|
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
(Post 10235838)
The fun starts when you have an engine failure after your SID deviation point.
Simple matter if the backroom guys are doing their job properly. Suggest you ask your flight standards folk (or ops engineers if they are in house) if the engine failure case has been examined for the entire SID track. Our procedure always was to make sure that a failure, anywhere along the departure track, was accommodated by the OEI procedure. If your folk don't do so, perhaps you should ask them to come along for a ride on the relevant departures on a regular basis ? |
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
(Post 10235838)
The fun starts when you have an engine failure after your SID deviation point.
Simple matter if the backroom guys are doing their job properly. Suggest you ask your flight standards folk (or ops engineers if they are in house) if the engine failure case has been examined for the entire SID track. Our procedure always was to make sure that a failure, anywhere along the departure track, was accommodated by the OEI procedure. If your folk don't do so, perhaps you should ask them to come along for a ride on the relevant departures on a regular basis ? |
When the SID provides a climb gradient check your Perf Data in the QRH for Eng OUt. Can make it? You can stay on the SID. Can't make it? Follow the EOSID and inform ATC...
|
We used to have a legend in our AIP charts that said what gradient was for terrain reasons and what gradient for ATS purposes. One read (maybe erroneously) "PDG" and the other one read (dead on) ATS. Nice piece of info. Today's format only says something like "X.X% for obstacles until xxxxft then X.X%". Haven't seen this in the Jepp format charts though.
Yellow box reads: "Max 185 KIAS until turn is complete. Minimum PDG due to obstacles 5.7% until 10000, then 3.3%" EDIT: Ah, turns out they still publish that, but apparently only for Bogota. Bottom part of the chart contains the goodies. There's still a note there, similar to the chart above, that reads "Maintain 8.2% until 9200ft then 6.7 until KORKI". Being 6.7% the gradient for obstacles, looks like it's basically the same as the previous chart, only this one will require a gradient above standard for obstacle clearance and they're telling you these "categorised" PDG's (they're both PDGs, aren't they?) |
Originally Posted by Escape Path
(Post 10236881)
EDIT: Ah, turns out they still publish that, but apparently only for Bogota. Bottom part of the chart contains the goodies. There's still a note there, similar to the chart above, that reads "Maintain 8.2% until 9200ft then 6.7 until KORKI". Being 6.7% the gradient for obstacles, looks like it's basically the same as the previous chart, only this one will require a gradient above standard for obstacle clearance and they're telling you these "categorised" PDG's (they're both PDGs, aren't they?) |
PANS OPS clearly states that all it’s calculations (including PDG) are based on all engines working correctly.
It is solely up to individual operators to develop contingency procedures if engines fail. If your company are not providing correct guidance on eng fail scenarios including on the SID then they are failing to comply with their responsibility. There is no relationship between 2.4 and 3.3%. They are entirely different regulatory requirements. |
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10237366)
OEI is a different matter. Bogota requires an OEI track that deviates sufficiently from this track that a U.S. operator I am familiar with requires a declaration of emergency.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...ff7c2f1f26.png Things are aggravated if you already turned left. Different trajectories to follow depending on your position at the time of failure. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...4aed4faebd.png |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.