Engine Failure on Takeoff! Flight Path?
 

This is for Pilots and ATC's. I've been flying all over the world and have come across this subject with varying opinions. So I thought I'd put it across:
After experiencing an Engine Failure on Takeoff (obviously after V1), what flight path would you fly? :eek:
Consider been given a SID! Consider obstacle clearances, Takeoff thrust limitations, performance gradients, etc.!
What does ATC expect? ;)
Could postings contain identification of profession, such as Pilot/ATC please :rolleyes:
Thanks!

I'd follow the SID, or emergency turn procedure if there is one. Another good question is if you do a single engine go-around, do you follow the missed approach procedure, or the emergency turn procedure (again if there is one published).
BTW, I'm a pilot.

There is already a similar thread that answers this question,If one flew a sid after an engine failure on takeoff, then,an airline cockpit is not the place for them. The rules change in these circumstances and a brief look through CAP385 would do no harm... :( :( :(

Fly the Emergency Turn procedure (even though that may be straight ahead). Emergency turns are company generated procedures so it will be necessary to inform ATC of what you are doing. These procedures take into account all the items you list for that type of aircraft. (Pilot)

Single engine missed approach is to fly the missed approach procedure.

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: Jetdriver ]

We have printed engine failure procedures for all departures. They very seldom follow the SID's, so it's important to notify ATC as soon as possible.
Missed approach with an engine out, we generally follow the missed approach procedure. That is, if the go around was not initiated from below minima, in which case we follow the engine failure procedure.

I believe, SIDs are 'only' for all engine situations (lets consider twins). The gradients are quite high (>3percent). A SID 'may be' the Engine Out SID (operators should verify this considering obstacles). Otherwise, we should fly straight ahead (no obstacles), or, the Emergency turn (EOSID - airbus) - a flight path that has considered obstacles, and adequate clearance is assured (calculated) ONLY on this 'emergency turn' flight path with the engine out! :)
Yes ATC will have to be informed ASAP (after the aircraft is flying safely under control).
TR3 - know the website for CAP 385?
What does ATC think about this? Varied thoughts there! :confused:
Thanks.

TR3 not sure I entirely agree. Yes SID's are generally drawn based on all the A/C eng's operating, and most specify a min climb gradient. However SID's can also be constructed with noise rather obsticles in mind, and in cirtain cases it may be better to fly a sid with an eng out knowing where you are rather that fly straight ahead IMC. Of course only if there is no emergency turn published.

I think I am correct in saying ATC may not always be aware of emergency turn procedures so advise.

Best Rgds

1. Fly the aircraft.

2. Follow the Emergency Turn if one exists
in your performance manuals.

3. If no ET - I will climb straight ahead
and ignore noise considerations as I have
by definition lost either 25/33/50 per cent
of available thrust dependent upon ac type.

4. As the primary objective at this stage
is to fly the aircraft, gain altitude, initiate drills, ATC calls, complete checklists etc, I do not want to carry out
a complicated SID which may jeopardise the
previous actions. An ET is an exception but
in that event drills would not normally be
completed until completion of the turn.
It could be argued of course that a simple
SID would present no problems but where does
the line lie between a simple one and a
complicated one ? It is of course imperative
that pilots should be aware of terrain and
possible areas of conflicting traffic AND that ATC are informed as soon as possible of
intentions ie ' MAYDAY CALLSIGN XYZ - ENGINE
FAILURE - CLIMBING STRAIGHT AHEAD - STANDBY'

5. This is a difficult area as different
operators will have different SOP's and ATC
units around the world will no doubt have
their own regulations and indeed expectations.

6. At the end of the day it is the final
responsibility of the crew to maintain the
safety of the aircraft in whatever dire state
it may have fallen into and the measures
needed to achieve that end result will vary
from flight to flight. Therefore we should
not fall into the trap of treating every
departure(to quote your example) the same
because being technically correct will not
always stop you flying into the hill. Each
take-off is different and what may be a
suitable course of action now may not be the
best course of action tomorrow - think it,
brief it, fly it and keep safe !

There seems to be an opinion that SIDS are based on a specific number of engines. I would suggest that they aren’t! They are based on TERPS / ICAO ANNEX 16 (I believe) and involve a specific gradient.

This gradient is designed to get the aircraft clear of obstacles, noise, ATC crossing gradients etc etc. The reasons behind the specific gradient isn’t available to you as a crewmember, all that you know if your aircrafts climbing ability with all engines and one engine out.

Therefore your only safety is your knowledge of your aircrafts abilities!

Now for a couple of questions:

As for the idea of flying straight ahead, just how far are you planning to go?

With FMC equipped aircraft, would it not be easier to fly a programmed SID rather than flying straight ahead?

Thanks.

Mutt.

Mutt, quite correct, nothing to do with all eng's operating, however in many cases all engines are assumed, SID's are not as you say constructed for the a/c with one or two eng's out. They are obsticle or noise routes the former tends to list a min climb gradient to a certain height as you know. Now for the scary bit, who knows what there a/c will achieve/climb gradient, and I am not of course talking about the minimum gradient requirements, I am thinking about an eng failure half way through a sid, eg leaving 1700 for 8000.

Best Rgds

Our company SOPs mandate a straight out departure or follow an emergency turn procedure (we call this SEOP)if that is published, but not the SID.
Take-off performance (i.e. the Max allowable TOW you can depart with at a given rwy and conditions) is based on a predetermined obstacle clearance according to FARs/JARs. Obviously all airlines want to uplift the max possible weight to take advantage of max payload/range missions, so all Emer Turn procedures are based on the track that requires the minimum climb gradient.
ATC units are supposedly notified of your company's emer procedure, but I wouldn't bank on this. Thus, if you face an engine fail there's yet one more thing to add to the workload: A prompt declaration of emergency.

First, my view:

If there's an ET, follow it. It's there for a very good reason, though the reason may not be immediately apparent.

If there's no ET, then go straight ahead. The NTOFP is analysed for terrain this way, the SID isn't. In fact, data is not available to analyse the SID track accurately in much of the world.

There is, however (and this is where it gets boring) a query over interpretation of ICAO document 8168 on this topic. It states that one should follow the 'departure route' following a malfunction on take-off. Some interpret this to mean the Standard Instrument Departure (capitalised and with that word 'Instrument'). However, there is no written clarification available, to my knowledge.

My own view is that in the immediate moments after a malfunction, climbing straight ahead is by far the safest option, and should only be deviated from where there is a safety reason not to do it. That said, a 'proper' automatic aircraft (Airbus or Fokker, for example) makes such a good job of flying the EOSID that the case is less easy to prove.

It is difficult to make a safety case for poling a Boeing around a fifty degree turn by hand at 500ft AAL immediately following a malfunction, simply because 'someone' says you should follow the SID.

I hope I'm not down the back when all you people fly straight ahead on one engine, below MSA & in IMC not following any published procedure. Lets hope there isnt a bit mountain in the way where the SID would turn you away.
The reason for most Emerg turns as the A/C can't make the required climb grades on the SID with a failure (standard SID 3.3%, noise requires may be a lot higher but are not a requirement in the event of an emerg, As Mr Jepperson states in the front of those big books in the cockpit) so if you dont have a ET and can't make the SID then what the F*** are you doing taking off knowing in the event of a failure you can't out climb the terrain :mad: :mad:
The other option is to have a higher takeoff wx limit ie- not going IMC before a set height, so if this is not made you can circle to land(VMC), if it then fails you have already out climbed the SID to a point and form there (with a/c actual %) you will still clear obstacles.
Missed approach is 2.5% so it follows if the above are met you are ok (a lot of companies i know have a higher MDA/DA with an engine failure so obstacle clearence can be met in the event of a MAP if you you cant make 2.5%)

If you can't make any of these and you still depart you have either have BIGGER Nuts than me or less Brains (take your pick but its not first I would quess) :D :D :D

Err, L.S. Power, I think you've got the dog by the tail there, matey, if you're talking about scheduled airline ops, anyway.

Perf A aicraft have to meet certain climb criteria with an engine out before they're certified. (No, I can't remember what they are, though 2.5% for 3 and 4 engined aeroplanes rings a bell). Provided you adhere to the performance criteria (WAT limits etc) you will clear all obstacles within an expanding cone based on the departure end of the runway if you continue straight ahead, unless there is a close-in terrain constraint that intrudes into that defined area,in which case the airline ops. dept. must establish an emergency turn procedure.

SIDs will obviously keep you away from the terrain, but that's not their primary function - can you think of any terrain constraints to the west of LHR that necessitates an early turn left or right? Those LHR SIDs are there to keep you away from other traffic (and the local MP's house :) ). Of course some SIDs do have terrain constraints to consider and these often show up as minimum climb gradients to certain altitudes, or a requirement to remain visual to a certain height or somesuch.

Hope that helps.

Ah, and after the previous long post, I forgot to answer the orignal question - isn't old age wonderful! ;)

Our SOPs are 1)follow any emergency turn 2) continue straight ahead if you have not yet begun the first SID-induced turn 3) if you have started a turn then continue on the SID -because otherwise you won't know where you are and L.S. Power's concerns will become valid. :)

Interesting topic.

I thought JAR/FAR 25 acft had to calculate the eng failure climb gradient before each takeoff. So why not follow a SID if the acft meets the procedure. Where I come from we have a lot of SID's with gradients well above 3.3%, but what is the typical gradient for a acft with one engine out (i.e B737,A320 etc)?

For the record. I don't fly transport cat. acft yet!

Depends on your Runway analisis criteria.Part 121 inthe states follows the FAA swath which is nearly as critical as the ICAO swath(much wider to cover crosswind effect-an further out).Ergo if one can follow a climb gradient of 200'/nm one can comply with the SID gradient.With an engine out,if the Obstacle clearance swath is formated on ICAO criteria one must take up a specific heading to clear the rocks.A lot of Co's have not adopted the Icao,ergo one might follow the Sid Routing with out the nescessary obstacle clearance.. :eek: null

L S Power - you are missing the point !
I am not suggesting that following an engine
failure at or above V1 I would climb straight
ahead ad infinitum. I did say in my earlier
reply that every departure is different and
that pilots should always be aware of terrain
or other implications in the immediate area
of the airfield concerned. Climbing straight
ahead, leaving aside emergency turn implications, enables the crew to carry out
drills without the added concerns of navigation for the first couple of minutes.
Once the aircraft has reached say 3000ft agl
and the situation has stabilised the aircraft
can be directed, hopefully in co-ordination
with ATC, according to the requirements of
the situation. Obviously, if the failure
came at a later stage in the departure when
the autopilot was engaged more options are
available to the crew - if the SID has already been commenced (ie a turn) then it
would make sense to continue that manouevre.
Most respondents like myself are working on
the worst case scenario of a failure at or
just above V1 when the aircraft is still on
the ground.

There is no easy answer on this one, a dozen
pilots will come up with a dozen different
ideas BUT the important issue is the one I
will always subscribe to - know your aircraft
and consider the options for each and every
departure and brief them prior to launch.

Good points all around.
Does your company/operator analyse obstacles of all runways/airports that you operate into? ;)
What about a 'Single' Engine Missed approach (an airport in a mountainous region - follow the Standard MAP?) :confused:
What does ATC think? (This is really interesting as well) :)
Looking at the varied opinions on this post, imagine how many of operators out there know what to do in IMC, at an airfield with obstacles, 'foreign' ATC, etc!
Thanks for the posts.

For those of you who think that flying a SID is safer than flying straight ahead, I hope that you enjoy the following article.

The weather in Las Vegas is 500 feet overcast and 2 miles visibility with rain showers. You are departing via the OVETO NINE SID in an L1011 climb weight limited aircraft. The takeoff briefing is completed with the following statement: “In the event of an engine failure, we will climb to 3175 feet and request radar vectors back to an ILS approach for runway 25R” Ten minutes later you are following down RWY 25R towards V1 and the appropriate call-outs are made, “V1, Rotate.” Just after rotation the number 1 engine fails. You continue climbing towards 3175 feet. Passing through 500 AGL, you advise ATC of the emergency and ask for radar vectors back to land. To your surprise ATC says that they cant supply vectors until you have reached 4000 feet, which is the minimum vectoring altitude (MVA). After some unsuccessful discussion with the controller, you elect to fly the published SID until reaching MVA, since you are certain that it guarantees terrain clearance.

About the time you finish your discussions with ATC, you are passing the 4 DME turn point on the SID and start your turn to a 070° heading. As you roll into the turn you notice that your climb rate is decreasing, you also notice that the radio altimeter is decreasing even though you are still climbing. Halfway through the turn you notice that the radio altimeter is now reading less than 50 feet and continuing to decrease. In seconds you no longer have time to figure out what went wrong.

What went wrong was the SID, and all other procedures based on the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), only guarantees obstruction clearance when your aircraft can meet the minimum climb rate for the procedure. Lets take a look at what TERPS requires.

TERPS Climb Requirements.

“Based on the aircraft climbing at 200 feet per nautical mile crossing the end of the runway at 35 feet AGL, and climbing to 400 feet above the airport elevation before turning unless specified in the procedure”

TERPS Obstruction Clearance Plane.

“A slope of 152 feet per nautical mile, starting at no higher than 35 feet above the end of the runway is assessed for obstacles. If obstacles penetrate the slope, a climb gradient greater than 200 feet per nautical mile many be added.

From these definitions we can see that TERPS normally requires a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile and that the difference between the climb requirement and the obstruction clearance plane is the operating margin of safety. In the case of OVETO NINE from LAS, the procedure specifies a minimum of 280 feet per nautical mile (700 fpm) to 6000 feet. After your engine failed departing LAS, your aircraft was climbing at 2.7% (3 engine AFM limit) which equates to 163 feet per nautical mile. After entering your turn, your climb gradient was further reduced due to a portion of the lift being vectored into the direction of the turn in order to maintain the aircraft’s bank angle. As you can see your aircraft was climbing at a rate well below the required 280 feet per nautical mile, but worse yet, your aircraft was below the TERPS obstruction plane where obstacles are known to exist. This means that in order for you to be guaranteed adequate obstruction clearance when using an IFR procedure, your aircraft must meet the minimum climb requirements for the procedure, regardless of the number of engines operating. (Note, this article is at least 7 years old, so the OVETO NINE may not exist anymore or may have changed.)


Beamer, do you know how long/far its going to take you to get to 3000 feet? I suggest that you look at the topic about “Takeoff to 1500 feet.”

Flying straight ahead usually gives you a protected track of around 12 miles (AIP type A chart data), in this time, you are expected to decided upon PLAN B.

Mutt. :)

This part of the same article deals with the Missed Approach!

FAR 121.195 which specifies maximum landing weight requirements, refers to FAR25 aircraft for approach climb gradient requirements. For a 3 engine aircraft the required engine failure climb gradient at maximum landing weight is 2.4%. This gradient is the equivalent to 145 feet per nautical mile which is well below the minimum TERPS required climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile and the TERPS obstruction clearance plane of 152 feet per nautical mile. When you include the acceleration/clean up segment of an engine failure missed approach, the resulting actual climb gradient is even lower. From this information you can see that you are not guaranteed obstruction clearance on a TERPS procedure during and engine failure missed approach!

Mutt http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/guin.gif

Having great trouble logging this post ... hopefully it appears only once ..

Seldom do I have the chills up my spine which I have from reading this thread.

Most airlines schedule for a V1 failure only .. with an escape path if necessary. They ignore the case of a failure post V1 on the climb to enroute conditions. This I know applies in a number of quite large international airlines. I have just started a contract with such an operator and sat in on a pilot performance lecture this morning. When I asked the PE lecturer this question his answer was to the effect that it was the pilot's problem.

A sensible flight department will ensure that its ops eng support team provides analyses of failure at ANY POINT in the post takeoff flight path until enroute clearance has been attained... certainly that is what my operator clients get.

What it boils down to is this ...if YOUR people only look at the V1 failure case and you have a failure airborne .. then you are on your Pat Malone my dear .. if there are any hills of note around then you are, very likely, DEAD MEAT !!

Forget SIDs ... they have nothing to do with OEI escape paths and generally the relevant preambles make this quite quite clear.

Please do ask your ops engineers what they do and do not include before you go off assuming things which, perhaps, you ought not to .....

Ahh, wonderful stuff this !!.

I think we are pretty much on our own a lot of the time. I used to fly for an airline that operated jets in very high DAs and we had Jepp Special Procedures that dumped us at 1500' AGL which was about 10000' below MORA, with terrain VERY HIGH and VERY CLOSE that went for F**KING MILES in every direction! We knew the area like the back of our proverbials and so had some more 'home grown stuff' that would give us maximum chance of surviving said V1 bad news.

Now I'm CP for a Bizjet op where we operate into places on 'one offs' or rarely. We go to Kunming for instance(6300amsl/MSA 11800ish) at 2am (twice lately) and I had to sit down with one of my Captains and work out WTF we would do in case of trouble.

We worked out that by following parts of several SIDs that dovtailed nicely we could make MSA on one engine and ended up at an NDB from where we could join an arc for an ILS back to land. Any one SID required a minimum of 5% climb gradient.

My/our SOP for Kunming requires that we fly our 'escape route' no matter what to MSA(night/IMC) just in case one fails below MSA but after V1.

Straight ahead is good often times but I only go to 10 nm and then turn back to overhead.

As a general rule I use CAT C or D circling minimas(Pan Ops version ie 4.2nm for C or 5.28nm for D. TERPS 1.7nm for C how do you guys do it??) as accel alt and if an IMC departure was the go and I was not familiar with the surrounds would usually look carefully at the Missed Approach Procedure for the runway I'm using and maybe follow that.

If terrains not an issue but traffic is following a SID is good, particularly in less 'developed' parts of the globe.

Don't give a rats about noise and if I can roar over an MPs house and ruin his day well that's a bonus :D

Bottom line? A dogmatic approach will kill you! Every departure is different and requires thought. Even different times of the day off the same runway in severe clear VMC could require a different plan of action for one reason or another.

Just bloody glad the weather is not THAT BAD THAT OFTEN so can 'manouvre visually clear of terrain' totherwise I might get stressed :D

Chuckles.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]

Mutt

Thankyou for the Vegas scenario - I used to
do some flying at the quiet little military
place just down the road - I well remember
the size of some of f*****g hills !

When I quoted 3000agl I did so as a figure
on the top of my head - time taken to reach
that altitude will of course depend upon all
the usual factors associated with aircraft
performance - I'm glad to say that my jet
is not short of poke even single engined at
high groos weight. The essential fact stands
that options ON THE DAY have to be thought
out prior to departure.

Hi,
First of all, the posting by 'flier tuck' was by me. :confused: I can't seem to understand how it got under his name. replied to my email from pprune in this hotel here and clicked to reply and posted. It did under his name, which I realised after it went back to the forum. In a rush to catch the transport and missed apologising earlier. :o
Back to the forum -
Mutt - 'All ' SIDs don't guarantee an engine failure obstacle clearance. I believe it's the operators responsibility to verify obstacle clearances for its type of aircraft at the fields it operates out of, and then if necessary create an EOSID/Emergency Turn 'guaranteeing' obstacle clearance!
How far do you go straight ahead? - 10 minutes! I 'think' this distance (varying speeds) can be determined by the operator using Max Structural TOW. All obstacles in this 'cone' will have to be considered, otherwise an ET (emergency turn) produced.
I quite agree with the MAP. You 'may' not be guaranteed obstacle clearance as in the SID. An ET, single engine missed approach point will have to be created (height/altitude).
John, I agree with you, however, to consider various points in a SID at which a pilot can have an engine failure and then work out the obstacle clearances from those various points is a very, very hard task.
The norms for creating an ET will have to be determined first, before studying the obstacles around the airfield (range? To be determined!)
I don't think all situations can be covered. The pilot has to know his airfield as well. One can always ask their 'performance man' questions. Talk to the boss and create a rule for ET.
Beamer - absolutely right! The options for the 'day' have to be thought out and briefed on the apron.
Still no ATC input? Their story is also quite interesting! :(

Just be VERY careful as to when you do not follow the SID. Some companies predicate emergency turns ONLY when the EO SID flight path is unsafe and you MUST be very sure before continuing straight ahead (or, equally, accepting an ATC 'early left-turn direct XYZ approved', etc BEFORE the donk goes), that you have satisfied the ANO and you have ensured a safe flight path in the event. As JT and others say, know the basis of your company's calculations.

My understanding is that ATC will expect you always to follow the SID unless you tell them.
Pilot (Old)

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]

Isn't an EOSID an 'emergency turn' of sorts?
Remember we are considering twins on this thread. I don't fly airbus. I thought an EOSID may be -
a. the SID itself with different gradients as opposed to the SID itself.
b. straight ahead(?) ;)
c. emergency turn back ending back at the airport VOR/NDB/IAF
d. ?????

Where are the ATC (opinions) when you need them? :D

Apologies for any confusion here. By 'EO SID flight path' I mean the flight path following the NORMAL SID, engine out. I am not aware of such a thing as an 'EOSID'- surely it could not be 'standard' by definition?

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]

Safety Worker. you're correct. An EOSID is designed to keep you out of the hills with one donkey on strike. It has been designed taking into account the known performance of the aeroplane in the engine out config.

BOAC - it's Airbus terminology, don't suppose they had those in your day ;)

Very interesting thread, there is a bit of a debate going on in our company at the moment about this very question. The two sides of the debate are: 1) If there is no engine out SID, obstacle turn etc. then follow the normal SID and 2). Go straight ahead UNLESS there is an EO SID or obstacle turn. Assuming the worst case of failure at V1 then
in my opinion the second option, straight ahead, is the ONLY safe option for the following reasons.

Firstly consider how Perf A. (or whatever it's called under JAA) calculates obstacle clearance. At the end of the TODA an area begins that is 100m + a wing span wide. This expands at a rate of 12.5% of distance out to a maximum of 1800m. This area extends unitl the a/c reaches 1500ft agl. This area has been surveyed and any obstacles in it are noted, following an engine failure at V1 these obstacles must be cleared by 35ft. If the a/c will not achieve this you must reduce weight or increase VR (runway length permitting) to improve the climb gradient. If the resulting weight is very low it is also possible to fly a procedure that takes the a/c on a flight path that allows the 35ft clearance to be achieved, again this is based on survey data of the area, the max weight that can be lifted will be lower however because as we know on one engine the a/c will climb more slowly during turning flight than wings level. At high weights it probably not possible to turn, climb and accelerate at the same time which why many procedures tell you to ignore accel. height until a certain point during the turn.

It seems to me that there are a few vital implications that come out of the above.

If you do not fly straight ahead you are turning out of the flight path funnel in which your obstacle clearance in assured. You are on your own now, nobody has surveyed the area you are climbing in. You may or may not clear any obstructions that are in the way. 35ft is not much clearance and even in day VMC you will not be able to eyeball it. The rules of course only consider IMC. Outside the funnel something like a power pylon, tall building or gently rising ground could be right in your flighpath and you may not clear it. These obstacles may be present within the funnel but your RTOW will have taken account of them. If you do turn you are also reducing your climb performance and it is likely that at high weights you will not achieve the required gradient. If you are flying an obstacle clearance turn then your RTOW will have taken account of the fact that you will not climb as well during the turn.

Engine out performance planning is a very complex subject and just after a engine failure is not the time to start messing with it. In an airline, someone has done the work for you. (not sure what the biz. jet drivers do)

Look out of the window now and imagine an airliner, on one engine, clearing the house next door by 35ft. Scary isn't it, and that would be legal!

So I reckon that unless there is a published engine out turn you MUST climb straight ahead to 1500ft. If you do anything else you are not doing a Perf A. take-off, you are making it up as you go along and may put yourself in a very dangerous situation.

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

Tired - quite right! When the old flying boats retired my heart went too!

Max Angle
Remember, 'Perf A' is only a grouping. It does not stipulate 'straight ahead' only, and has factors for turning flight paths.
Boeing (the only one I know well), run climb performance programmes for all SIDs and will tell you whether you will achieve screen height or not engine out. If not, you publish an 'Emergency Turn' (old guy's speak, I guess, for an EOSID!)

As has been said a couple of times above, make sure you KNOW how your company calculate terrain clearance on SID's - and it is a brave and possibly foolish person who makes up their own! I repeat, Perf A considerations do NOT require you to fly only in a straight line!

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BOAC ]

We have performance that says follow the SID unless there is a turn published.UK JAR operator.

Now,for example, the Dean Cross SID off Edinburgh 06 requires I believe an 8% gradient to 5000 ft, the 25 mile MSA being 3500 to the north where the SID turns.Two miles off the end of 06 is the North Sea, which I know is flat!In a 737 what would you do?

Max Angle,
Straight out departure information is usually based on “Type A” AIP charts, these usually go out to around 12 miles, are you sure that you will get to 1500 feet in this distance???

BOAC,
Boeing build aircraft, they most certainly do not analyze SID departures of any kind! I would be surprised if ANY airline receives takeoff data directly from Boeing! I sincerely suggest that you go talk to your ops people!

In my present drunken state (thank you EI) I’m going to be blunt!!!! You guys (not just the 2 mentioned) are scaring the hell out of ME!!!!!! Nobody really appears to know what route to follow once your engine fails!

I’m off to the pub!

Mutt :)

Max angle - I don't agree with your items 1 and 2. However I agree with your choice of 2, though not entirely! :D

Here are some technical extracts from DOC 8168 in the Jeppesen, ATC Chapter: Departure Procedures - page 202 -
"A departure procedure will be established for each runway where instrument departures are expected to be used and will define a departure procedure for the various categories of aircraft based on ALL-ENGINE 'procedure design gradient' (PDG) of 3.3% or an increased PDG if required to achieve minimum obstacle clearance.
NOTE: Development of contingency procedures is the responsibility of the operator.
Unless otherwise promulgated, a PDG of 3.3% is ASSUMED."

Regarding Missed Approach Procedures-page217-

"Normally procedures are based on a nominal missed approach climb gradient of 2.5%."
"It is emphasized that the missed approach procedure which is based on the nominal climb gradient of 2.5% CANNOT be used by ALL aeroplanes when operating at or near Max Certificated Gross Mass and ENGINE OUT CONDITIONS. The operation of such aeroplanes needs SPECIAL CONSIDERATION at aerodromes which are critical due to obstacles on the missed approach area and MAY result in a SPECIAL PROCEDURE being established with a possible INCREASE in DA/DH or MDA/MDH"

So figure it out with your operator/state authority. ;)

By the way, an extract from a wonderful book by Dr. Tony Kern's "Flight Discipline" (1998) page 18 - "Jeppesen is a company which merely publishes approaches given to them by the host nations and they are exceedingly clear on this point. In fact they publish a disclaimer stating that they 'do not review or approve the adequacy, reliability, accuracy or safety of the approach procedures they publish"
Real interesting inputs. Thanks all. Still no ATC input. Will ask some and post their 'technical know-how'. :rolleyes:

Slick...point taken I was looking at the failure at Vef case...However in the case where an aircraft,having climbed above the MFRA for that runway and has started on a relevent published SID, or say the published missed approach procedure...now suffers an engine out, and this routing is significantly different from the Vef case or emergency turn case then it is more prudent to continue on the procedure being flown... ;) ;) ;)

True TR3. Once you are on the SID an experience an engine failure, it's a totally different ball game. It's up to the pilots to know the safest route out of the 'valley'. Performance-wise one is 'probably' better off than if the failure occured at V1.
As stated earlier, a good 'briefing' covering all possibilities is a necessity towards safety!

".....a dozen pilots will come up with a dozen different ideas ...." :eek:
Reading back through the thread, this is exactly the reason why I posted this. The confusion is not acceptable. We should know what our company does, what the regulations are and what safety we are assured. If not we tell the company, and prepare ourselves for the safest course of action.
Hope this thread enlightens all of us and makes us safer. :rolleyes:
Mutt - I am indeed concerned as you. Hope you enjoyed that pint. I am off flying...safe flights to all of you.
:)

Mutt,

Sorry if we are scaring you, I'm open to suggestions if you have any, what would you do?. I know exactly what I am going to do if an engine expires and we are both briefed on the plan of action before take-off. 12 miles is enough to reach 1500ft, after which you are on your own anyway so you have to have a plan for that bit. Obstacle turns on runways that need them tend to have taken you away from the high ground but some don't. I seem to remember Zurich was one place where you were not pointing in the correct direction.

BOAC.

I agree that Perf A (or JAR whatever) is just a grouping. It is a grouping whose take-off and climb performance is certified using a set of rules and parmeters that ensure that various safety margins are met, to meet those margins you must operate within the regs. The a/c manufactures do supply take-off performance software and that is what churns out the figures on the specific runways pages in the manuals. As you said Perf A does allow turns in the take-off flight path and these can be entered in the software for places that require obstacle clearance procedures. If the page makes no mention of a turn then these figures will be based on straight ahead not on the SID from the runways, at least in our company and I suspect most others, it's hard to imagine someone keeping all the hundreds of pages updated for SID changes etc.

My first post was a dry look at the regulations, of course normallly you are not at max. weight and not obstacle limited and turning into the SID may be quite safe. You must realise that however that it is very unlikley that the figures you used cover the path you are now following.

Most of the time you will also miss any obstacles by a lot more than 35ft, if you are obstacle limited at max. weight or at reduced thrust you won't have much more than that. You may have less if you have rotated too slowly or have a slight tail wind above the runway that you were unaware of.

As Safety-worker says, a very interesting thread, I hope I never have to put theory into practice.

Good stuff this! I think if you do not give careful consideration to every different departure i.e should i fly the sid, or go straight ahead or whatever you could be paying lip service to a companies sops. Just a thought, if the sid gradient happened to be 3.3% and the departure is NOT WAT limited and you know that a 757/767 can achieve 5 % single engine at max landing weight why not do the sid.

Mutt, sorry if I frighten you. On the other hand are you suggesting there is always only one correct flight path?

Those of you flying for airlines should have strict procedures to follow at each port you service, surveyed flight paths.

Those of us in the 'Bizjet' world don't as it would be impossible.

I do my best to ensure that my pilots, some of whom don't have an airline background, know and understand their responsibilities under CAO 20.7.1b and can apply that to the many 'one offs' that we face daily.

We are based in, and fly, the length and breadth of Asia. In the last few months we've operated into and out of Shiraz(Iran), Karachi,Quetta,Dhaka,Chennai,Saigon,Kunming(see previous post),Bangkok,Bali,Bandung(Indonesian mountain valley at night),Colombo,Hanoi,Danang,Minado, Siem Riep(where Angkor Wat is in Cambodia),Kathmandu,Padang and a swag of other places. Some like BKK,HCM are easy but many are surrounded by high terrain and have performance limitations due to high DAs.

Unlike many airline pilots who follow parrot fashion the Company published SOPs for assy considerations with little understanding or thought my guys have to think hard about what they are about to do and come up with a suitable plan of action. The list of ports we operate into enough times to build up some 'corporate knowledge' of is short indeed.

I'm blessed, as CP, with a VERY good group of pilots who allow me the luxury of a good nights sleep no matter where they are heading. One thing I take great pride in is that we hire VERY inexperienced F/Os and they get to see an airline standard Bizjet op in and out of VERY interesting ports in all sorts of weather, day/night,high terrain,poor ATC(sometimes) and as a result won't develope into automatons but rather really understand what they are doing and have a flexible approach to staying out of the trees/someones living room.

Chuck.