sane and perfectly legal solution or bluntly to burn the fuel till it can comply with the published GA climb gradient, well, I guess it depends on how deep the pocket is. :ok:

Well, the authority (in that case the german LBA) does not approve an alternate method for smallish jets (737s) though. Therefore we have to comply with the required missed approach climb gradients.

And if we can't change the required climb gradient by using an alternate method there is only two other things we can do if we find ourselves unable to comply with then. However landing climb performance is a dispatch issue and has to be checked during planning and before takeoff, therefore it is highly unlikely to find oneself in that situation.

Denti, LBA might not approve it for your outfit or for places like LOWS simply coz there's no chance to build a escape route, the take off is unidirectional anyways. I'm very skeptical, to say at least, to believe carriers like LH wouldn't entertain alternatives methods flying worldwide and among the others 737 to places in Norway. Just doesn't make sense mate. :ok:

We do this for at least 1 airport which requires a 6% missed approach climb gradient within a valley. The holding point is overhead a mountain. Payload is reduced if necessary to ensure that the gradient is met.

Mutt

I think DENTI phrased it quite clearly,and it is obvious his kmowledge in the matter shows that his airline is following JAA regulations in that matter.
Dispatching an aircraft in europe requires the airline to follow its caa regulations which they do via their dispather who must ensure the aircraft is planned at destination to be below max landing weight,thats its landing distance is within the distance available and that it meets the appropriate go around climb gradient(one engine on toga and flaps 15(ie engine fail during gi around or following engine failure on approach and flaps 30 maintained).
THEN it is up to the crew following possible weather change/runway condition/use of antice in flight(will decrease gradient by 1% if landing in temp below 10c) to recalcute their performance including landing distance.

An engine failure below minima (in imc) where perf is an issue is a remote possibility as you are in that scenario in visual conditions and legal to continue for a landing.
At that point if a landing cant be made(blocked runway), the best judgement relies on the captain terrain awareness(in that case a possible t/o engine out procedure).
But we have to remember that at tjis point the config would be flaps 15 and not as in a normal t/o.
In any case you are outside calculated performance.

The only thing we can do is to fly as safely as we can,follow regulations and when a non standard situation occurs use the best of our knowledge ,preparation and skills with a salt of luck,we may save the day.
In that scenario a crew

- for 737, 2 g/a's published on R16 depending on MDA and take-off EOSID available too. Jepp refers. Been in there a few times.

de facto, firstly dispatchers in Europe don't require license unlike in the US, that doesn't mean the companies don't send them to complete such and obtain the certificate. Secondly in Europe dispatchers aren't co-responsible for the safe conduct of the flight, only the commander is. Thirdly, except for those airport where there's no other way but to reduce the payload in order to comply with MA climb gradient due to terrain profile etc, it's operator's choice whether to entertain or not alternative methods, best example HKG 07L coming in on 330 we can come in with max LW and LVO provided we follow EO SID in case of EO GA , coming in on A 345 or 346 we follow published MA even with EO unless the OAT is above 40 C. Last but not least the authorities grant approvals to operators based on their assessment criterions which doesn't mean every operator will be able to follow alternative methods.

BOAC operation to LOWS requires prior permission by Austrian CAA and most certainly if one wants to use 16 for departure special authorization is required as it's high performance departure. In this case EO SID is a must no doubt. Again particularly for LOWS the company chose to reduce the LW in order to comply with lower minima instead of using EO SID. Whether it was a voluntary choice or the Austrian CAA didn't approve it no idea. If I recall correct LW on 321 was limited to 68T or something like that.

Those are best examples in fact, LOWS requiring CAA authorization to use lower minimas for CAT I and HKG not requiring anything for lower cat I minima except ordinary compliance with regs. I'm not talking about LVO authorization here which requires a separate approval. :ok:

The only thing we can do is to fly as safely as we can,follow regulations and when a non standard situation occurs use the best of our knowledge ,preparation and skills with a salt of luck,we may save the day.

... which is akin to the ostrich with its head in the sand.

Either the operator/commander knows what's what, has/have done the sums (forget eyeballing escape procedures - the usual gradients are so low that either they have been analysed prior to the need or one is content to play Russian Roulette - the human brain doesn't appear to be good at calculating gradient intercepts on the fly).

There is no major impediment to doing the thing properly (other than money - I guess some/many operators don't spend on the basis of risk management unless the Regulator holds a gun to their head). Not fundamentally different to a takeoff analysis.

The italicized post, above, is characteristic of the operator with which I would rather not fly, given an alternative. Philosophically, it subscribes to the view that one ought not address any sensible risk mitigation strategy .. prefering, rather, to leave one's outcome to the Fates.

For instance, in previous days at AN, a number of critical runways had been run through the analysis for a missed approach - apart from the money spent, where is the problem ?

Under U.S. law...
 

The FAA requires that the commander ensure, at all times, the aircraft will be able to maintain adequate terrain clearance during all phases of flight, both with all engines operating, and with one engine inoperative. This, of course, includes takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, landing, and missed approach. This is the regulation....

Good luck with using your ingenuity when XXXX happens at the worst time.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

Are you in the takeoff splay during the missed approach?
 

Folks,

For performance engineering, the biggest problem in planning for missed approaches is working out where the aircraft will be when it actually achieves the missed approach configuration and has a relatively fixed climb gradient.

The first element is that it takes time and space to reconfigure from the landing configuration to the missed approach configuration and stabilise the climb - so there is a physical distance between the MAP and the start of the obstacle clearance plane which must be factored into the vertical plan.

The second element relates to where the aircraft goes during that reconfiguration - and the plan must consider the contingencies such as despatch without/failure of autopilot and OEI operations, the location of the MAP and the aircraft vector approaching and departing the MAP. This will determine the horizontal plan.

I would not permit the use of the EOI takeoff procedure for the missed approach unless I was satisfied that the aircraft had a 99% probability of being positioned within the vertical and horizontal constraints of that procedure. Generally, the vertical is not an issue unless the aircraft routinely lands heavier than it takes off. Horizontally, getting the aircraft within 90 metres either side of the centreline at the far end of the runway during an OEI IMC missed approach is rarely achieved, thus invalidating the EOI takeoff procedure as a safe plan.

And, to declare my hand, if Jeppesen says its OK - I automatically reject it! Watch what comes out in discovery on the first real law suit with a determined plaintiff and no plea bargain/settlement.

Stay Alive,

Right. Based on my own understanding, for a normal CatI we need 2,1%, take off EOI/contingency 2,4% and a normal SID 3,3%. Required take off climb gradient ends at 1500 AGL. So your reduced N1 provides a thrust setting (on a balanced T/O) that will either enable you to stop before V1 or get you to 1500' AGL on OEI without hitting terrain. If terrain is an issue for the required ROC an emergency turn/contingency procedure is constructed. This will require a lower ROC of 2,4%.
So, basically if you end up OEI close to max landing weight, or if a higher missed approach climb rate is required for the approach in question, you should consider your options (increasing DA/MDA accordingly).

We have an Eng Fail procedure for all take-offs and landings published with our RTOW charts. Same procedure for both for all our current runways, with the important proviso that the procedure begins at the DER so no turns allowed before passing the far end of the runway in G/A. This covers all cases.

Airbus uses a ridiculous term EOSID - engine out SID - which clearly it cannot be as by definition all a/c from all operators would fly the same procedure if it was a SID. Just another example of their careless use of language.

In every case there's a need to consider engine failure in the G/A so those who think the normal G/A procedure will do are sadly mistaken. It MAY give you the required obstacle clearance but then again it may not. Are you prepared to take that chance? I'm certainly not.

For your info, my Boeing uses the same term in it's FMS. Nothing to do with Airbus.

EO SID does not mean that all operators would fly the same procedure, just because it is named using the term SID. In fact, it is entirely logical: Engine Out Standard Instrument Departure. Given the FMS uses the term, why not? What else would you call it and does it actually matter what it's called?

ridiculous terms
 

This may have something to do with it:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%20120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf

Stay Alive,