You're on the approach when there's a deer!

[minitour]

No, I got that. So, never go missed then?

You still aren't learning. Using a word like "never" isn't a good idea. Neither is a statement like...

A transport aircraft is going to climb better than the lowest common denominator the TERPS were designed for.

The blanket statements you're making can kill. You have to have more info than just saying 1) never "go missed" or 2) the transport category aircraft will "climb better" than TERPS. There's just more to it. I'd hope you know this by now.

-mini

 

[E_Dawg]

I'm taking your statement to the extreme to demonstrate that obviously you would still go missed despite 3.3 being a bigger number than 3.2. Because your actual performance is better than what is minimally required.

Anyhoo, I'm done with this thread, it doesn't seem to be headed anywhere productive. Nor do you seem able to hold a conversation about hypotheticals without talking down to me. :insane:

 

[dasleben]

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

 

[IrishSheepdog]

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

EXACTLY.

If you cannot go missed (or reject the landing), then maybe you should go somewhere else.

I realize there are groups of pilots out there who do not have this option, such as in the military. For the majority of operations though, if you don't have a "Plan B" to get away from the ground, then you're really boxing yourself into a corner.

 

[400A]

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

Well, see here is an example of "not quite getting it". If I am going missed at the DH/MAP I know what performance I need, if it is after that point, I have no idea. If I can meet the 3.3% at the MAP, I might need 4.5% 1 mile after the MAP or I might need 3.0% you don't know and there is really no way to know.

The balked landing chart for the Beechjet doesn't give much information either. The highest and hottest I can make a 3.3% balked landing climb (all engines, ECS on, anti ice off) is 8000 feet and 28 deg C. The only point I know where 3.3% will work is at the MAP for that runway. If I am on the runway and go around I don't know what my performance is, unless I have the data for that runway, temp, weigth and position on the runway where I initiated the go around, even that is off.

A go around is always and option, and for a majority of situations being out of position along an approach path and conducting a go around is less risky than forcing a bad landing, either for stablization of because of hazards on the runway. Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

 

[dasleben]

Well, see here is an example of "not quite getting it". If I am going missed at the DH/MAP I know what performance I need, if it is after that point, I have no idea. If I can meet the 3.3% at the MAP, I might need 4.5% 1 mile after the MAP or I might need 3.0% you don't know and there is really no way to know.

The balked landing chart for the Beechjet doesn't give much information either. The highest and hottest I can make a 3.3% balked landing climb (all engines, ECS on, anti ice off) is 8000 feet and 28 deg C. The only point I know where 3.3% will work is at the MAP for that runway. If I am on the runway and go around I don't know what my performance is, unless I have the data for that runway, temp, weigth and position on the runway where I initiated the go around, even that is off.

A go around is always and option, and for a majority of situations being out of position along an approach path and conducting a go around is less risky than forcing a bad landing, either for stablization of because of hazards on the runway. Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

Wow, your first post to me in this thread and you're already talking to me like I'm a chump.

Come back when you have a better attitude, and we'll talk like professionals.

 

[400A]

Wow, your first post to me in this thread and you're already talking to me like I'm a chump.

Come back when you have a better attitude, and we'll talk like professionals.

Grow some thicker skin. Your post was way more "talking to someone like a chump". This whole discussion has been about what to do if you are past the MAP and there is something on the runway that may or may not require a go around. You come in "knowing it all" and state.

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

When this whole discussion had nothing to do with single engine missed approach at the MAP.

 

[dasleben]

It was merely my opinion, and that was backed up by another poster to boot (whom I don't think felt that I was being a jerk about it). Your points are valid, but your execution is lacking.

My point was meant to be general: Don't launch unless you know that you have OEI performance on the missed. It's the most basic way you could cover your own butt. Beyond that, you're absolutely right: if you're past the MAP and/or below MDA/DA you could absolutely have problems if you pop one.

But, just about everything we do in aviation has a calculated risk attached to it. If a pilot wants to be 100% safe all the time, then he shouldn't fly. Hell, tagging the deer in an attempt to mitigate the risks of losing an engine below the MDA could kill you too. Me personally? Based on what I've seen in this thread I go missed. If I pop one between where I balked the landing and MDA, well, I'm just one unlucky SOB that day. However, knowledge of the local terrain, knowing that you can maintain the missed approach climb gradient OEI, and yes, even knowledge of the gradients listed in the ODP can all work together to mitigate your risks.

Here's actually a great article about this: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jul97.pdf

 

[IrishSheepdog]

My point is, if you think you can get in, shouldn't you make sure you can get out?

A balked landing is similar to a takeoff, no? So if you can depart the airport, you should be able to accomplish a balked landing.

 

[400A]

My point is, if you think you can get in, shouldn't you make sure you can get out?

A balked landing is similar to a takeoff, no? So if you can depart the airport, you should be able to accomplish a balked landing.

I can depart an airport lighter than the weight I am landing at.

You are correct, most of the time if you can depart you can most likely execute a balked landing, however, it comes back again to knowing what the gradients are for that particular runway, at your current weight, altitude, temp, etc. You may no be able to execute the ODP on that runway, but could execute a balked landing, while being able to depart on another runway.

The point isn't to go tit for tat on what ifs, the point is, things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out". There are grey areas in performance and situations, you just need to be able to manage the risk(s) to an acceptable level and be best armed to make the good decisions when it hits the fan.

 

[IrishSheepdog]

The point isn't to go tit for tat on what ifs, the point is, things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out". There are grey areas in performance and situations, you just need to be able to manage the risk(s) to an acceptable level and be best armed to make the good decisions when it hits the fan.

Thank you!

That is key. You can talk about what's legal and the "book definitions" until you are blue in the face, but fundamentally you'll be making this decision in seconds. Just be able to explain your decision making process when all is said and done.

 

[derg]

Here's kind of what I was curious about your airline's views on missed approaches passed the missed approach point. This is how we look at it at Southernjets.

Well, at least the way we're supposed to:

 

[minitour]

Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

Bingo.

...things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out"...

Exactly what I've been trying to say the whole thread. Thank you for putting it in to a short, sweet, concise sentence.

-mini

 

[AUAeropilot]

Here's kind of what I was curious about your airline's views on missed approaches passed the missed approach point. This is how we look at it at Southernjets.

Well, at least the way we're supposed to:

Yeap, and you're talking to the guy that's been tasked to work on the analysis to change it. It's complicated and makes you think about more "what if's" than you can count on one hand, but we're getting through it. There is no regulation that requires the operator to analyze the rejected landing, either all engine or engine out. By means of an AC, we have been tasked to give "guidance" in cases where a flight crew may not be able to perform a rejected landing, any go-around passed the MAP, but there is no legal requirement to do so.

We are learning that the misconception among the pilots is that you are guaranteed obstacle and/or terrain clearance by flying the published missed in a rejected landing scenario and that your landing weights are based on this. You are not; as TERPS is used to establish clearances and as such the TERPS analysis drives the MDA/DH to an appropriate altitude. Many times clue number one that a rej ldg may not be such a good idea is if there is no ILS to a runway or the missed approach turn is well behind you. The landing weight is simply pavement or approach climb requirements and when we run the landing numbers, they could care less if there is a mountain in front of you...SXM runway 10 for example.

Doug and any other southernjets pilots, I would love to get your take on this. Feel free to PM and I'll send you contact info. This is currently being revised in a major way and may even be out in the next couple of years and any understanding I have of what you guys are thinking with respect to this would be benficial moving forward.

It's a touchy subject, but southernjets has had the ODP to be flown all engine in a rejected landing situation in that it guarantees that if an engine blows after a published missed turns away from the ODP, the original takeoff weights were based on the ODP, and as long as the landing weights are lower than MTOW's for that runway, the flight crew is safe at all times of the rejected landing. It's when the divergance from the ODP occurs that you could expose the crew to losing an engine and being up the creek at this point.

Landing weight > MTOW for the same runway....red flag

 

[Polar742]

If I remember right, the criteria for a balked landing is a 3.3 % gradient with ALL ENGINES running for twins.

As a note, that is significantly higher than the 2.5% OEI gradient for takeoff.

So, while operators that have tailored OEI procedures have an advantage for running higher takeoff weights, and thus can use that for a balked landing procedure, operators that don't use specific turn procedures for OEI operations must use good judgment for terrain avoidance.

Kinda goes back to using your experience as an aviator and in a specific aircraft to know what it can and can not do.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[EnRoute]

Easy answer! HONK THE HORN!!!:rotfl:

 

[minitour]

If I remember right, the criteria for a balked landing is a 3.3 % gradient with ALL ENGINES running for twins.

As a note, that is significantly higher than the 2.5% OEI gradient for takeoff.

That would be "Landing Climb".

Once again...from 25.119

In the landing configuration, the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3.2 percent, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting—
(a) In non-icing conditions, with a climb speed of VREFdetermined in accordance with §25.125(b)(2)(i); and
(b) In icing conditions with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C, and with a climb speed of VREFdetermined in accordance with §25.125(b)(2)(ii).

...emphasis is mine.

200ft/nm is ~3.3%
(200/6076)*100=3.291639236%

-mini

 

[400A]

...and those are certification numbers, not what you need on any given day. I think all part 25 airplanes have an "approach climb" chart which is basically your single engine missed chart, you must be able to do at least 200 foot/nm (3.3%) or higher as dictated by the missed (I only know of a couple of missed approaches that require higher than 3.3%).

Balked landing charts are two engine. I misspoke in an earlier post calling the approach climb chart the balked landing chart, my blonde is showing.

 

[minitour]

...and those are certification numbers

Correct. The minimum that any transport category aircraft must show for certification. You can get an aircraft type certificated as transport category with numbers as low as 3.2%.

I think all part 25 airplanes have an "approach climb" chart which is basically your single engine missed chart, you must be able to do at least 200 foot/nm (3.3%) or higher as dictated by the missed (I only know of a couple of missed approaches that require higher than 3.3%).

It's been a while, but in my plane and I'm sure many others...one set of climb data is Net while another is Gross. I believe the OEI (approach climb) data is net while the landing climb (all engines) data is gross. That would make the most sense to me...I'd want to know worst case that I could make it out (that would be single engine...and me at the helm vs. some hero). With gross data, if you're showing 3.3%, you still might not make it what with pilots not being super-awesome and all.

...my blonde is showing.

...Must..........resist.........urge.......................................to...post.....childish.....remarks.......

-mini

 

[400A]

Correct. The minimum that any transport category aircraft must show for certification. You can get an aircraft type certificated as transport category with numbers as low as 3.2%.


It's been a while, but in my plane and I'm sure many others...one set of climb data is Net while another is Gross. I believe the OEI (approach climb) data is net while the landing climb (all engines) data is gross. That would make the most sense to me...I'd want to know worst case that I could make it out (that would be single engine...and me at the helm vs. some hero). With gross data, if you're showing 3.3%, you still might not make it what with pilots not being super-awesome and all.




...Must..........resist.........urge.......................................to...post.....childish.....remarks.......

-mini

I don't know if gross numbers are published, even if they were the numbers for 2 engine climbs are very high (20% and higher) so it is almost a moot issue if it is gross or net (I think the difference between the two is .7%)

The performance section of the Beechjets manual lays out the limiting factors for landing weight (as do all part 25 airplanes).

Landing weight is limited by the most restrictive of the following
Structural limit
Break energy limit
Approach climb limit (anti ice on and off)


There is a note stating that approach climb will ALWAYS be more restrictive than balked landing climb .

All the other transport category aircraft I have flown have been the same way, from the turbo props to 3 and 4 engine heavies, to the "small" corporate jets.

It has been a while since flying the citation, I want to say that was a part 23 airplane and that might be where some gross climb gradient charts may be, again, the blonde is showing....

One big thing to keep in mind as well. A lot of these climb gradient charts are based on flying straight ahead. A turn as shallow as 15 degrees can kill most if not all of your single engine climb performance. Airport data, or OEI procedures usually have a 15 degree bank accounted for in the data, where manufacture data does not.