I'm just as
...I didn't know anyone that did that. Hell, we barely look at the 10-9 long enough to take a guess at which way to turn for the FBO after seeing if we have enough room to land.-mini
You're on the approach when there's a deer!
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
...I didn't know anyone that did that. Hell, we barely look at the 10-9 long enough to take a guess at which way to turn for the FBO after seeing if we have enough room to land.-mini
400A
New Member
I'm just as
-mini
I will be the last guy to critique another outfits procedures, but it just seems like way too much information with too much possibility for conflicting information (ie, the missed is a climbing left turn to 3200 feet, the ODP is a straight ahead climb to 4000 feet, etc).
These hypothetical WWYD situations are just to get you thinking, not meant to be some catalyst that drastically changes SOPs.
FlyChicaga
Vintage Restoration
Not the 10-9 chart. We do use the 10-9 chart to brief:
- Expected turnoff
- Runway length/width
- Hotspots for expected taxi route
E_Dawg
Moderator
Yeah I figured someone would call me on that. Obviously if you're at (insert mountainous airport) you'd adjust your mentality. But you could play hypotheticals all day long. What if you decide to continue the landing and it's not just Bambi out there but Bambi's extended family. What if a meteor hits you in the flare, what then.
Which is why blanket statements like...
can kill ya.
Normally, yeah you'll probably make it. Toss in a hot day, maybe the flaps stick down or the gear won't suck up or you blow an engine or you had the fish....
You get the idea.
-mini
E_Dawg
Moderator
I'd rather safely take it around the patch again than be guaranteed to have an accident by hitting a deer at 120mph. Even with the flaps and gear STUCK down the plane will climb.
Yes I suppose if the flaps AND gear AND an engine simultaneously fail at the worst possible time when you go missed... then yes I suppose that could cause problems. A meteor hitting you could also do a lot of damage. Or your wings could fall off. Point being the chances of that are astronomical. I'll take an astronomical chance over a 100% chance of hitting something. Again this is just what I would do.
Yes I suppose if the flaps AND gear AND an engine simultaneously fail at the worst possible time when you go missed... then yes I suppose that could cause problems. A meteor hitting you could also do a lot of damage. Or your wings could fall off. Point being the chances of that are astronomical. I'll take an astronomical chance over a 100% chance of hitting something. Again this is just what I would do.
E_Dawg
Moderator
No I edited that actually since I don't have performance info on it and can't be 100% sure. I dunno, you seem to be really getting into semantics on the premise of having multiple, serious, and unrelated system failures at a very bad time. By your logic you should never go around since IFR, VFR, etc... you'll be in a world of hurt if your flaps, gear, and engine all fail. Or never even fly at all since the fuel could be contaminated.
There really isn't a right or wrong answer... it's just what >I< would do. I disagree that my thought process could 'kill me' as you say, especially since I am choosing NOT to hit the deer and have an accident. Not to say that hitting the deer would be wrong either (depending on the situation), because like you say if you do happen to be at ASE (or wherever) going missed would not be the best option.
There really isn't a right or wrong answer... it's just what >I< would do. I disagree that my thought process could 'kill me' as you say, especially since I am choosing NOT to hit the deer and have an accident. Not to say that hitting the deer would be wrong either (depending on the situation), because like you say if you do happen to be at ASE (or wherever) going missed would not be the best option.
No, what I'm hung up on is your blanket statement that you would "go missed", period.
It just isn't that simple in the real world and I think you know that. There are more factors than just "oh, deer on the runway, here we go!".
Blanket statements can certainly get someone killed. Especially if you just go around saying "hey I'm in a transport category airplane, I can outclimb terps" (period). That kind of thinking, blanket statements, thinking in absolutes...can kill. It isn't that simple.
-mini
E_Dawg
Moderator
Just to add, I fly a prop. If you have seen the mesa video of the Dash hitting the baggage cart you know what can happen, the 4 blade 8 foot prop flies off and engine bits go every which way.
If you really want to get into all the hypotheticals, who's to say it won't go straight through the fuselage. That's not gonna be a great outcome... just another thing to think about.
If you really want to get into all the hypotheticals, who's to say it won't go straight through the fuselage. That's not gonna be a great outcome... just another thing to think about.
Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner!
That's why blanket statements like...
can kill.
There's more to it than pushing the power up and blasting off.
That's why, although I like the Doug's question, we needed (and probably still need) more info to make any kind of intelligent statement on what to do. Lots of good ideas, but without knowing all of the specifics it's kind of hard to discuss. Good scenario to toss out at students though...whether they're primary or upgrade/captain candidates.
-mini
E_Dawg
Moderator
Normal missed approach climb gradient is 200'/nm. Call it a dangerous blanket statement if you want to, but it's hard for me to imagine a transport plane that can't do 500 fpm at 150kts. My plane can beat that. That is not an opinion that can 'kill', that is simply a fact. Obviously if the missed calls for a higher climb gradient that is under consideration. To me, that beats the crap out of hitting a deer in MOST situations!! :insane:
Actually just stating a transport cat plane can out climb TERPS all the time might not be 100% accurate and that kind of blanket thinking can indeed kill you if you think you're just going to pour the coals on and go vertical.
200'/mile is ~ 3.3%
Minimum requirements for part 25 are 2.1% for 2 engine planes on an approach climb (OEI) and 3.2% for Landing climb (all engines operating). That's still .1% below the required climb gradient. Yeah, there's that safe zone the obstacles aren't allowed to hit, but you're already blowing some of that when you are possibly in the flare when you see Bambi. And sure, most planes can do better than the minimum...but not always. Your plane isn't required to do any more than what part 25 says.
Here are the certification regs. You get better minimum OEI climb with 3 and 4 engine planes (obviously), but only up to 2.7%.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...=14:1.0.1.3.11&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.11.2.155.17
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...=14:1.0.1.3.11&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.11.2.155.18
The climb out of ASE on the departure (assuming a miss from the runway...since that's when you'd see the deer) is as high as 14% off of the ASE departure. LINDZ gets you down to 7.6%. Double that which is required for an all engine operating climb. That's probably why approach minimums are 2300' AGL up there, so you've got a chance when executing a missed approach. There's also a reason I've been told over and over by guys with 10x the experience you and I have combined...go in there only when it's VFR. Leave there only when it's VFR. Be able to see what you're going to hit.
For Comparison
ROA - 3.6%-4.3% Climb on the departure. The ILS goes down to ~600' AGL for a reason.
LAX - As high as 8.3% depending on the departure being used.
PHX - As high as 6.3% again depending on the departure/fix/runway.
JFK - As high as 8.9% " " "
Point is, it's not just ASE, TEX, etc that you need to consider these climb gradients when thinking about what to do when something like this happens. It isn't always just a case of "oh, transport category plane...that means I can outclimb it". Sometimes all that does is put you higher into the rocks when you run into them.
-mini
200'/mile is ~ 3.3%
Minimum requirements for part 25 are 2.1% for 2 engine planes on an approach climb (OEI) and 3.2% for Landing climb (all engines operating). That's still .1% below the required climb gradient. Yeah, there's that safe zone the obstacles aren't allowed to hit, but you're already blowing some of that when you are possibly in the flare when you see Bambi. And sure, most planes can do better than the minimum...but not always. Your plane isn't required to do any more than what part 25 says.
Here are the certification regs. You get better minimum OEI climb with 3 and 4 engine planes (obviously), but only up to 2.7%.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...=14:1.0.1.3.11&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.11.2.155.17
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...=14:1.0.1.3.11&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.11.2.155.18
The climb out of ASE on the departure (assuming a miss from the runway...since that's when you'd see the deer) is as high as 14% off of the ASE departure. LINDZ gets you down to 7.6%. Double that which is required for an all engine operating climb. That's probably why approach minimums are 2300' AGL up there, so you've got a chance when executing a missed approach. There's also a reason I've been told over and over by guys with 10x the experience you and I have combined...go in there only when it's VFR. Leave there only when it's VFR. Be able to see what you're going to hit.
For Comparison
ROA - 3.6%-4.3% Climb on the departure. The ILS goes down to ~600' AGL for a reason.
LAX - As high as 8.3% depending on the departure being used.
PHX - As high as 6.3% again depending on the departure/fix/runway.
JFK - As high as 8.9% " " "
Point is, it's not just ASE, TEX, etc that you need to consider these climb gradients when thinking about what to do when something like this happens. It isn't always just a case of "oh, transport category plane...that means I can outclimb it". Sometimes all that does is put you higher into the rocks when you run into them.
-mini
E_Dawg
Moderator
Good info. Thanks for doing the legwork. I never said you will beat the terps criteria OEI, although you and I both know most times even OEI you still will beat 200f/nm. I still think your argument is along the lines of not wearing a car seatbelt because there's a chance you could be thrown clear of the accident and avoid injury. You're advocating hitting the deer on the chance you'll have an engine fail as soon as you add power to avoid it.
Even OEI you can still make it happen, if the terrain is really that bad you can circle above the airport in the climb... that's what you do (initially) on a missed from a circle approach anyways. I'm sure you'll dig into me for that idea as well but it's emergency deviation authority. If you're literally surrounded by cliffs on all sides, just outside the 1.7 or 2.3 mi area then I guess you would be SOL at that point and should have hit the deer after all. That is something to know before you begin the approach... once we pass the MAP we are not rejecting the landing. Maybe that is not the best approach to shoot then, since you're knowingly leaving yourself with only one option: land. All I'm suggesting is taking the least risky option given the facts as you know them at the time. What more can you do...
Even OEI you can still make it happen, if the terrain is really that bad you can circle above the airport in the climb... that's what you do (initially) on a missed from a circle approach anyways. I'm sure you'll dig into me for that idea as well but it's emergency deviation authority. If you're literally surrounded by cliffs on all sides, just outside the 1.7 or 2.3 mi area then I guess you would be SOL at that point and should have hit the deer after all. That is something to know before you begin the approach... once we pass the MAP we are not rejecting the landing. Maybe that is not the best approach to shoot then, since you're knowingly leaving yourself with only one option: land. All I'm suggesting is taking the least risky option given the facts as you know them at the time. What more can you do...
Actually if you'll re-read, some of those climb gradients are higher than the requirements for landing climb (which is all engines operating). I dug those up since you were getting hung up on my bringing up the engine failure at ASE.
-mini
