Muttley, don't be scared me old mate, nobody wants to hurt you.

Nobody really appears to know what route to follow once your engine fails.

Sure they do, name an airport an airplane and lets see what happens ! (europe and a twin fan might be a good place to start)


Best Rgds

Can't work this quote thing.

[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: Slick ]

Chimbu chuckles,

Thanks for the view from another side of the biz. I think this thread shows that some at least, on the airline side of life are more than willing to question and if needed, modify our company procedures to produce what we think is a safe operation. One poster said that we were "scaring" him, but at least we are keen and interested enough to be having the debate at all. Most of our colleagues, I suspect, have not given it a second thought. I for one am very happy to have this kind of discussion and hopefully I will learn from it and take something onboard that will help me one day. Roll on PPruNE!

[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Angle ]

Mutt, I too hope you enjoyed your units!

To state that Boeing just 'build aircraft' is to denigrate a large part of the service they provide. Boeing do provide an analysis of take-off performance for any runway if you pay and there is performance info. available to enable any operator to check each SID route for terrain clearance and work out emergency turns/EOSIDs if required.

I say again, know how your ops dept calculate this, and follow the procedures unless you have a VERY good reason for not doing so. The thought of people 'spearing off' straight ahead because it seemed like a good idea at the time fills me with fear too.

The really difficult ones are where you have NO published performance data or SIDs and there that=airmanship.

BOAC

OK see my post above, I believe you fly 737's, can yours climb at 8% single engine at 50 tons,Flap5?I ask again what would you do?

Last Sector Power, You want to hope that they DO fly straight ahead if there is no published escape procedure.

When calculating takeoff weight charts, it is necessary to assess all the obstacles within the takeoff flight path.

As there may be many SIDS, all turning in different directions, it is normal practice to look at the straight ahead flight path, and if that becomes uneconomic because of terrain, then design a turn.

Turns are a pain because you need to assess radaii of turn at different speed/flap configurations, where straight ahead procedures are not speed dependent.

So - in the event of a failure on the runway, follow the escape procedure or if there isn't one, go straight ahead! :confused:

PS for all aeroplanes the analysis needs to be done up to the LSA/MSA not 1500 ft,

12nm is nowhere near enough to get to 1500 ft if the aircraft is performing at NETT. ie 1.6% for a twin.

A twin performing at nett (which is all you are guaranteed!) will climb at 97 ft per nm. A 4 engine aircraft climbing at nett will climb 121 ft per nm.

So for a twin to reach 1500 ft (assuming that the terrain underneath is not rising) it will consume 15.5 track miles.

I look out to 30 nm when I run an analysis, using type A's, topos etc

:eek:

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: Capn Laptop ]

Capn Laptop - Hear! Hear!
I couldn't agree with you more.
The perf dept must consider a range of speeds (different fleets), obstacles (determine a corridor width), state the bank angles(15deg/20deg depending on the height and position), etc, etc,. This is important to creating a 'Standard' for the 'Company' (helps cross fleet training safety).
What we must do is to spread this knowledge to all pilots. The last thing one needs is to get into the cockpit and have to explain it all, during the preflight briefing, to a colleague who doesn't 'know it'. So get the company's performance department and the fleets rattled to issue the 'knowhow and the procedures' to fly the departure on an engine failure (doesn't matter how many engined aircraft it is - it should be a standard for the company).
Speaking to ATC in the middle east, all they want to hear, if you are NOT flying their departure instructions, is a 'MAYDAY' or a 'PAN PAN PAN'. It will put them on their toes and they follow a checklist. Here the traffic is not too bad most of the time, except at dusk. Wonder what the European(LHR,CDG,FRA,etc,)/American (Chicago, DFW, LAX etc) ATCs .....think...or...do!
Chimbu Chuckles? Wonder what they think/do in the Far East?.... and Africa?
I wonder if the checklist for ATC is the same the world over, or do they, too, have different opinions as this thread (well we are now enlightened)?
We need to spread this subject with all pilots/concerned personnel, in our companies. We might fly with them one day, OR we might fly with them one day...(in the back!!! :eek: )

To reply to the original question; which flight path would I follow?
Well, I would follow the fligh path that would ensure obstacle clearance (you know, the one you are supposed to calculate before take-off...). You are not allowed to take off unless:
a) You are able to follow the SID (after an engine failure at Vef)
b) You (your Company) have made a contingency (emergency) procedure which ensures obstacle clearance.
It is as simple as that! And as for the Class A climb gradient requirements; they have nothing to do with obstacle clearance, they shall merely ensure a minimum of manoeuvring capability during climbout. You guys must distinguish between certification and real-life operations.
And as for that fly straight ahead bull****; what the h*** is that? If you do not have an approved engine failure procedure at hand, then why the hell are you taking off in the first place??? Flying IMC below the MSA without following published procedures is irresponsible and I hope I will never have to fly with any of you "straight-ahead"-guys!

Crossunder - the engine failure 'on takeoff' could be out of an airport on an island, Male, Maldives. Straight ahead would be ok, no obstacles.
Straight ahead, is okay, provided obstacles are studied within the are as dictated by norms laid down for obstacle clearances/establishing an emergency turn.
What are your company's 'rules/norms' for calculating obstacle clearances regarding an 'engine failure on a twin'?
Bob ... wouldn't happen to be Lt. Col. Hammond?

Regarding the island departure; of course the straight ahead procedure could be used, but then this would have to be stated on the plate / in the company's SOP. What I am trying to say is that it isn't up to the pilot right there and then to decide what to do in the event of an engine failure, it must be carefully calculated beforehand in the form of an approved / published procedure.

Where I fly, the pilots don't have to think about it bacause the Flight Support department have issued engine failure procedures (plates) for every AD we use. We just study these before taking off...

Crossunder - 'xackerley! That's the way it should be. Every pilot should know the safest course at all times - situational awareness you say? (not only in this situation - call it mission planning for the whole flight) ;)
Do all airlines/operators have this Engine Failure Porcedure for the airfield before their pilots step into a cockpit? :(
Regulations say (imply by covering their rears) we should!
No 'one' policy for different airlines out of the same airport exists. But as long as it's safe, and taught, and briefed,.....and exists, that's my concern w.r.t. thread.
I feel much better with the thoughts this thread has provoked. Still..... :eek:

Have just read through 4 pages of this thread.
Surely it is not as confusing as you are all making it?
Personally I would say this.

We are talking about an early engine failure case here.

*If my company has a published Emeregency Turn procedure, I will follow it.
*If it does not I will do what I briefed.
*What I brief depends on the airport and what surrounds it, terrain wise.
*If I have an engine failure I am going to declare a mayday and can therefore go where I like. I will however tell ATC so they can move others out of my way.
* I will remain responsible for terrain clearance.
*In an emergency, noise abatement procedures can be ignored.
*If I was planning on going straight ahead then that is what I would brief. If there was any terrain ahead then I would brief that.
Surely everyone does that?

You look at the plate, you see what is around, you work out what you are going to do in an engine failure case and you brief it?

Why the confusion? Some people posting here sound like they only brief "straight ahead" or "emergency turn" procedures.

Surely good airmanship means you would say more than just "I will fly straight ahead"?

I would normally brief something like
"if we have an engine failure I will climb straight ahead to MSA (state), then I will ask for radar vectors back to the airport for an ILS (or whatever) approach. If we have more time or we require more time I will fly to XXX navaid and take up the hold".

What is so confusing? Its an emergency, we do what we need to and what we want to to ensure the aircraft remains safe. And we brief it in advance to avoid any confusion.

Or am I missing the point here?

Mr Benn calls it correct me thinks.

There are bound to be variations to this, but it must surely be close to the norm, noise and terrain permitting? :confused:

Now, I've put the sunglasses on :cool: which means (a) I'm confident of what I'm about to say, though with the caveat that it applies to UK CAA/JAA operators and the requirements placed thereon, and (b) if you disagree, your glaring red faces won't upset me too much.....

First, may I say I'm astounded at the lack of knowledge and awareness displayed relating to this issue. Nothing personal, but Crossunder's post above illustrates my point very clearly.

In general terms, an aircraft commander must know he can make a flight safely. It is only in those terms that Crossunder's comments make sense. However, the regulatory authorities are responsible, again in very general terms, for creating the information environment, and they have not seen fit to provide or require sufficient data to make other than an extremely cursory analysis of the terrain around airports.

First FACT: If there is no emergency turn, then the NTOFP takes you safely straight ahead off the runway to 1500ft and 25nm. In those 25nm you will normally plan to make MSA, and achieve this. Perf A guarantees that the Nett aircraft will be safe.

Second FACT: No aircraft performance data (that I have seen or worked with) analyses SIDs for terrain. Why should they? SIDs are written to get an aircraft from one place to another expeditously, in a manner which suits local ATC requirements, and minimises noise nuisance. SIDs are not of interest to most performance planners, and many seem to pay no heed to them at all. Indeed, one performance provider often says 'Follow the SID' for engine failure in cases where the SID takes you sraight towards the mountains (the performance provider's name is hard to spell, and the airfields involved are coastal Mediterranean). If you doubt this, ask yourself what you would do if you arrive at work and there is a temporary change to a SID - and your performance data does not reflect this change, or when (almost everyday) your departure instructions are to deviate from the SID track and fly a heading. Can you not, then take off, if you cannot fly the precious SID?

The reason for the lack of terrain analysis in SIDs is that (i) the terrain information is not available other than in some instances at great cost and in a format which makes manipulation difficult and (ii) by the time you start to throw in turn performance, raw data navigational accuracy, wind effects, and so on, the calculations become too difficult and vague to be of value, and thus would often be very limiting.

So, that is the performance-related case for following the EOSID or emergency turn (basically the same thing only different), or going straight ahead where no other procedure exists. Of course, as commander, you may do what you like, but if you clang into the hill, you'll carry the can.....

Now, why shouldn't you follow the SID? Well, first, we have seen that there's no assurance of terrain separation. Second, some SIDs involve turns very soon after take-off. Even in an acceptably modern aircraft, engaging the autopilots and executing ENG OUT in the FMC will leave you with drills to do and high workload while you monitor what the aircraft does. In the small Seattle product, do you want to be flying a forty degree turn manually at five hundred feet after take off with an engine on fire and failing while trying to carry out the appropriate drills and keep an eye on your colleague? I don't believe that's a sensible option.

Finally, there is some confusion in relation to ICAO document 8168 and what it says on this issue. Without my copy to hand, I recall that this document says you should follow the 'departure route' following a malfunction. This does NOT mean the 'Standard Instrument Departure', but relates to the route you plan to fly.

From the ATC point of view, once you have said 'Pan' or 'Mayday', you tell the controller what you're doing and he'll help you as much as he can. Here, we meet the issue of airspace, and again I cannot see the logic in, for example, deciding to follow a SID which takes you towards very busy airspace, in the event of a problem. So, brief staright ahead until at a safe altitude (not necessarily MSA; the radar controller will have a much, much lower, safe vectoring altitude which he can tell you about).

Remember the KISS principle: Keep It Simple and Safe.

I do believe, however, that this thread should be compulsory reading for performance departments and Chief Pilots. It illustrates how many are operating in the dark......

:eek:

NothernSky,

Very interesting post, can i just ask you where you intend to find the obstacle data which covers up to 25 nms from the end of the runway?


Mutt.

Nothernsky - illuminating. Precisely the reason I started this thread, so colleagues/fellow aviators could become safer.
Mutt - I am not sure, but here are a variety of places - Appch Plates, State/Airport authorities, topographical charts, Jepp's database? Municipalities around the airport, etc.
Basically, if one really wants, go out there and find out the best you can. If you believe you have, create the EOSID/ET. If you come across a newly erected obstacle, revise the EOSID immediately and NOTAM it.

safety_worker,

I disagree quite strongly.

Either you address the whole takeoff .. or why bother worrying about any of it ? And the task need not be terribly difficult. We don't want to have a multiplicity of departures. All that is needed is for the ops eng guys to check if the normal path is ok with a failure anywhere along it. If not, then ALL takeoffs can be routed via the V1 OEI escape path.

It is most definitely inappropriate to assign this task to the pilot on the day .. he doesn't have the data and never has the time.

Max Angle,

The Type A data is fine, but of limited use ...

(a) it doesn't go far enough ... 1500 ft can be 40-plus miles out for a twin..
(b) many operators schedule turning flight paths for the very reason that the Type A path is too commercially restrictive because of the rocky bits ...

The 35 foot clearance is above the NFP so the expected clearance to the aircraft's GFP will be substantially in excess of this, and increasing, once you are on your way ...

Again, I would commend people to question their ops eng support people to find out what is and is not included in the specific runway analyses. And this can vary quite significantly from one organisation to another ..

Chimbu chuckles,

For most runways, there will be a multiplicity of potential escape paths.. the task of the ops engineer is to find that which gives the maximum RTOW while keeping the procedure itself reasonably reasonable for the poor guy trying to fly it. Of course, for some runways, there will, indeed, only be the one usable escape.

NorthernSky

I am afraid, dear colleague, that some of your views are the stuff of wishful thinking and fairytales...

For many runways, it is totally unreasonable to expect the pilots to have any reasonable way of addressing the NFP clearance requirements... it is the job of the ops engineers (or backroom pilots who know the ropes) who have the performance data .. and should have the best likelihood of sourcing obstacle data .. and it is this latter task which is the hard bit .. doing the sums is, by comparison, child's play.... (sorry, Mutt, monkey's play)

Where do you get the obstacle data ..? .. from wherever you can.. including throwing a theodolite over the shoulder and going bush if necessary .. the advent of satellite imagery data becoming commercially available makes the task a lot, lot easier .....


Guys and gals .... from the viewpoint of an old (conservative) performance (amongst other strange interests) engineer, airline pilot, and instructor pilot ... the underlying attitudes, wishful thinking, and unfortunate ignorance displayed in this thread is quite terrifyingly alarming.

The task is not easy in most cases .... but, please .... quiz your ops eng support people so that you KNOW what the story is .. then work out where you are intending to go after the concrete bit ends .... it is NOT a case of just going straight ahead .. or following this SID or that ... or any other far fetched idea .... if you don't know .. then you are playing Russian roulette with your aeroplane .....

.. and the simplest trick to give you a reasonable chance if you are not ABSOLUTELY sure that the terrain is benign, and you know that your ops eng people haven't looked at it ? ..... decline the SID and follow the V1 escape procedure for ALL departures, setting course once you are above the sector minima. This might be the stuff of ruffling feathers ... but the alternative is the old ostrich head in the sand approach .....

John,

I enjoy the majority of your posts here, and am glad that you aren't afraid to put forward your views.

However, I think you missed the thrust of my post above.

Regarding pilot responsibility. I was saying, in rather more words, that because there is so little data available, and so little of it is accessible to pilots, an effective analysis is very difficult. We make a 'best guess' at each take-off as to the preferable way out of trouble, the same way we make many other professional judgements.

Regrettably, these matters cannot be as precise as you seem to suggest they should, that this is so is addressed within macro risk asessment.

Moreover, you echo my remarks about the paucity of terrain data. Some of it may be commercially available, but not all. That is why in the majority of cases the NTOFP which goes straight ahead is safe!!!

I object most strongly to airlines whose training departments blithely say 'follow the SID' when their performance is sourced from providers who clearly have not and cannot know whether the SID is terrain safe, but do know that going straight ahead is safe. Worst, I have a feeling that some of this is macho clap-trap driven by the belief that climbing straight ahead when you're in trouble is simply too easy.

Yes, some of the sums post-theodolite-trek may be simple enough, but they are still likely to result in low RTOWs, lower than those assuming a sraight-ahead climb or a simple emergency turn. It's also worth wondering why an airline would want to spend a fortune on assessing lots of terrain around lots of airports when the staright ahead/emergency turn data is already available...?

So, 'dear colleague', I think we are singing from the same hymn-sheet.

I'm glad I had those sunglasses on!

:cool:

The purpose of this thread was to make pilots aware that:-
1. Their Flight Ops Support may 'not' have calculated their takeoff performance correctly. Ask them, satisfy your curiosity, make yourself safer, by knowing/making them know!
2. The SID, in an engine failure situation, 'may' not guarantee obstacle clearance/be the safest route (they don't HAVE to fly it) and ATC doesn't mind us deviating from it (just tell them)
3. Have a safety route out, no matter where you are in the SID.
I have colleagues who are sceptics about EOSIDs/ETs when a SID is issued by ATC, and I am sure all contributors to this thread has made a lot out there think, fly safer.
Their concern is that ATC would get 'upset' in a busy area like LHR, FRA, if we deviate from the SID.
LOL (no laughing matter)- Fly Safe, Engine failure call a mayday, fly safe the way it's stated (straight ahead, EOSID/ET, etc.) the way it was briefed.

Do all Airbus pilots know what their EOSIDs are in their FMGS? Check with your concerned depts!
Ta all.

[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: safety_worker ]

There is obviously much confusion about this topic.

1. Pilots are NOT able to make assessments regarding obstacle clearance on the day - unless you are flying out over the water, the pilot does not have all the required data to hand (PS I am a Pilot)

2. If there is a runway specific RTOW chart, it should have been produced from obstacle data that looks out as far as is required to reach the LSA/MSA.

3. If there is a Runway specific RTOW chart, the weight that it produces is ONLY valid if you follow the flight path that was used to assess the obstacles, AND accelerate at the Acceleration Height nominated on the RTOW chart.

4. If someone has gone to the trouble of producing a RTOW chart, they will first look at a straight ahead flight path (cause it is easier) and if that doesn't produce an economically reasonable uplift, they will look for a turning procedure.

5. It is normal practice to NOT annotate the RTOW chart with a procedure UNLESS it is has turn - so if there is no specific instruction on tracking, assume straight ahead.

6. If you don't follow the flight path described (either straight ahead or curved as appropriate) you may as well not have bothered looking at the RTOW chart - cause the numbers are MEANINGLESS!

7. If you choose to ignore the acceleration height on the RTOW chart, and decide to extend the 2nd segment, you may as well not have bothered looking at the chart either - cause you have gone outside the conditions used to produce the weights on the chart. - and don't think that because there is terrain higher than the acceleration height in the extended flight path, that it hasn't been considered, you will probably find that the RTOW programme wants to accelerate the aircraft early, clean up, and then clear the obstacle in a clean configuration - mostly for 5 min eng limit considerations....

There endeth the lesson..

PS, We spend heaps and heaps of hours pouring over type A's, topo's etc, designing procedures, identifying obstacles etc, and whilst I can't speak for others, I go to great lengths to ensure that the RTOW charts and associated procedures I publish for the crews in ther airlines that I have worked, are safe, and easy to fly. :confused:

Laptop,

I agree with almost everything you say, but would be interested to know what your evidence is for point (2)?

To my mind, by the way, RTOW charts deal with runway limits as well as with obstacle problems, so checking them is still valid even if you intend to deviate from the chosen route (this would normally be done approaching MSA on all engines, having decided it's safe to route direct to somewhere assuming terrain will be cleared even with a malfunction. Purists will note, correctly, that this is a grey area.

We all seem to be speaking the same language, with different accents?
1. No one is asking pilots to assess obstacle clearances. They should make sure that they have a flight ops perf centre that does. Find out what criteria they use. Pilots should follow their SOP procedure laid down. If you don't find it safe or correct, change it!
2. Obviously the RTOW will have the most restrictive obstacles considered stated on the chart, and if necessary the EOSID/ET will be stated - if you can't go straight ahead (distance equated to 10mins?)
3.RTOW charts have acceleration heights. The same as for the ET/EOSID, or, it may have a point (fix) if a turn is a factor (at V2 - V2+15, or whatever speed the norm dictates) that will have to be followed. ( sometimes you might have achieved your min ht for accel, but haven't got to the point for the turn on the EOSID/ET)
4. 10min eng limitations are also used, aren't they in your perf?

Flanker - sorry to be awhile replying, I've been away. Its a while since I EDI'd, but I think from memory our ET for R06 is ................ out to sea and I would follow it, to answer your question, because it has been researched.

There seem to be a lot of people here who are prepared to make up their own procedures. That is extremely unwise. Required climb gradient is easily available for all SIDs; manufacturers will tell you what climb gradient you will achieve on the flight path selected, engine out; thus the need for an 'escape route' can be determined. If you do not like your company's procedures or do not understand them, do something about it! The ice is extremely thin if you start changing your mind on the day or 'doing your own thing'.

BOAC, NothernS, JackT - well said and posted.
Ta All. :)
Can smile a bit now!

Just got this dug out -
Assuming engine failure at V1 and maintaining V2 or not exceeding V2+15 (TAS of say 170KTS) for a given weight/wind/temp, the distance that can be covered in 10 minutes would be (170/60)x 10 = 28NM
This is the obstacle range considered for 'straight ahead'. If we can't meet it we construct an ET/EOSID.
We consider obstacles in the takeoff path for both straight ahead and whenever there is a turn requirement.
We consider obstacles from end of runway along the Engine Failure Procedure(EFP) path up to the approach fix or holding point.
We have EFP on all runways, either standard (straight ahead) or non-standard EFPs (ET/EOSID).
What do you have?
An engine failure once established in the SID, is something the 'pilot(s)' should be prepared for...until enroute MSA (say)?

Very interesting....My feelings are to follow the Emergency Turn, or if none published, the SID (not straight out). Why?

Because it is our SOP. Published in writing in the big book of our roolz and regs.

Secondly, I know that our operator checks terrain clearance out on SID's that we use. It does not check terrain on SIDS that we do not use. Hence, if you invent a procedure relevant to you, maybe for good reason, a class #1 diamond geezer hasn't done his sums on your behalf. If should something happen you will open a can of worms for yourself when you could be Mr Cool in the Bar instead.

By the way - Emerg turn EDI 06 (737) - Track 070 and turn once you are happy to do so (i.e. above MSA)

Just spent 2p. £1.98 to go - I'm skint this month. Pilot (Baby!)

[ 24 July 2001: Message edited by: Cough ]

I’m slowly dragging my arse back to semi civilization, but COUGH are you telling us that your takeoff weight is based on the worst case SID?

Mutt :)

Guys, I have to explain one thing, It isn’t you hurting me, it’s me hurting you!!!!!!! Because I’m the guy who sits in an office and decides what path I expect you to follow!
Needless to say for the 100 or so aircraft that we operate, it most certainly isn’t the SID!

You may think that your airline is different, but I could name at least 15 major airlines that share our procedures!

BOAC has stated that Boeing checks all SIDS!!!!!!!!! Nope, this most certainly isn’t true. Mainly because MOST of us cant afford their RATES! I would love to know of ANY airline that was actually getting this level of support!

What Boeing does supply is a takeoff program based on either the Mark7 program logic or SCAP logic; it most certainly doesn’t follow SI Departures. (Airbus is different and has introduced a Flight Path Program this year, which I know very little about)

So guys and gals, its simple!

If there is an engine failure takeoff published, follow IT.

If not go straight ahead and start yelling to ATC!

DON’T FOLLOW THE SID……… unless of course you happen to work for an airline that states….”takeoff weight based on SIDXX departure”.

Have fun now…….

Mutt :)

BTW, tomorrow we are heading south east from GVA on a SID (B777) which we have problems achieving on TWO engines! Needless to say if we based this departure on an engine failure, we wouldn’t even takeoff!

Cough ...just curious. What's the MSA for EDI06? How far is straight ahead?
Why is your perf calculator checking SIDs?
Don't you think he should be checking airfield obstacles instead :confused: rather than which SIDs will clear obstacles (single engine?) and which won't! What does he do when he finds a SID that won't clear obstacles (SEngine) :eek: ?
SIDs change, obstacles 'tend' to remain where they are.....unless they are blown up, blown away, removed..
Just curious all, how about posting your Engine Failure Flight Path definitions (when does your company find it necessary to introduce an ET)
Are your ETs in your FMGS as EOSIDs?
Ta.

Mutt, what I said (21/7 and 24/7) was that performance info is available for operators to check ANY SID. In my case provided by Boeing and published SID required gradient. The company I am with DO check all SIDs, incidentally, Cough, you never know whether you may have to fly one!

I think we are talking the same language really! SE from GVA? Don't think I have flown it, but I guess it has min en-route altitudes published, and I hope you have SOPs which tell you what to do if you do not achieve these, and that you brief and fly them! Surely any operator would take into account any terrain avoidance turns before accel is complete in the RTOW figures, and this info is also available? Naturally individual SIDs are not catered for in RTOW charts, (unless there is a 'common' obstacle avoidance turn on all deps), but ETs cover these.

SW, RTOW handles local obstructions, doesn't it? Once clean and climbing away on a departure, achievable climb gradient is the key. If you cannot achieve it go somewhere else, but I DO suggest you go where your perf. dept suggest. They will know more than you.

mutt - Yup. But given any sort of restriction I guess that the company would prefer to publish an emergency turn than suffer any sort of restriction.

Safety Worker - The general MSA out of EDI is 4.6 for us, BUT the more dominant 25nm MSA is much lower (I seem to remember 3.4 in the NE sector & 3.8 overall?) and that would be far more relevant.

Got to remember that our ops manual states that we MUST fly the SID in the absence of an emerg.turn. So that is what we do!

737 - We have no EOSID's in the FMC - Think that this is a Airbus thang! So when we need to we hit the button 'heading' and steer!

Safety Worker - GVA

05 Climb to SPR and hold.
23 Turn L to SPR (with speed restriction until turn complete) and hold.

Complete the SID single engine - Not on ure nelly! Bear in mind we have A LOT of ET's published!

Sorry to be a little tardy in wading back in, chaps ... only just organised myself a new ISP hookup in the current transient locale ....

Northern Sky,

We are, indeed, of similar accord. The sums are pretty straight forward if the operator bothers to spend a little effort on the problem ... what is needed is for the flightcrews to jump up and down a bit more to get some action. Making a call at the time is fine .. but it doesn't win any points in court after the prang ... quite the reverse... which is why I exhort people to read some relevant transcripts .. all quite sobering.

If the turn doesn't give you extra weight, then you won't be turning .. the operator will be doing something else .. sometimes even going straight ahead. However, if the straight flight path is not optimum for RTOW, then one looks for a more useful turning escape path (read "more payload").

Capn Laptop,

One of the problems is that some operators and service providers most certainly don't worry about the latter parts of the initial climb.

Safety_Worker,

One ought not to forget the 4th segment as well .... for a twin ... 40-odd miles under limiting conditions is a good figure in the back of the mind ...

Mutt, old mate, ought we to consider running a symposium on the general subject of terrifying takeoffs ?

If you should ever takeoff from runway 23 in GVA and turn left, the word terrain has a whole new meaning. In the TriStar, used to hold at the PAS NDB until FL140 before proceeding SE bound. :eek:
Mutt, you may be interested to know that the procedures at your airline (follow EO turn or straight ahead, not SID) have remained unchanged from 1979.

411A,
Yep that sounds like the procedure that we just removed. The 777 is capable of meeting the SID requirements on two engines provided that the weight is 240,000 kgs or below. (MTOW 286,000 kgs) otherwise they get a spin around the hold.

J_T,
Actually idea, we could make a fortune!

Safety_worker,
If you are in EK/DXB, go chat with the Frenchman in your Operational Engineering department.

Mutt. :)

Mutt, mate, is that fortune referring to before or after the bar sessions ... sorry post-seminar think tanks ?

..seriously .. how do we convince a few of our colleagues that the square-jawed Brick Bradford type is not really what it is all about ?

[ 30 July 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]

Folks,

Some relevant reading:
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0614.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...m/011r0718.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form144.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regul...cm/form860.pdf

I have quoted these because the Australian contributors are talking about life under CAO 20.7.1B which, unlike most international standards, demands full accountability essentially from chock to chock. The take-off splay does not truncate but continues to expand (to cater for dinosaur aeroplanes in real wind) until the aircraft reaches MSA/LSA. As this is OEI, many of the considerations that eventually result in the RTOW may be far from obvious to the crew and hence they are actively discouraged from deviating from the one true path- ie the flight path that has been analysed as producing max payload!!

For those of you out there who are not legally required to be provided with the sort of data to which we are referring - best of luck. Dare I suggest that those of you who are mesmerised several times a day by the awesome AEO performance of your machines need to get a grip on how different life is when you are hot, heavy and OEI. You may well spend your whole life never having to face the reality of an engine failure - I do hope so - but don't be caught short because you didn't understand.

"seriously .. how do we convince a few of our colleagues that the square-jawed Brick Bradford type is not really what it is all about ?"
J_T - that's why I started this thread. Hoping! :(
Ta all for the inputs.
Ta Richard for the sites.
4th segment? 40Nm? Hmmm! Back to the Perf man. ;)

Richard,

One of the problems is that some operators in the Antipodes, and elsewhere, pay only lip service to the regulatory intent.

From my viewpoint, regardless of jurisdiction and local requirement... it is somewhat pointless to worry only about part(s) of the flight when the critical situation, on a given occasion, may well be during the bit which is ignored.

On another point, the Australian regulator has some practical difficulty in that the organisation is not well off for operations engineering experience. I can bring to mind only one person who has had airline experience, two others with a sensibly reasonable background, and another two who have the basics under control. This makes it very difficult for the flying types in the organisation to administer the regulations when they don't always have rapid and direct access to practical competence for the necessary backup to control some elements in the industry .. especially when several of the above people work in unrelated areas ..

I concur heartily with your observation that impressive AEO performance, allied with little outside the simulator exposure, does tend to give the average pilot a trust in his/her aeroplane's capabilities which might not be entirely justified. This is, of course, most pronounced in the two-motor models ..

safety_worker,

Peace, brother ... I know that .. and we are of one accord.

.. 4th segment ? ...Many pilots blythely look at second segment matters and forget that

(a) off a shorter runway, the first segment can often be very limiting with respect to obstacles in the early climb .. or even an uphill terrain slope ..

(b) for a jet, the third segment acceleration phase can go on for a long distance due to the big speed split between second and fourth segment climb

(c) fourth segment climb is hardly the stuff of the US space program ...

Now, we are all comfortable with the gross to nett idea .. but, throw in a little turbulence with the failure .. and see how the comfort zone squeezes up real tight ... or rather worse ..

Two observations ..

(a) under reasonable limiting conditions, it can take a LONG time and distance to get to LSA/MSA, or even just above the local terrain ..

(b) if a pilot doesn't quite know the details of what is out there ..and the ops eng support is a bit thin, then, consistent with the specific terrain, it might be a good idea to look at turning back toward the aerodrome so that, at the very least, the plate data can give some comfort ... mind you, that doesn't always work .. I have seen the occasional plate where navaid data blocks inadvertantly have been placed in a neat and eye-catching manner on top of the critical terrain data ...