Special Engine failure departure
 

DO you operate in aiports that required a different company departure (lateral and vertical) in case of engine failure??

Yes


Mutt

me too!!

:-)

ditto....init!

Absolutely...and if you don't use it when the time comes for that engine failure...proceed directly to the cemetary, bypassing the hospital altogether.

Fact.

Yep !!

:-0

too right we do

It's usually called an 'Emergency Turn'.

md-100

For certain airports there really is no other choice to operate RPT.

Now, do you have a question?

same as the majority posted here.

Our company calls them "Escape Procedures".

We used turn procedures which are company-specific, received through our regular jepp subscription. We have lateral guidance. Our climb altitude (ititial level off after an engine failure) comes in the performance calculations, which are derived from the OPS (onboard performance system) Teledyne program.

Yes. This is a bit of a minefield. In my time I've met Emergency Turns, Special Engine Out Procedures, and Engine Out SIDs, all of which apply after takeoff. I've also met Escape Procedures, which apply following go-arounds.

yep, have done that from time to time.

ok, but those special procedures are similar to SIDs or some are totally different...?

I guess those procedures are made because the a/c doesnt meet the SID minimum climb gradient with an engine out. Does the aiport know about that special procedure???

The turn procedure is used during an engine out situation when performance is reduced, and is designed to provide terrain clearance by routing around obstacles. It is designed to move the aircraft out of a congested area quickly, and simplifies the departure to give the crew the chance to level, accelerate, and begin handling the problem.

ATC doesn't have our turn procedure. Only we do. We notify ATC as soon as possible what we're doing. "XXX with engine failure, turning left 180, we will get back to you a shortly."

Most places where we have them, meeting climb gradient criteria isn't the issue. It possibly could be, but we're not going to keep climbing. We have a standard level off altitude of 800' above the departure elevation, which is modified by virtue of the program used to calculate our departure performance criteria. While the aircraft could continue to climb, the idea is to get cleaned up and accelerate to a safe airspeed as quickly as possible, enabling better climb performance sooner. The turn procedure is what makes it possible.

When we print up the TOLD card with our departure performance data, one box will tell us if a turn procedure applies. We don't rely just on that, of course (we do look in the book, or on the EFB), but it's all spelled out right on the card, including the 3-engine level off altitude.

ATC doesn't have our turn procedure

Generally, for runways which are used routinely by a particular operator, it is not uncommon (probably even a courtesy) to provide a controlled copy issue to ATC for the eventual event ....

meeting climb gradient criteria isn't the issue

Absolutely ... the aims are

(a) make sure we miss the rocky bits

(b) get ourself to somewhere ... from where .... the aircraft can either

(i) depart to the alternate, or

(ii) recover to the departure

aerodrome OEI.

John,

We're specifically counseled to advise ATC on our actions, as they won't know what we're doing, and won't have access to our turn procedure.

When I stated that the climb gradient isn't the issue, my meaning was that we may or may not be able to meet the departure procedure climb gradient...but that's not the reason we're using the turn procedure.

If there's a special turn procedure published for that runway, we're going to use it, regardless of whether our climb performance would enable us to meet the clearance departure procedure, or not.

... we are in heated agreement, good sir.

John,

I'd be interested to know which airlines tell ATC about their procedures... In my time in ATC (albeit some years ago) at an airport with obstacle difficulties (and therefore where several operators had ETs) we knew of none of them. In my time since, in management at several operators, we have never told ATC about our ETs, EOSIDs, etc.

Guppy, you wrote . The perceived problem is that it's not 'published', so ATC don't know what you'll do. Hence the 'Pan pan, climbing ahead for two miles, then turning left tracking 150 degrees, stand by' and the like heard so often at the instrutor's panel...

Any operator for whom I have done ops engineering has had the special procedures discussed with and filed with the airports concerned. It is still necessary that the pilot calls it at the time .. but it seems silly not to provide the airport with the procedure if it is not going to be able to follow tracking which ATC might expect ...

Philosophically, I don't like the idea of having to tell ATC what is going in when the heat is turned up .. too much chance of the pilot's making a mistake in his story ... similarly for the ATC-er to mishear something ... doesn't seem to be any benefit to anyone in not providing the procedure to ATC in the first place. I am quite sure that many operators don't and that may be a consequence of specialisation .. ie the guy doing the work may not appreciate the problems faced by the other fellow ... at the end of the day, no simple solution to any of these problems.