V2 and the 4 segment climb

Just wanted to address two items quickly:

1. In an Emergency, if you can see and avoid and know the terrain, just visually avoiding the rocks can reduce the workload in an engine out scenario and be safer than flying a track that may be convoluted due to the limitation of local navaids and terrain (HKG is a good example). There is NOTHING wrong with that, just be aware of what you are doing;

2. Many operators, particularly those that operate turboprops, have VMC climb in their manuals. Better check your ops specs, because it is probably not legal for you in a turbojet under 121. 135 is a different story, and, of course, 91, no problem. ATC does not know if it is legal for you or not.
 
Just wanted to address two items quickly:

1. In an Emergency, if you can see and avoid and know the terrain, just visually avoiding the rocks can reduce the workload in an engine out scenario and be safer than flying a track that may be convoluted due to the limitation of local navaids and terrain (HKG is a good example). There is NOTHING wrong with that, just be aware of what you are doing;

2. Many operators, particularly those that operate turboprops, have VMC climb in their manuals. Better check your ops specs, because it is probably not legal for you in a turbojet under 121. 135 is a different story, and, of course, 91, no problem. ATC does not know if it is legal for you or not.

An excellent point, and that's why it was still in our FOM for years after we stopped operating tubroprops. It was a holdover from when we were an all turboprop fleet, and the procedures were transferred into the jet.

As I said, it's gone now. It was approved for our ops, but I think the only reason was because we flew the EMB-145 like a EMB-120 that goes really, really fast and the FAA had ok'd us doing that.
 
Just wanted to address two items quickly:

1. In an Emergency, if you can see and avoid and know the terrain, just visually avoiding the rocks can reduce the workload in an engine out scenario and be safer than flying a track that may be convoluted due to the limitation of local navaids and terrain (HKG is a good example). There is NOTHING wrong with that, just be aware of what you are doing;

I would completely agree with this as long as the crew is truly aware of how poorly their aircraft will actually perform OEI. It will take roughly seven miles in a CRJ to reach flap retraction altitude at high ISA+ and high weights, climbing at 50-100fpm during the first segment.

As for the original argument: flying above profile speeds during the first segment is asking for it in certain conditions, which is why it's best practice to fly on profile every time. Part 25 mandates that the OEI climb gradient for a two-engine turbine is POSITIVE... that's IT.
 
Part 25 mandates that the OEI climb gradient for a two-engine turbine is POSITIVE... that's IT.

I could have sworn it was something like 2.4% for the first segment, then 2.1% for the enroute climb segment. I'd have to do some research to make sure those numbers are accurate, but I do seem to recall that such a requirement did exist.
 
I could have sworn it was something like 2.4% for the first segment, then 2.1% for the enroute climb segment. I'd have to do some research to make sure those numbers are accurate, but I do seem to recall that such a requirement did exist.

25.121 for the first segment, which what I was referring to. Now rereading my post, I wasn't very clear about that.
 
25.121 for the first segment, which what I was referring to. Now rereading my post, I wasn't very clear about that.

Ahh, that's right. I was a little mixed up on that as well. Positive climb until gear up, then 2.4%. Surprising that it's as low as 1.2% for the final segment.
 
Just to provide a broader spectrum... on the Falcon, it's the typical V1 cut profile, except on my upgrade training, Dassault apparently now wants us to hold whatever speed, up to V2+10 after rotation that the aircrafts energy provides... In other words if after rotation you are at V2+8, they no longer train to increasing pitch to decelerate to V2... I think Martin hit it spot on when he mentioned the theoretical worst case V1 cut.... If it happens EXACTLY at that point... it's V2 until acceleration altitude. The gal teaching pointed to the possibility of an accelerated stall to be a primary reason for this big change.

Out of curiosity for the other jet folks out there, are you guys flying a profile of 400 feet AGL terrain permitting for acceleration to Vfs? Dassault is very liberal on when to clean up... no lower than 400' but acceleration can be postponed until MEA now.
 
Out of curiosity for the other jet folks out there, are you guys flying a profile of 400 feet AGL terrain permitting for acceleration to Vfs? Dassault is very liberal on when to clean up... no lower than 400' but acceleration can be postponed until MEA now.

On the CRJ here, in general we use 1000 AGL for an acceleration altitude. That said, there are a few airports (ROA is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) where AeroData provides a different acceleration altitude.

Also, our procedures call for flying a V2 climb if you are OEI. We use speed mode as soon as the gear comes up which will put the bug at the current speed being flown (which is normally above V2). Our old procedures called for the PNF to move the bug down to V2 if it was MORE than V2+5 or just leave it if it was between V2 and V2+5. Now they are supposed to move the bug back to V2 even if it is within 5 knots.
 
Out of curiosity for the other jet folks out there, are you guys flying a profile of 400 feet AGL terrain permitting for acceleration to Vfs? Dassault is very liberal on when to clean up... no lower than 400' but acceleration can be postponed until MEA now.

For us, it depends on several things. We have an engine out acceleration height, which is runway and/or departure specific, but I have not seen it lower than 800 AGL. In an all engine operating scenario, we have two departure profiles dependent on Noise Abatement requirements. Depending on the departure scenario, we start to accelerate at either 1500' or 3000'. This is all automagical via the FMS programming.

In my previous job, it was a MINIMUM of 400' or OEI obstacle clearance height. I wanna say there is a FAR in regards to that, but I'll be 100% honest in saying I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
 
Just to provide a broader spectrum... on the Falcon, it's the typical V1 cut profile, except on my upgrade training, Dassault apparently now wants us to hold whatever speed, up to V2+10 after rotation that the aircrafts energy provides... In other words if after rotation you are at V2+8, they no longer train to increasing pitch to decelerate to V2... I think Martin hit it spot on when he mentioned the theoretical worst case V1 cut.... If it happens EXACTLY at that point... it's V2 until acceleration altitude. The gal teaching pointed to the possibility of an accelerated stall to be a primary reason for this big change.

Out of curiosity for the other jet folks out there, are you guys flying a profile of 400 feet AGL terrain permitting for acceleration to Vfs? Dassault is very liberal on when to clean up... no lower than 400' but acceleration can be postponed until MEA now.

1000' AGL is standard or higher if necessary for obstacle clearance. No published Vfs like the ERJ had, but once clean the airplane is flown at Vref30+80. Almost like Polar mentioned, it's 1000' or 3000' accel height for an all-engine climb.
 
1000' AGL is standard or higher if necessary for obstacle clearance. No published Vfs like the ERJ had, but once clean the airplane is flown at Vref30+80. Almost like Polar mentioned, it's 1000' or 3000' accel height for an all-engine climb.

V2+80 (or +100 if you use that number too), while not published on a speed card, is a fixed number that equates to Vfs. Everything is built off of weight.
 
V2+80 (or +100 if you use that number too), while not published on a speed card, is a fixed number that equates to Vfs. Everything is built off of weight.

Basically the same then, just referenced off of Vref for flaps 30 at that particular weight.
 
Standard acceleration height is 500', though obviously that can flex depending on the runway.

OK, OK!!! UNCLE! Apparently anything above 400' is a company procedure. I looked it up:

FAR 25.111 said:
§ 25.111 Takeoff path.

(a) The takeoff path extends from a standing start to a point in the takeoff at which the airplane is 1,500 feet above the takeoff surface, or at which the transition from the takeoff to the en route configuration is completed and VFTOis reached, whichever point is higher. In addition—

(1) The takeoff path must be based on the procedures prescribed in §25.101(f);

(2) The airplane must be accelerated on the ground to V EF,at which point the critical engine must be made inoperative and remain inoperative for the rest of the takeoff; and

(3) After reaching V EF,the airplane must be accelerated to V 2.

(b) During the acceleration to speed V 2, the nose gear may be raised off the ground at a speed not less than V R.However, landing gear retraction may not be begun until the airplane is airborne.

(c) During the takeoff path determination in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section—

(1) The slope of the airborne part of the takeoff path must be positive at each point;

(2) The airplane must reach V 2before it is 35 feet above the takeoff surface and must continue at a speed as close as practical to, but not less than V 2, until it is 400 feet above the takeoff surface;

(3) At each point along the takeoff path, starting at the point at which the airplane reaches 400 feet above the takeoff surface, the available gradient of climb may not be less than—

(i) 1.2 percent for two-engine airplanes;

(ii) 1.5 percent for three-engine airplanes; and

(iii) 1.7 percent for four-engine airplanes
.

(4) The airplane configuration may not be changed, except for gear retraction and automatic propeller feathering, and no change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be made until the airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface;

<edited for brevity - icing info removed>

(d) The takeoff path must be determined by a continuous demonstrated takeoff or by synthesis from segments. If the takeoff path is determined by the segmental method—

(1) The segments must be clearly defined and must be related to the distinct changes in the configuration, power or thrust, and speed;

(2) The weight of the airplane, the configuration, and the power or thrust must be constant throughout each segment and must correspond to the most critical condition prevailing in the segment;

(3) The flight path must be based on the airplane's performance without ground effect; and

(4) The takeoff path data must be checked by continuous demonstrated takeoffs up to the point at which the airplane is out of ground effect and its speed is stabilized, to ensure that the path is conservative relative to the continous path.

The airplane is considered to be out of the ground effect when it reaches a height equal to its wing span.

(e) For airplanes equipped with standby power rocket engines, the takeoff path may be determined in accordance with section II of appendix E.

[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25–6, 30 FR 8468, July 2, 1965; Amdt. 25–42, 43 FR 2321, Jan. 16, 1978; Amdt. 25–54, 45 FR 60172, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 25–72, 55 FR 29774, July 20, 1990; Amdt. 25–94, 63 FR 8848, Feb. 23, 1998; Amdt. 25–108, 67 FR 70826, Nov. 26, 2002; Amdt. 25–115, 69 FR 40527, July 2, 2004; Amdt. 25–121, 72 FR 44666; Aug. 8, 2007]
 
400 is the magic number, my hunch (I don't know the guys who wrote the reg) but I suspect it has to do with the standard instrument departure.
 
The whole "what speed do I fly" argument is kind of moot. The only way you should be faster than V2 is if you lost the engine after V1 and had time to accelerate past V2 during the initial climb. Since a portion of your climb was spent with normal climb thrust, you're already way ahead of where you would have been had you lost the engine right at V1.

Now if you lost the engine at V1 you would fly at V2 during the climb and again, the argument is moot.
 
Yeah, I dunno. I'm not sure about you guys, but I always found myself a little higher than V2 in the sim after an engine failure at V1. By the time I'd recognize the failure, get directional control squared away, then rotate, I'd be a good 5 knots above V2. Then again, that's in the sim at normal training weights (i.e. departing at MLW for a quick air return), and possibly a slow rotation on my part (always scared about snagging the tail). I'd say as long as it's within the manufacturer's profile, you're good.
 
I was taught to delay the rotation a bit past V1 to "stabilize" things before you pull it into the air. By the time I start climbing I'm normally past V2 by a few knots. It works well in the sim and I've never had an IP say anything about it.

As much as I hate to quote Top Gun... you don't think... if you think you're dead.

You just sort of keep the airplane flying and do what your procedures say.
 
On the CRJ here, in general we use 1000 AGL for an acceleration altitude. That said, there are a few airports (ROA is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) where AeroData provides a different acceleration altitude.

Also, our procedures call for flying a V2 climb if you are OEI. We use speed mode as soon as the gear comes up which will put the bug at the current speed being flown (which is normally above V2). Our old procedures called for the PNF to move the bug down to V2 if it was MORE than V2+5 or just leave it if it was between V2 and V2+5. Now they are supposed to move the bug back to V2 even if it is within 5 knots.

We have the same Accel alt in the 727 and no turns below 400'. IIRC the Saab was no turns below 400' and accel was 800'AGL. Unless we are really heavy, one engine out isn't really that bad. We get two out and things get interesting really quick. We don't change change the V2 bugs. Just hold what we have between V2 and V2+10. I am surprised the FAA signed off on you guys slowing back to V2.
 
The whole "what speed do I fly" argument is kind of moot. The only way you should be faster than V2 is if you lost the engine after V1 and had time to accelerate past V2 during the initial climb. Since a portion of your climb was spent with normal climb thrust, you're already way ahead of where you would have been had you lost the engine right at V1.

Now if you lost the engine at V1 you would fly at V2 during the climb and again, the argument is moot.

That all depends GREATLY on the aircraft being flown. Some have VR and V2 relatively close that there is no way to properly get the aircraft off the ground without yanking it off at VR. Some aircraft climb at V2 at the same pitch attitude with all or OEI (the Dash 8) for example.

Just, for the love of Alla people, don't accept the VMC climb if your weight is above the max weight for your runway performance, it is illegal as hell.
 
Back
Top