Mb339 From Italy, joined Jun 2001, 238 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5184 times:
I was wondering what is the normally procedure in the event of a engine failure after V1?
Have you to follow entirely the SID or, obstructions permitting, is it allowed to enter in the traffic pattern to land as soon as possible?
Scootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5175 times:
Assuming there are no special procedures for the airport, we climb on the runway heading to 1000 feet, level off and accelerate, raise the flaps an continue the climb at our single engine climb speed (termed Vclimb1 in my airplane- the Dash 8).
If there is a special procedure for the airport, it is listed on our performance data for that particular departure. Special procedures range from the simple (leaving 500' turn left heading 340) to the extremely complex. ROA is a great example... We are required to turn at 50', intercept the outbound course of the localizer for a couple miles, then turn again... All while climbing at V2 (the best the airplane is going to climb single engine). In the case of complex single engine procedures, we brief them carefully prior to departure.
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2876 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5150 times:
Well, from an old prop guy, drive straight, maintain/gain altititude, communicate and decide (with assistance, if it's a controlled field). On the bottom of my list would be a turn of any kind before you are appropriately convinced of stabilized performance. I'm talking old-timey twin stuff like DC-3, B-25, etc., and these comments may have little value in newer, high-performance (turbine, jet, etc.) airplanes, but I thought I'd pass it along. Kind regards...Jack
Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5119 times:
Spot on Jack for "older types"! Multiengine aircraft designed from about 1959 (sorry, can't remember the exact date) had to be able to maintain a certain amount of climb performance with a critical engine failed at V1. This later became known as a net takeoff flight path or gradient.
BTW if you're flying/have flown the DC3 & company, I'm jealous! Those aircraft have all been grandfathered with regards modern performance demands. As you've stated, the best you're going to get with an engine out is wings level (actually up to 5 degrees of bank into the good engine[s]) straight ahead.
Unfortunately as airports grew in number and locations became more precarious (mountain 5 miles past the departure end), and aircraft failed to avoid contact with same, the newly formed ICAO developed procedures for aircraft certification and eventually what to do and where to go (Special Procedures as Jepp calls them).
When a modern day aircraft cannot meet the net take off flight path requirements as determined by a whole slew of factors, designers of runway/airport analysis data (there are quite a few with varying philosophies) see if a turn or combination of turns can guide the aircraft away from obstacles horizontally until the takeoff segments have been completed. That's it in a nutshell. It gets pretty complex in the detail.
So if as in Las Vegas the special procedure involves a turn, a radial intercept, a DME restriction then another turn, followed by another radial intercept, then that is what has been determined to be "safe" to allow an airliner (DH8 or 747) to depart a runway at the maximum allowable weight.
It's a safety discussion and it's a corporate/commercial discussion. All wrapped into one big complicated bundle.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 30 Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5046 times:
An engine failure is an emergency, and in an emergency you may deviate from the regs to the extent necessary, BUT you had better be prepared to explain why you deviated from the regs if you survive.
You wouldn't have to deviate from the SID if in IMC conditions since runway analysis maiximum weights are predicated on an engine failure at V1. So you already know you will be able to meet the climb gradient for the departure.
If the weather is VMC and I was reasonably sure I could expect it to remain that way , and not in a radar environment I would maintain VMC, and return for landing.
If your in a radar environment you will be given vectors for manouvering for landing.
Sushka From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 4784 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5024 times:
In the C310c that I fly, it rarely can maintain altitude on only one engine.
After takeoff if the left engine failed, I would secure it and probably land straight ahead. Assuming we were too low for turns, etc
If the right failed then there would be a little more turning.
Also If I made it back to the airport I would not enter the traffic pattern. Simply pick the closest runway and land!
Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5008 times:
Howdy JP: Occasionally SIDs have climb gradient restrictions on them in order to clear obstacles vertically on departure procedures or SIDs as they are more commonly known.
Airport/runway analysis producers look at such things as close in obstacles and also obstacles as far away as 60,000+ feet from the departure end of the runway. They use local area maps of the airport and surrounding geography including manmade obstacles and plot net take off flight paths. If any of the obstacles protrude into the net take off flight path profile (NTOFP), the chart producers can do one of a number of things. They can limit the takeoff weight of the aircraft so that the aircraft can now make the NTOFP, they can use improved climb techniques for close in obstacle avoidance, they can devise a turn to clear obstacles horizontally rather than vertically, using no more than 15 degrees of bank to do so. There are a couple of other things as well - I'd have to dig out the books to detail them further. The latter method would be listed as a "Special Procedure" or "Emergency Turn". Las Vegas has them; Reno has them; there's a good one for Puerto Vallarta in Mexico; there are hundreds of examples from other parts of the world.
The trouble with SIDs is they don't take aircraft performance capabilities into account. The chart producers do and when they determine an aircraft cannot meet the NTOFP requirements of any given SID, they kick in the other options.
Most chart producers design their Special Procedures as I said in my first post above, to maximize payload.
Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4973 times:
Not necessarily. Depends in part on the chart producers and operator mods. For instance, the limitation is generally to 1,500 AAL and is also dependent upon 5 or 10 minute T/O thrust limitations. If an operator tells the chart producer they have approval for a 10 minute T/O thrust setting, the Special Procedure might be modified in a significant way.
The chart producers take into account close-in as well as distant obstructions. I spent a summer in the Canadian Rockies where the chart producer looked at obstacles as far away as 25 miles. In that instant, my company had a 10 minute T/O power allowance, hence the increased field-of-view in the analysis.
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6450 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4945 times:
If we encounter an engine failure during takeoff, we are required to fly the SID that we have been assigned and planned to fly. SIDs are designed to be able to support aircraft flying with an engine out. The certification requirements of an aircraft with an engine out are known, and therefore SIDs can be planned to support these same requirements.
In some cases, SIDs cannot cover aircraft with an engine out and in these cases an airport, or more usually an airline may have their own procedures. For example, If we have an engine failure going off runway 07 in Hong Kong we are required t0o track to waypoint ROACH (On the extended centreline of 07R), then track 190. This takes us through a gap in the terrain. Trying to fly the SID may lead you straight into the hills on Hong Kong Island. This engine-out prodecure has been designed by Cathay and although ATC know about it, in the event of an engine failure it is not enough to simply tell then an engine has failed. ATC must be told of the tracking, as it is not an official SID.
On a side note, many modern aircraft have Engine-Out SIDs in the FMCs and these can be selected as part of the procedures. This will dump the original SID and will display the E/O SID for the crew to follow. On the 777, an engine failure during the take-off roll or shortly afterwards will be automatically detected and the original routing will be dumped and the E/O SID automatically selected, thereby decreasing crew workload.
Yikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4933 times:
That's fascinating about the 777. But I'm afraid I have to disagree in general only though that SIDs are designed to be able to support aircraft flying with an engine out. There are so many different types of aircraft with different powerplants, it is unrealistic that approach designers could take them all into account.
Take for instance the various engine/airframe combinations for a 767 or other large type. Take for instance a Dash 8 which uses analyses for the same runway you describe in Hong Kong. Complicate the issue by looking at the takeoff weight range of all the different types of aircraft and you give the SID designers a nearly impossible task. After all, SIDs are designed to move aircraft away from an airport in an efficient manner to increase traffic flow.
When significant obstacles are in the flight path of the SID that protrude into the ICAO requirements for obstacle clearance around an airport, the SID will detail climb gradient requirements to meet those requirements. The chart will show vertical speed requirements against ground speed.
To go into a little further detail, when a runway is served by a Special Procedure plate or "Emergency Turn", there is always a point in the procedure where the procedure will start. Up to that point, the chart producers have determined that the aircraft cannot meet the NTOFP requirements and, to avoid obstacles horizontally, the procedure must be followed. What is not as easily understood is when would you not follow the procedure?