Engine out terrain clearance
 

In regards to a takeoff, it seems most places, the engine out procedure is to fly runway heading(track) as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

If someone decided to take a really long time with all their procedures and continue straight out, they could go quite far. There are some locations with distant mountains as we all know.

As they're going quite far and taking all that time with all their procedures, the aircraft is still climbing, correct?

Good one:p

Seriously the obstacles depicted on the departure charts,MSA in the 25 NM,would be sufficient info for the initial runway heading.
If your crews continue on tbe heading for more than 25 NM,it is that they are indeed rather slow and most importantly forgetting
to navigate,lost situational awareness...
...unless they do have supplementary obstacles charts and their heading is in the direction of their intended destination:E

Airports with obstacles after initial takeoff and clean up have special procedures. TGU you would die for sure if you flew RH either north or south until clean up because of terrain. Engine out takeoffs can be quite interesting in RNO and TVL orbiting a hill on instruments. Never just fly runway heading unless you are in FLA or MN where there is no terrain thinking you are safe longer then you have to.

Bogota has the most complex engine failure procedure depending on when you lose the engine I just tell the FO we will just return and land VFR. Unless you are based there it is unlikely a briefing would help anyway because of all the changes depending on when it happens. Yes, if it is IFR you have to do it but with unlimited visibility a waste of time.

Quite surprising from an experienced pilot..
Id love to see how you manage an engine failure,could be an interesting example of how CRM collapses due to lack of preparation/briefing.
I hope for your pax that you never get an engine failure there,may it be vfr or ifr.

If the procedure is for flying an engine out takeoff in the clouds and you can see for 10 miles just clean up, turn downwind and land like you would at MIA. That is what I briefed. Why make it complicated and you will have much better results than doing a complex departure away from the airport for no reason. That is what we get paid for, to make good judgement decisions and not just read a profile that we won't do. The dumbest pilot wouldn't do those procedures in visual conditions hopefully.

I guess you would but I don't know you.

It seems most places, the procedure is to fly runway heading as the engineers have analyzed the surrounding terrain for obstacle clearance. But how far out are they required to analyze.

Do they, now ?

Things will vary according to jurisdiction but, as a general thought, consider -

(a) Type A charts will go out a reasonable distance (but no where near what is required for a critical straight ahead departure. They tell you a story about the rocky bits but have ZERO interest in whether your particular aeroplane might/might not be able to miss them ..

(b) if terrain is critical, the pilot has NO WAY of doing the sums on the fly. Either the operator has it done appropriately or you are sailing close to the wind each and every takeoff

Generally the approach adopted by reasonable operators is to divide the runway database into at least three paddocks -

(a) easy - there will be some SOP recovery procedure

(b) not so easy with one of two awkward obstacles - there will be a specific, sort of standardised procedure - eg, climb to X ft, turn to the Y aid and climb in the pattery for the let down

(c) nasty - a full blown escape procedure.

However, if your operator hasn't given you a specific and credible procedure for a difficult runway, oh dear ...

As to how far out a straight procedure might go ? .. for a critical twin, how about 50 nm or so ?

John, I think that is when a captain has to be a captain as we all should to make a safe departure. We need to operate safely no matter what our company ops are.

Sometimes pilots can do things better using their judgement than reading an ops manual at the end of the runway. We need to heed it but we also need to use common sense and what is happening at the moment. We are paid to take care of things and given a manual to assist us but not handicap us.

25 yrs of doing this with no violations, write ups by anybody and no scraped metal worked for me.

Remember our DC10 at ORD that followed our AA procedure and slowed to V2? We changed our AA procedures after that and I never would have done it because if you are climbing fine ,why slow down? They were required to and everybody died.

The last two operators I have flown with had a procedure to fly runway track in the event of an engine failure at or soon after V1(which easily applies to most runways in my experience) unless there is an engine out special procedure.

I am just assuming that this is the case for other companies but I don't know.

My question is simply, how far out past the end of the runway are obstacles required to be assessed, if there is a requirement.

How about for the USA and EU if it varies by jurisdiction.

when a captain has to be a captain

I would suggest that is all the time.

However, NO-ONE can eyeball a limiting OEI departure in a critical terrain environment - the subtended angles are too shallow for reasonable human perceptual considerations (I may be on suspect strict physiological/psychological ground there ? perhaps some of the relevant techo specialists can advise if the research literature indicates that the typical human can discriminate to that sort of minimal angular displacement ?) ergo, either one has had the takeoff analysed or one is on dangerous ground - and, potentially, literally.

and slowed to V2

every now and then an event written in blood results in great Industry systems change. The 10 was one .. AF another. Just goes to show that we don't have all the bases covered at the start.

The last two operators I have flown with had a procedure to fly runway track in the event of an engine failure at or soon after V1(which easily applies to most runways in my experience) unless there is an engine out special procedure.

Sounds pretty reasonable on the face of it.

My question is simply, how far out past the end of the runway are obstacles required to be assessed, if there is a requirement.

The usual rules are

(a) for the entire flight

(b) specifically, for the takeoff, until either the takeoff is completed (nominal 1500ft) or until the en-route rules can take care of the problems .. which may be further downtrack.

Again,professional pilots wouldnt put all their faith in visual cues,it could end up just an illusion,visual cues may not guaranty performance at such airports.
If Bogota(never flew there but flew INN) does have so many missed approaches,there must be a reason...
INN for example,a speed in excess of 156 kts would end up busting the turn radius and getting closer to firma granita and a visual at higher speed and bit of tailwind may well end your day and your pax.
I wonder how many bells and whisltes came on while you were flying...but again this is probably acceptable to your view of thinking.


Exactly what i meant.

Jammed - in my experience the 'climb straight ahead' (ie no specific OEI track specified) ceases, as JT says, at 1500 AAL/clean. There is a requirement in the regs for operators to establish terrain clearance routes on departure until en-route or return MSA can be achieved but again in my experience very few operators do this.

Again it is down to 'airmanship'. A few of your options are to remain above Circling minima with the circling area (NB 'Old' TERPS!!! - ie pretty well impossible), climb to the 25 nm MSA as per de F. (within 30nm!!) or climb to en-route MSA on the en-route track. For options 2 and 3 you are, of course, without sufficient terrain information outside the assumed 1500' point UNLESS you have studied a map or adequate chart. It is as well to know!

I had a giggle on a line check in my last airline at a Canadian airfield a few years back with a disagreement with a well-known 'Ozzie' TC who insisted I was wrong and that I could manoeuvre with 4.2nm of the runway at or above Cat C Circ. Minima.....until I gently pointed out this was a TERPS airfield.....................:uhoh:

Have you notified your airline about the idea of flying visually if in VMC?
Probably not.

SOPs,EOI are written in a comfortable office by professionals who most probably have a better clue than you think you do.
This is reason why they are writing these SOP manuals and designing these procedures in the first place.

Typical.
However a good CRM topic for recruitment of first officers..

JammedStab
 

Your ´question is answered in ICAO Annex 4, Chap. 3.8.1.
Citing from memory, it´s an upward slope of 1,2 % extending normally for 10 km or roughly 5,5 NM. In some cases that surface is extended to 12,5 Km or 6,75 NM.
I´ve done consulting work for an Airport where on one rwy the Aerodrome Obstacle Chart - Type A chart extends for 15,5 km before the sloped surface get clear of the hills.
Jo

Jo,

However, the problem is that the Type A and all the other topo data one can lay one's hands on ... aren't at all interested in whether your particular aeroplane can better the rocky bits.

That remains the operator's responsibility to sort out (realistically, the average pilot doesn't have the tools and information to do the work). Note that I don't suggest that the pilot is not capable of doing so - there is nothing overly difficult there and it just takes good attention to detail and very rigorous housekeeping.

John
fully agree with you. This stuff is all more or less bloody theory when it comes to safe your - as a pilot - and your pax´s skin. Therefore I fullhearted underwrite what was stated here by bubbers44 and others. Nothing substitute situational awareness and a good load of common horse sense. I have, as a TWR controller once watched the finally successful attempt of a light twin pilot that had a full load of pax on board and lost one engine right after take off, by flying through a valley lower than the hills. Though we lost visual contact temporarily we still had radio contact and thus could render assisstance as much as was possible.
Jo

That one gave me a much-needed chuckle. Maybe where you work the manuals are error-free and perfect...

Having done a lot of flying in areas of significant terrain, I'd really have to agree with that. I did a mountain flying course some years ago and in the ground school, one of the instructors circulated a research paper detailing human limitations when assessing angles, horizon references and the like. It was an interesting read and from memory somewhere around 20:1 was the cutoff beyond which it became complete guesswork and that was with no slopes confusing the issue.

I'd also agree with following the OEI procedure, even if CAVOK. In airline ops, we generally aren't given enough information to be able to second guess the reason(s) why an ET or just maintaining the published SID is necessary. What segment(s) are the obstacle(s) in? Is there something like a mast which you won't see until you're nearly on it? If you are below the top of the local terrain it is very difficult to make an accurate judgement on whether you're going to clear it or not. Add in the complications of dealing with an emergency at the same time and I think I'll put my trust in the procedure designers.

If it became obvious that the failure was a complex one outside the normal parameters (flap/slat damage, bird strikes on multiple engines, gear not retracting, etc.), then yes, I'd be prepared to throw away the procedure and wing it. Up to that point I feel I have a duty of care to follow a pre-calculated safe path and not experiment with something that may have unforeseen consequences, even though done with the best of intentions...

WHO'S PERFECT?
 

""SOPs,EOI are written in a comfortable office by professionals who most probably have a better clue than you think you do.
This is reason why they are writing these SOP manuals and designing these procedures in the first place.""

That's the reason my lot have just last winter SOP'd that ALL 3 altimeters will be changed to Standard setting at the same time on departure.

Makes for interesting Noise Abatement altitudes and SA regarding Safety Altitude don't you think, when the SID calls for an early FL level-off?

Queried to fleet management and answer came there none...................:ugh: