Flysmart EOSID legal status
 

Dear colleagues, I have a little doubt here. Is ATC aware about Special Engine Out SIDs published by Airbus Flysmart? I don't see them on Jeppesen Charts. So, are we supposed to fly it without a prior coordination with ATC or we have to inform ATC that we have this procedure and are about to execute it?
Thank you.

ATC has no access to company EOSID therefore once you declare a pan pan/mayday you should say your intentions or at least initial routing.

Best regards!

Correct, but a PAN does not allow You to deviate from the acknowledged clearance, hence a MAYDAY is required.

I have seen many times in the sim before "mayday engine failure climbing 4000ft to <waypoint used for EOSID>" ... only problem is the waypoint was created by the airline for the MCDU/FMC.

As for sonicbum, if I need a change in heading, speed or altitude, for whatever safety reason, I am going for it with or without the support of ATC.

Yes but in real life You are not the only traffic flying in busy terminal areas, so you need the support of ATC to clear closely spaced traffic from your routings whilst you are flying your EOSID which is unknown to everyone, ATC included. So fly whatever you need to, but shout a mayday so other people (ATC included) know you are in troubles and will stay clear of you.

In my outift , a Pan Pan call out with our intention to ATC ( heading/ target altitude) is good enough. We only call mayday for engine fire.

I’m pretty sure ATC’s job is to figure all that stuff out…. It’s why you are there in the first place. A Mayday/Pan is obviously useful but I’ll stick to flying the aircraft/avoiding terrain over chatting with someone on the ground who can’t do anything to help in the initial seconds/minutes.

Your job in that rare scenario is to get everyone out of our way and to REDUCE our workload. I hear so many scenarios in the US when ATC only complicates the problem and refuses to listen to the words that are being spoken. It’s sort of embarrassing/shameful for people who are supposed to be “professionals”.

And don’t get me started on French/Spanish atc….

Depends on the operator policy, we use a mayday for engine fire and for a failure just a pan pan. Of course commander has final authority and can use a mayday if he thinks it is a safe course of action.

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate. It's served us well for over 100 years

- I'm executing an unpublished missed approach procedure from low altutude with a sharp turn because the aircraft on takeoff roll is still on the runway.
- I'm reducing speed from M 0.85 to M 0.78 due to unexpected turbulence.
- I'm following TCAS RA.
These are all deviations from the acknowledged clearance. Shall I declare emergency with MAYDAY?

Thanks! I was hoping there was some connection ... Like, for example, once Flysmart developes the procedure for the particular airport they notify this airport authority and ATC, that airbus pilots have this in their minds.
It would also be interesting to know whether other aircrft manufactures have the same in their takeoff performance or not.

I would suggest to review the meaning of MAYDAY and PAN PAN.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_3.html

Flysmart just displays the EOSIDs that your operator uses, no idea if Airbus actually develops them, but in the last airlines i've flown they are actually from another third party provider developed according to the EOSID policy of that airline. In one they were done by Jeppesen, in another by LIDO.

So even if we use Flysmart, it will in all likelyhood spit out completely different EOSIDs between different airlines.

Now it makes more sence to me. Thanks!

Those examples are quite irrelevant.

When You are on an IFR flight plan, You are required by the Regulations to comply with Your departure and route clearance. In case of an engine failure during takeoff you will most likely fly an EOSID or EFP which no-one is aware of, except yourself and your colleague. So, Fly-Navigate-Communicate. I do appreciate that some Operators do not specifically demand for a Mayday call during an engine failure on departure, however it is to be noted that flying "straight ahead 25NM - climb MSA" when taking-off in a busy (flat) terminal area when you were expected to start a left/right turn at DER as per your SID will very quickly attract more than a few questions from ATC which you don't really want at that stage, because you are busy dealing with more important matters.

Having an airplane in a state of "urgency" deviating from any clearance previously received and necessitating to have other traffic cleared from the surrounding is not exactly "routine" operations for ATCOS and other traffic around you.
Put into the equation also that primary ECAM actions related to engine failure do not ask you to switch immediately your TCAS mode to TA only (that will come later), hence you might very well find yourself at a height where RAs can start to be triggered (post inhibition below 1000 ft AGL) whilst flying on a single engine. You definitely do not want conflicting traffic around you, but hey you are crossing the departure/arrival axes of a couple of major international airports in the Paris TMA at 9AM LT during your "straight ahead MSA", why bother with a MAYDAY after all?

Regarding your "examples":

If an aircraft is still on the runway on takeoff roll and you are ordered/decide to go around you will fly your published missed approach procedure. ATC will give you an amended routing to avoid conflicting with the departing traffic that has been cleared for a departure that you are not aware of, so you have no idea where the guy will be turning next. The solution to visually separate yourself as you describe can work in non-radar and non-controlled areas, but you would have briefed it in advance as an additional threat.

The TCAS RA is a well documented procedure which you are required to follow and required to declare to ATC as TCAS-RA. All accounted for.

Reducing speed due to turbulence is a short-term action which does not bother anyone. If you need to maintain a significantly different MACH number for quite some time though, you will need A) to tell ATC and that's about it in radar environments or B) get a revised clearance in non-radar environments.

When we do stuff in the SIM that looks good in the SIM we are all happy. But this stuff must work in real life too because that's why we pay the big bucks to the ATOs for leasing the SIMs or the Manufacturers' to buy them.

Paris is a pretty bad example. Just following your standard SID clearance can and will put you in a loss of separation situation, as will the subsequent vectors by ATC. Had it several times this year alone. Quite inept ATC in that area, just topped by spanish ATCOs (who do not even know what PAN is).

In the real world i would agree, just call MAYDAY and switch TCAS to TA only ASAP.

Operators will vary their EO SIDs for many reasons.
Jepp (and probably Navblue) do publish generic ones that should work for all (or most) types, but a good performance engineer can make one that’s simpler, or tweak it to gain more performance (= payload) on eg a limiting second segment.
I always work on the assumption that ATC don’t know what I’m about to do and be prepared to tell em.

It's drilled into us in the sim where I am that ATC have no idea what you're going to do, so if you plan on using the EOSID, make sure you tell them what your plan is in your first radio call once you've got the aircraft sorted out direction and safety wise.

Visit an ATC unit and they will tell you the same thing. When I look through our company ETs just for the type I’m on, there’s sometimes several pages at a given airport with terrain issues. Multiply that by the number of airlines and each type they operate and you’d need a stack of ring binders to document them all.

Some of our ETs are pretty complex and take some time to brief; I sometimes wonder how I would describe in a short time to ATC what we’re doing and what we’re about to do when the workload is high on the flight deck, especially when the ET is referenced to navaids and/or waypoints that are not specific to that aerodrome’s normal approaches and departures. The point of the exercise is your own personal terrain clearance, which can be marginal OEI even if everything goes right, so FNC/ANC makes a lot of sense here as the clear and present danger is hitting the ground, not other aircraft, especially in a ATC and TCAS environment where you are likely below where traffic would normally be.

To be honest I have never had any issues in over 30 years with either French or Spanish ATC. Actually I would say with 90% of the worldwide ATC... as long as we both clarify what do we want from each other.
The only issues I have experienced, say for example in Paris TMA, were related to other traffic on departure being unable to accelerate to 300 kt below FL100 "due to company restrictions" or being at Vtgt/Vref at 8NM from touchdown whilst being cleared to 160kt till 4NM "due to company restrictions". Again it is all a matter of being clear with what we can or cannot do and letting other parties know about it in advance.