I don't disagree. However this question results in "normally" and "presumably" being included in almost all answers. I fly to many airports that don't have the standard 2.5% missed approach gradient. The charts also include the statement " MDA / DA based on 2.5% gradient not provided". Would should also say "hopefully" will not have to consider this situation for real!!
|
If you have a difficult runway approach, so far as the miss is concerned, then the ops engineers need to have a look at in a manner similar to the takeoff situation.
On another point, for takeoff, where terrain dictates, one can schedule a turn from runway head and 50ft. |
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
(Post 10159282)
If you have a difficult runway approach, so far as the miss is concerned, then the ops engineers need to have a look at in a manner similar to the takeoff situation.
On another point, for takeoff, where terrain dictates, one can schedule a turn from runway head and 50ft. |
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10159092)
Normally, you would be at, or below, max landing weight. Plus, you presumably begin the OEI missed approach at, or above DA. So, you are in better shape than OEI just above V1 on takeoff. If you are doing a OEI overweight landing, you might want to avoid using an IAP that doesn't have a 2.5% clear missed approach procedure.
I think the safest option would be to fly the jepp missed approach and clean up at the accel altitude that's in OTP (Boeing) or the 1 inop procedure (CDP)? if your below the MDA/DA or can't met the missed approach gradients fly the 1 inop take off procedure (CDP) and clean up at that accel altitude. Thoughts? goes for both 1 and 2 engine! |
Originally Posted by JammedStab
(Post 10159389)
True, we used to have a couple of airports with engine-out procedures that started at 50 feet with a 15 degree bank through 180 degrees of turn to avoid close-in high terrain. I believe the company makes the choice of what altitude they want(or is it the manufacturer?).
The operator then has to assure compliance with 121.189, or its equivalent. Many today now use the Part 25 takeoff path applied to AC 120-91, rather than the impossibly narrow lateral limits specified in 121.189. AC 120-91: https://tinyurl.com/ydd9e7zp Large operators have their own planning and performance departments. Smaller operators often use contract planning and performance companies. |
Originally Posted by ejet3
(Post 10159812)
Say your at MLW or over! either way you need to have something to hang your hat on in court.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.