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:

For the purpose of take-off performance analysis, the end of take-off flight path is considered to be when airplane reaches at least one of:
* A Fix and minimum altitude from which an approach may be initiated back to the departure airport or from which it is possible to proceed to departure alternate
* MSA
* Minimum en-route altitude for a route to departure alternate
* Minimum Radar Vectoring Altitude

An engine out take-off flight path and obstacle analysis method is based on AFM Net flight path, which clears all obstacles by 35 ft vertically and OPS 1 obstacle assessment area, centered on the intended flight track, within which all obstacles must be cleared vertically.

Development of contingency procedures, required to cover the case of engine failure or an emergency in flight which occurs after V1, is the responsibility of the operator, in accordance with Annex 6. Where terrain and obstacles permit, these procedures should follow the normal departure route.

When it is necessary to develop a turning procedure to avoid an obstacle which would have become limiting, then the procedure should be described in detail in the appropriate operator's manual. The point for start of turn in this procedure must be readily identifiable by the pilot when flying under instrument conditions.

The minimum obstacle clearance equals zero at the departure end of runway (DER). From that point, it increased by 0.8 per cent of the horizontal distance in the direction of flight assuming a maximum turn of 15°. In the turn initiation area and turn area, a minimum obstacle clearance of 90 m (295 ft) is provided. Where precipitous and mountainous terrain exist, consideration is given to increasing the minimum obstacle clearance.

The procedure design gradient (PDG) is intended as an aid to adjust the route with the intention of minimizing the PDG consistent with other constraints. Unless otherwise published, a PDG of 3.3 per cent is assumed. The PDG is not intended as an operational limitation for those operators who assess departure obstacles in relation to aircraft performance, taking into account the availability of appropriate ground/airborne equipment.

The PDG is based on:
a. an obstacle identification surface (OIS) having a 2.5 per cent gradient or a gradient determined by the most critical obstacle penetrating the surface, whichever is the higher; and
b. an additional margin of 0.8 per cent.

Published gradients are specified to an altitude/height after which the minimum gradient of 3.3 per cent is considered to prevail. The final PDG continues until obstacle clearance is ensured for the next phase of flight (i.e. en-route, holding or approach). At this point, the departure procedure ends and is marked by a significant point.

Whenever a suitably located DME exists, additional specific height/distance information intended for obstacle avoidance may be published. RNAV waypoint or other suitable fixes may be used to provide a means of monitoring climb performance.

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/doc...at_i_3_1_2.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/doc...at_i_3_2_2.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/doc..._3_1_klein.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/doc...at_i_3_2_1.gif

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/icharts/doc...at_i_2_1_2.gif

I havent read them in such details to know,but obviously the more mature the airline the more chance mistakes have been spotted and corrected.

In general and for large operators,as i mentionned,those manuals have been through some obvious thoughts and checked by the relevant authorities.

Now,what i meant was that blatently deviating from layed down and accepted SOP (especially perf calculated)is asking for troubles in the scenario bubbers described initially.
As written above,in a controlled emergency,i would not deviate from layed down engine out procedures just for the reason of guestimating that flying in cavok weather is sufficient to deviate from such escape routes.
BARKINGMAD,
Concerning your std setting of altimeter,yes there are times when some non standard actions are needed as the sops cant be written for every scenario possible but in your case,i doubt the noise abatement should take over the setting of your altimeter ...but you did the right thing to request clarification and thats how manuals evolve or get too fat:p
Im curious as what is your transition altitude/preferred noise (A/B/1/2) and SID level off FL?

That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that the more mature the airline, the more opportunity there is for a bunch of decrepit fossils who haven't even seen a simulator, let alone an actual aircraft, in decades and decades to write pages upon pages of unadulterated nonsense, which their similarly decrepit buddies at the "relevant authorities" will gladly sign off.

True story.

Thanks for the replies.

This scene is what made me ask the question. The mountains are farther away than appears but there is a runway pointed at them.

Google Image Result for http://people.ucalgary.ca/~enstasiu/home/Calgary%20skyline%202012.jpg

So I would wonder, how close do they have to be to require a special departure procedure or how far away to not require a special departure procedure.

I think from memo the cumulo-granitus is a bit more than 25nm, so achieving Calgary 25nm MSA would be a start. Also an impossible question to answer - the runway may point at the Rockies but the route may go the other way, so presumably once you are clean - and armed with rudimentary terrain knowledge - you would be looking at heading east in that case or achieving en-route MSA if heading west before you make a dent in them thar hills. It is not much different to departing a northern Italian airport towards the Alps.

Mountains like you have at Calgary, Denver, Milan and the like, although spectacular, aren't that much of a problem as they are some distance from the airfields in question and are "obvious".

The nasty places, IMHO, have low hills close in which don't look that forbidding until you lose a donk. MSAs may not be particularly high compared with the airfield altitude but you still have to get there. ZRH comes to mind as somewhere that has seen more than its fair share of accidents, both on departure and approach.

And the locals have now a very thorough engine out SOP including a standard procedure for those rwys where it fits and non standard procedures where it doesn't. They also have procedures for engine failures occurring when already on the normal SID.

I'm quite certain they are not the only airline who does this. But I know from experience that there are some airlines who don't.

Yes, Bogota. Long time since I've been there but ISTR that, on one runway, the procedure turned you into approaching traffic (or was that the GA?).
Anyway, it seemed to me that, if VMC, it would be best to head off down the valley :ok:

Best ever tutorial on performance:


FAA Workshop on Transport Airplane Performance Planning | Aircraft Climb Performance Videos | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

Defacto, You seem to believe every thing told you so must be young. Yes I went to our chief pilot and told him our new sop into TGU would mean we couldn't land 90% of the time because we needed to exceed 1000 fpm to land unless we had at least a 15knot headwind. He agreed and just said just keep doing it the way we have always done it so sop is a guideline, not a law. In the future don't be so negative about us old guys. We survived a career with no scratches. Hope you do too.

It'd think you would know what my screen name means...but obviously not:E

Are you talking about sink rate issue at low altitude?well in that case it is not forbidden if briefed prior...your chief pilot should have had this included in your sops or training for this particular airport.

I aint negative at all about old folks,i am negative about people who bull:mad: their crews about doing some non standard maneuver unbriefed,unapproved based on some personal assumptions...
I do know the difference between guidelines and law,however most guidelines come from the law...and disregarding sops in general treating them as mere guidelines is a state of mind that i deplore.

Many accidents result from loss of situational awareness,and following sops,especially in an emergency is a very important tool to maintain this awareness.

Innsbruck was a 'fun' place to go...

BRAIN FADE.
 

"Concerning your std setting of altimeter,yes there are times when some non standard actions are needed as the sops cant be written for every scenario possible but in your case,i doubt the noise abatement should take over the setting of your altimeter ...but you did the right thing to request clarification and thats how manuals evolve or get too fathttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/tongue.gif
Im curious as what is your transition altitude/preferred noise (A/B/1/2) and SID level off FL?"

1) NA procedure will not take precedent over stop alt/FL, too much grief and paperwork after-I'll argue over the fine!

2) TA varies with the places I fly, SOP is to change asap if low level off FL.

3) Noise procedues are variable depending on dep airport, not permitted a preference.

4) As per the original query, I find it difficult to believe a professional pilot and their peers could write this into the manual!

My old brain begins to creak as I get airborne with MFRA, power cutback, acceleration/cleanup initiation, transition altitude, safety altitude and stop alt/FL all whirring around inside. 2 of these are displayed, MFRA on the PFD and stop alt/FL on the MCP, but the rest are on a piece of paper on control column/chart clip.

Is this really a sensible way to run a railway?

skyjob, all,

Sky, while you included all kinds of illustrations, they are for all engine analysis. EO procedures are classed as emergency, and there is NO criteria for engine out missed or departure design.

Typically, the EO procedure will follow the straight segment to an altitude, but that is simply to standardize the EO procedure with the all engine, assuming that you go EO at minima, and to get you to the same point as the missed to clear, and for ATC to react and provide some assistance.

The EO procedures, beginning with the EO missed approach, are very complex in nature. Analysis begins with the aircraft climb perf, assuming the worst case variables for the climb. This is MLW, all bleeds on, and max temp at the airport.
There are many airports, terrain rich, or high altitude where an EO procedure is not possible. If you are EO enroute, you are diverting to an alternate, because you cannot go missed on approach.

With a coded procedure, EO missed is taken into account with the DA. Many people wonder why the standard approach has a 250 HAT, while the coded approach has a 1200 DA, and EO missed may be the reason.

As an example, at a certain airport in China, the EO missed is over 400nm long to get to the alternate. Terrain/obstacles were analyzed for the entire procedure.
Cuzco EO missed RW28?
http://i44.tinypic.com/11cfbkm.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/bhn4hz.jpg

EDIT, Terpster..the video you posted was very interesting, especially at around 11 mins and the FAA explanation of the EO procedure on the Jepp plate. I had no idea that the EO procedure, even though shown on the plate, was not FAA approved, that the individual airline had to engineer and approve itself to use this.

terpster, I would highly recommend the video. The guy from Boeing, beginning at about 1 hr:55 mins. It was always difficult to explain this issue to the pilots especially that the performance charts do not include any winds whatsoever.

:D

Well said Sir.

I'm all for free thought, suggestions, doing it differently, etc. but you'd better have a lead-lined, copper-bottomed mother-****** of a good reason to roll your own ET on the spur of the moment.

It's interesting listening to a briefing where someone gaily says something like "In the event of blah blah, we'll do a visual circuit or turnback onto RWY XXX". Fine in a PA28 but if you're down to one engine and one hundred tonnes over MLW, just how are you going to do that? It is well outside most people's experience, I would suggest, so it's going to be a real voyage of discovery as new facts about bank angle, turning radii, monster Vrefs and bugger! I can't slow down! are all found out about on the fly. Also, one of the major possibilities when you're gunning for a rapid return is that there is uncontrollable smoke on board. Now we're doing it all with Aliens on our faces!

Much as de facto says, there's a big breakdown in CRM and SA when non-standard emergency procedures are initiated for no really good reason apart from "because I can". That's not to say that on very rare occasions some thinking and action outside the box might be required but that should be obvious to all on board. Our FCOM begins with (paraphrased) "These are the rules, break them if you must to stay safe."

FW, your reasons are exactly why there should be a coded EO procedure in the box. While the crew is sorting out the issues, at least there is some knowledge that the aircraft is on a path that has some protection.
While I think that following the SID might work for EO Missed, I would never assume that following the SID for EO DEP would provide protection, especially if there are turns.

Underfire, the illustrations were provided to allow fellow pilot to e what they may not have seen before when considering how departure procedures are defined.

You are correct that an EO does no take these into account, merely terrain clearance requirements. For best vertical gains straight out departures are usually considered to best as the aircraft does not limb as well during a turn, in case of EO may no even limb at all in a turn.

EO procedures clear obstacles and terrain by minimum requirements underneath the considered flight path, whilst attempting simplicity or pilots as their workload is already high enough at these times.

Coded Eo procedures are commonly not possible as the FMC data is refreshed and loaded each 28 days, in line with AIRINC cycles, but EO procedures are type/operator specific and can only be loaded inoto FMC using Supplementary database, something that needs creating/monitoring/updating/installing/maintaining etc, some operators do not or can not spend resources on that. Granted, coded EO procedures would be better provided the aircraft can fly them (limiting bank angels, re-executing a new FMC selection of route, etc etc)

skyjob:

At many locations turns are required in OEI procedure. Track design is predicated on any turn being made at a 15 degree angle of bank, which results in very little loss of lift.

skyjob:

Any coded procedure is on the cycle. If it isnt updated, it cannot be used. All coded procedures go through the navdatabase provider, they are not sent to the individual airline for upload. The code has identifiers per aircraft, and will not load to a different aircraft

The EO procedures are coded as part of the procedure, ie the EO missed is coded with the Approach procedure, just the same as the missed, it is not separate.
The EO DEP are the same, coded with the DEP.

All procedures are monitored daily for NOTAM, additional obstacles, and error checked each cycle before sent out by the provider. This is a costly struggle to maintain the integrity on the cycle, and there are many differences between the numerous navdatabases to account for.

As terpster stated, there are virtually always turns with an EO procedure, with bank altitude and bank angle limits to account for the degradation in a turn. In the video linked by Terpster, it was rather interesting to note the EO procedure at Slat Lake City. I find it very difficult to believe that a twin could make that turn EO.

Unfortunately not all aircraft are capable of selecting a new departure procedure easily, I'm thinking if eg 737 which doesn't have a capable fmc for route 2 options at this time yet.

Regarding coding it in fmc through nav data provider, you are correct this is the chosen method of distribution.

Let's get this right, I'm not attacking anyone, but I think the capabilities vary and need to be taken into account.

The question wa about EO, that was and should be answered, nog about how it can or can't be achieved in a specific aircraft type or not.