Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
APG, EFB Pro, Ultranav
- Thread starter PlaneJohn
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
CitationCapt
STILL determined
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Posts
- 229
We have used APG for several years and like their service. The site is user friendly. Check out the demos at www.apg.aero
I am not affiliated with APG.
CC
I am not affiliated with APG.
CC
UltraNav works well for WT&Bal computations and for determining what your 2nd segment OEI climb capabilities are (theoretically). It also can be used in the cockpit and can be used for landing data.
What APG offers is a OEI climb capability for a specific procedure that allows you to clear terrain IAW TERPS terrain seperation criteria vs FAA terrain seperation criteria. APG also shows you different scenarios like what an increase or decrease in temperature will allow you to do. I like the fact that APG determines what climb gradient is required and tells me what weight I need to be at given the current range of temps to make that gradient.
(Obama Voice ON) Let me be perfectly clear! (Obama Voice OFF):nuts: The terrain seperation figures that APG gives you are NOT safer than waiting for the weather to get up to takeoff mins (for us 91 guys). You must fly the procedure. That means that when the procedure differs from the SID, you should file NO SIDS in remarks, and file to the last waypoint along the departure path that APG has calculated for you. Most times the APG procedure follows the SID, so this is not an issue. But many people had the thought in their head that they would fly the SID and if they lost an engine they would declare an emergency and fly the APG procedure. That ain't how it works. Take KEGE for instance. The APG procedure used to be the "Cottonwood Departure" If you took off on the Gypsum Departure and lost an engine after making the turn to 215 degrees, you were in no man's land trying to manuever over to the Cottonwood departure's path (there is a huge mountain in between for those not familiar). I think that APG has since made their departure overlay the Gypsum.
On rare occasion, the APG departure will actually bring to your attention a situation that is restrictive, that may have escaped your attention before. KAPF is a good example of this. On the chart, Rwy 5 length is 5290ft long, but the the TORA is only 5000ft. Rwy 14 is 5000ft long, but the TORA is only 4550 because of this:
Naples Muni
RWY 05:
What APG offers is a OEI climb capability for a specific procedure that allows you to clear terrain IAW TERPS terrain seperation criteria vs FAA terrain seperation criteria. APG also shows you different scenarios like what an increase or decrease in temperature will allow you to do. I like the fact that APG determines what climb gradient is required and tells me what weight I need to be at given the current range of temps to make that gradient.
(Obama Voice ON) Let me be perfectly clear! (Obama Voice OFF):nuts: The terrain seperation figures that APG gives you are NOT safer than waiting for the weather to get up to takeoff mins (for us 91 guys). You must fly the procedure. That means that when the procedure differs from the SID, you should file NO SIDS in remarks, and file to the last waypoint along the departure path that APG has calculated for you. Most times the APG procedure follows the SID, so this is not an issue. But many people had the thought in their head that they would fly the SID and if they lost an engine they would declare an emergency and fly the APG procedure. That ain't how it works. Take KEGE for instance. The APG procedure used to be the "Cottonwood Departure" If you took off on the Gypsum Departure and lost an engine after making the turn to 215 degrees, you were in no man's land trying to manuever over to the Cottonwood departure's path (there is a huge mountain in between for those not familiar). I think that APG has since made their departure overlay the Gypsum.
On rare occasion, the APG departure will actually bring to your attention a situation that is restrictive, that may have escaped your attention before. KAPF is a good example of this. On the chart, Rwy 5 length is 5290ft long, but the the TORA is only 5000ft. Rwy 14 is 5000ft long, but the TORA is only 4550 because of this:
Naples Muni
RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCE INFORMATION
RWY 05:
TORA–5000 TODA–5290 ASDA–5000 LDA–5000
RWY 14:
TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–4550 LDA–4420
RWY 23:
TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–5000 LDA–5000
RWY 32: TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–4870 LDA–4420
In this case APG would bring to your attention that there are obstacles that limit your RUNWAY LENGTH AVAILABLE for takeoff (ie TORA). This has nothing to do with climb gradient (actually it does- just not in the way we normally think). Jeppesen is starting to list the TORA, TODA, and ASDA on more and more charts, otherwise the only place that I know of to find it is in the AFD
http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd.asp?cycle=afd_08APR2010&eff=04-08-2010&end=06-03-2010#results
If you could not tell by now, I highly recommend APG. And no, I do not work for them.
RWY 32: TORA–5000 TODA–5000 ASDA–4870 LDA–4420
In this case APG would bring to your attention that there are obstacles that limit your RUNWAY LENGTH AVAILABLE for takeoff (ie TORA). This has nothing to do with climb gradient (actually it does- just not in the way we normally think). Jeppesen is starting to list the TORA, TODA, and ASDA on more and more charts, otherwise the only place that I know of to find it is in the AFD
http://aeronav.faa.gov/afd.asp?cycle=afd_08APR2010&eff=04-08-2010&end=06-03-2010#results
If you could not tell by now, I highly recommend APG. And no, I do not work for them.
Last edited:
spxdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Posts
- 80
When you refer to APG, are you referring to runway analysis, or some other product?
When using a runway analysis, the actual clearance over every obstacle is 35' (net path). Note, I am not referring to 35' over a gradient, but 35' over an obstacle.
Before using runway analysis numbers to takeoff, think about whether you really want to be in IMC, on a single engine, clearing obstacles by only 35'.
Also, keep in mind that the lateral boundaries when using a runway analysis "escape procedure" are significantly narrower than the lateral boundaries specified in TERPS/PANS-OPS.
Gulfstream 200
Database Expert
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Posts
- 4,574
Oh stop.
I am referring to the runway analysis.
I think I clearly stated that these procedures are NOT safer than waiting for the weather to get better (meaning ceiling and vis improving or temperature decreasing). In fact I even did it in my Obama voice "LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR." I'm not sure how I could have made it any clearer, but once again. This is not safer than waiting. Even safer than waiting is not flying. That is of course unless you decide to drive to your destination. That is statistically deadly and CRAZY :nuts:
But, the fact is that very very few Transport Category Certified airplanes lose an engine on takeoff. That fact not withstanding, it is perfectly legal for a guy in a PC-12, or a C-182 to take off when the weather is below published takeoff mins. That's right. Perfectly legal for the single engine Pilatus to takeoff while the Falcon 2000 waits for the ceiling and vis to increase.
APG allows you to demonstrate to the FAA that on your very worst day, you could lose an engine at V1 while still on the runway, takeoff and not hit any obstacles, albiet, clearing them only by the TERPS terrain seperation criteria. Lose an engine at 100 feet and one would suppose that your terrain clearance would continue to be 100 feet greater than the TERPS 35ft, lose it at 200 ...... on and on (based on TERPS criteria of 200ft per NM). It does not guarantee that you won't have to replace both pilots seat cushions.:blush:
IMHO, the biggest benefit to using APG is awareness. The second benefit is that if you can reduce your aircraft weight to meet a climb gradient that will allow you to safely clear terrain, you don't have to worry about someone from the FAA coming back and saying you were careless and reckless. Kindly refer them to this document.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...ircular.nsf/list/AC 120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf
Us 91 operators are currently operating under a loophole that the FAA never intended to give us. Before long, I believe anyone operating large turbojet airplanes will have to comply with AC 120-91.
Lastly, FAA takeoff minimums assume that you will "see and avoid" any close in obstacles that are published. You heard me right. When the bottom of your airport diagram chart says "Numerous trees located 230 ft right of centerline 103 ft AGL" You can bet that you are responsible for avoiding them, regardless of ceiling and visibility. APG will at least make you aware of them and what kind of performance is required to avoid them.
My apologies to Gulfstream200 for what this discussion has evolved into.
Bottom line: APG is $75 a month per airframe. We throw more than that worth of catering out on every trip.
Last edited:
spxdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Posts
- 80
Runway Analysis has absolutely nothing to do with TERPS criteria.***** They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
*****
35 ft of terrain separation up to 1500ft.***** It has nothing to do with "per NM". In other words from the ground up, while using a runway analysis procedure at the weights specified, you will clear obstacles by 35 feet.
You're correct, a runway analysis procedure is nowhere near as safe as waiting for the weather to improve. Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.
Which is why we validate each and every "alternate procedure" we use from APG, either in the Sim or aircraft. It's not that I/we don't trust their data but it sure helps to see it "for real".
As an FYI, when using APG landing data, you might want to look very close at the weights. It is my understanding (after a loooong conversation with Mark at APG) that the landing weights are predicated upon OEI MAP climb data (in addition to the other landing considerations). So if you have a situation where the MAP climb gradient is other than standard, such as the MAP on the KASE SAAAR approaches, (325'/nm while in a 30deg AOB turn) the landing weight data is invalid.
Just something else to think about.
Last edited:
Please tell me that you didn't really believe that APG test flew every excape procedure, off every runway that offers such a procedure, in every airplane, that they have performance data on?
Last edited:
Once again, I think you may have misunderstood me. I am simply suggesting that if you climb out on two engines, and then lose one at 200 AGL that you could reasonable assume that now you have a 200 ft addition to your terrain clearance (ie your 35ft). So that at every point along your takeoff path your terrain clearance will continue to be 235ft. Is this something to be thrilled about? I don't think so. Is it careless and reckless? Given the reliability of modern jet engines, I don't think so either.
Well I seems to me that it would be cost prohibitive to fly every aircraft type at every airport in the US, but you do have a valid point that everyone should consider before trusting their lives to this data. But, it must be valid enough that soon the FAA will require even Part 91 operators to do it. The airlines have been doing it for years. This analysis is based on satellite imagery, to determine the height of obstacles along a more narrowly defined corridor, using TERPS terrain seperation vs FAA terrain separation (yes, I said TERPs). Please see AC 120-91 para 10-12.
Once again, I will state unequivocally that using these procedures is NOT safer than waiting for conditions to improve.
I'm guessing that you don't like to take off from mountainous airports in weather below takeoff mins. I get that. If I had my way we would wait too. But once again, I will try to put it into context. The weather required to depart KEGE IFR is well above what is required to depart VFR, and Non Transport Category Certified airplanes and those with only one engine, do not have to adhere to these takeoff criteria at all. Flying during the day is safer than flying at night, should we not fly at night? Flying over land is safer than flying over the ocean, should we not fly overwater? Flying in VMC is safer than flying in IMC should we not fly in weather?
In aviation we have already made adaptations to mitigate the hazards of night flying (airport lighting, MOCA, NVG), overwater flying (ETOPS, rafts, etc) and instrument flying (precision approaches, GPS, FD). Using performance data is one more adaptation that in the opinion of the authorities (FAA) allows you to operate at what they consider an acceptable level of risk (even if you don't). The solution to worrying about climb gradients out of KEGE or KASE is to get a BAE146 of Falcon 900, or be prepared to wait.
I don't really have a dog in the fight of whether or not we should be doing this. My employer says we do it. The FAA says it's legal and safe. I am capable of doing it. I do it. Whether or not I like it is irrelevent. If I had my way, we wouldn't do any overnights except when I wanted to, and all my destinations would be sunny and warm and flat (except PHNL).
That's right! And therein lies the misconception that some people have about a higher ceiling and vis requirement allowing them to return VMC to the field. Try turning back at Eagle, Aspen Sun Valley etc..
Well you will if you meet the required climb gradient in a FAR25 certified jet, even if it only has two engines, and you lose one.
Didn't realize that only jets were certified to Part 25?
Hmmmm. I'm trying to figure out where you got that out of my post above. I never said that only jets were certified to FAR25.
What I said was
As I recall, there are some FAR23 certified jets, and there are some military jets that are not certified at all. However, if you read my previous post, I don't think that one would logically conclude that I stated that all FAR25 certified airplanes are jets, nor did I state that all jets are FAR25 certified. So what was your point?
Ohh I get it...flamebait. Good job. I guess that flying the Fokker, makes you a little sensitive to those kinda statements. Please accept my apologies.
Technically I believe that all Part 25 certified airplanes actually have turbo fan engines or turbo props. So thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. I know the distiction between Jet and Turbo Jet has caused confusion here before. So when you said "jet" you actually meant "turbo fan."
Last edited:
Ohh I get it...flamebait. Good job. I guess that flying the Fokker, makes you a little sensitive to those kinda statements. Please accept my apologies.
Technically I believe that all Part 25 certified airplanes actually have turbo fan engines or turbo props. So thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. I know the distiction between Jet and Turbo Jet has caused confusion here before. So when you said "jet" you actually meant "turbo fan."
Why would flying a Fokker make me sensitive?
So, couldn't a piston aircraft also be certified under Part 25 too? Nothing restricts Part 25 to turbine powered aircraft, now does it?
DC8, DC9, B707 and B727 are non Part 25 aircraft. But they are certified under the same regulations as the DC3 and Convair 240.
Last edited:
Yes, piston engine aircraft can be certified under part 25. Here is the reference for you. http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-101.html I have never stated otherwise. I have posted my quote twice. In fact my post did not include or exclude turboprops or piston engine aircraft, it simply mentioned that in a PART25 certified jet that you will clear the terrain if you adhere to the published climb gradient. I still don't understand why you are having difficulty with the statement. Perhaps I should have used the word aircraft instead of jet. Nonetheless, my original statement is perfectly correct if not "politically correct."
Here is the quote ONE MORE TIME:
This is getting tiresome. I hate to make any assumptions, but is English your second language? (you know - who flys a Fokker). If so, I forgive you for misunderstanding. The quote above is correct. Perhaps I should have also added if you fly the aircraft IAW the PTS, and Navigate IAW ...Under standard conditions, in an aircraft performing IAW the manufacturers minimum performance standards...yada yada yada, so as not to leave any base uncovered. Really??? Or are are you just yanking my chain??? Man you are good.:erm:
Now, are there any piston engine twins certified under Part 25????
I just checked my US ATP certificate and under limitations it says "English Proficient." I'm not sure if that is a limitation or a qualification.
Last edited:
Please, you're doing such a great job with explaining Part 25, just who does fly a Fokker?
Oh, and to answer your question: I don't really care what piston aircraft are certified under Part 25, but I do know that not all turbine aircraft, over 12,500 lbs, were Part 25 certified.
Last edited:
Hey, if you are lonely, why don't you get a Facebook account?:blush:
Really???? This discussion started as an attempt to help someone decide whether or not to get Ultra Nav or APG. I use both, and find them valuable. Some people are not comfortable using APG data to depart a mountainous airport. That's OK. Me personally, I think it is better to have the information available. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
Your contribution to this discussion has been to attempt to correct a statement made by me that you did not read correctly. Thanks for the help.
Last edited:
As to who flys a Fokker. Hmmm the only corporate operator that I knew of was in KDTW. Unfortunately that flight department closed down. I know a couple of the former pilots, and a dispatcher from there. I know the GV got put on EJM's certificate, but I think the Fokker sits. No????
A lot more Fokkers than those two. American had 75, USAir had 40, Midway had 10-ish, Mesa had 2, and that's all the Part 25 F70/100's. You also had a bunch of F28's that were operated by Allegany and Piedmont, plus the F27/FH227's that were also around the US. So what's your beef with Fokker pilots? What magnificent aircraft do you fly, it's got to be something superior, at least in your mind, that allows you to have such a high and mighty attitude?
Last edited:
APG has a great training program that you can watch, it might help you out.
UltraNav is good, but the biggest drawback, IMHO, is you need to know where all your obstacles are, for the takeoff performance to be valid.
Last edited:
Now you are at least attempting to be helpful. Wrong as you may be on some points. I would suggest that you talk to Rogers Hemphill at APG before you doubt my claim about flying the procedure regardless of how many engines are operating. Next time I'm in KDTW I'll stop by to collect a beer from you on that one.
As for the gypsum departure. I just looked at it off of both runways. If you depart off of rwy 7 (never have - since the only time this would in theory be an issue is when the weather is below takeoff minimums, I find it unlikely that you would be given permission to use Rwy 7 since the only runway with instrument approaches is Rwy25. I guess it could happen, just doubt it.) you would enter a hold and climb. AFAIC the APG departure still overlays the Gypsum departure. As for bank angle. My FD will be asking for 27 degrees at that point. So I don't see a problem with that.
What do I have against Fokker pilots?? Nothing! What do you have against contributing something meaningful to a discussion?? I guess since the flight department closure you have too much time on your hands. Wish I could help, but I doubt you'd be happy here.
BTW I'm flying a JetStar. Has 4 engines so I don't worry about all this nonsense.
As for the gypsum departure. I just looked at it off of both runways. If you depart off of rwy 7 (never have - since the only time this would in theory be an issue is when the weather is below takeoff minimums, I find it unlikely that you would be given permission to use Rwy 7 since the only runway with instrument approaches is Rwy25. I guess it could happen, just doubt it.) you would enter a hold and climb. AFAIC the APG departure still overlays the Gypsum departure. As for bank angle. My FD will be asking for 27 degrees at that point. So I don't see a problem with that.
What do I have against Fokker pilots?? Nothing! What do you have against contributing something meaningful to a discussion?? I guess since the flight department closure you have too much time on your hands. Wish I could help, but I doubt you'd be happy here.
BTW I'm flying a JetStar. Has 4 engines so I don't worry about all this nonsense.
Last edited:
Seriously???? You can get the required climb gradient from the obstacle departure portion of the chart. Ultra Nav allows you to enter the required climb in Ft. per minute or gradient, up to the required altitude. You know the trick about converting the climb in ft. per minute off the Jepp chart to figure a ballpark gradient right????
I guess you didn't have any auto plants in the Rockies or the Alps???
Now you are at least attempting to be helpful. Wrong as you may be on some points. I would suggest that you talk to Rogers Hemphill at APG before you doubt my claim about flying the procedure regardless of how many engines are operating. Next time I'm in KDTW I'll stop by to collect a beer from you on that one.
As for the gypsum departure. I just looked at it off of both runways. If you depart off of rwy 7 (never have - since the only time this would in theory be an issue is when the weather is below takeoff minimums, I find it unlikely that you would be given permission to use Rwy 7 since the only runway with instrument approaches is Rwy25. I guess it could happen, just doubt it.) you would enter a hold and climb. AFAIC the APG departure still overlays the Gypsum departure. As for bank angle. My FD will be asking for 27 degrees at that point. So I don't see a problem with that.
What do I have against Fokker pilots?? Nothing! What do you have against contributing something meaningful to a discussion?? I guess since the flight department closure you have too much time on your hands. Wish I could help, but I doubt you'd be happy here.
BTW I'm flying a JetStar. Has 4 engines so I don't worry about all this nonsense.
Where am I wrong?
from APG: I quote....
But before we move to running an analysis, let’s discuss another method of determining takeoff weight which has been in use by business jet operators. That’s the use of a TERPS climb gradient to determine takeoff weight.
• Let’s first review what TERPS is quoting directly from the TERPS document, we find that:
• “TERPS are criteria to formulate, review, approve and publish procedures for instrument approach and departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports.” (TERPS – Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, Para. 1 Purpose
• In summary, TERPS is written for designing instrument approach and departure procedures
• It is not designed to comply with or be a substitute for the FAR take-off requirements which the pilot is required to comply with.
• More important though, is that the climb requirements of TERPS are for normal, all-engines operating.
• Realize also, that no FAA certified aircraft has “approved” all engine climb data – the key word being “approved”. However, there are a very small number of aircraft – on the order of 3 or 4 - that do have “unapproved” all-engine climb data.
• Let’s now take a look at the TERPS departure considerations
• Departures based upon TERPS criteria, assume as we have just said
• All engines operating,
• In addition, if a minimum climb gradient is specified, it may be due to:
• ATC or altitude crossing constraints,
• Noise abatement, or
• Terrain or obstructions,
• Most important though, for close-in obstructions, there is no requirement to specify a gradient.
• Let’s take a look at two samples of gradient requirements…..
• Here is a Jepp 10-3 page for MSP – Minneapolis - St Paul Int’l.
• Noted in the bottom right side is a crossing restriction for runway 12 that generates a minimum climb gradient.
• This is an example of a climb gradient requirement due to an ATC crossing restriction.
• Next we have a climb gradient displayed on the reverse side of a 10-9 page for DeKalb-Peachtree.
• In the bottom section of the page are obstacle departure procedures or Obstacle DPs for several runways.
• Along with these procedures we find additional information:
• The obstacles are identified by type, height, and position.
• They’re close-in and therefore do not generate a minimum climb gradient and may be outside the FAR Corridor.;
• Looking next at the TERPS initial climb area (ICA)
• We find that the initial climb area starts at the departure end of the runway:
• At a width of 500 feet either side of the extended runway centerline and
• Increases in width by 15º (which is a 26.8% rate) out to normally 2nm from the departure end of runway (DER).
• I say “normally” in that the climb area may be less than 2nm in length or may extend up to 10nm subject to the type of departure.
• At a distance of 1.4nm from the runway the climb area width is approximately 1 nm, where the Advisory Circular is expanding from 600 ft. to 4000 ft.
• If the area was extended to 5.1nm the width would be about 3nm wide, where the Advisory Circular would be at its’ limit of 4000 ft. for straight-out or 6000 ft for a turning procedure.
• The point of this slide is to illustrate that the TERPS initial climb area is far greater area than the FAA requirements, including the Advisory Circular, which is illustrated in this comparison of the three areas.
The TERPS Initial Climb Area does look well outside the required terrain corridor and hence will possibly include obstructions that are not required by FAR 135 or 121.
• This effect is most noticeable in mountainous regions, such as Aspen or Eagle CO, where terrain well outside the FAA corridor, produces a gradient that can cost several hundred or a few thousand pounds payload, when compared to a thorough runway analysis done in accordance with the FARs.
• Using the TERPS gradient specified in the departure procedure (which remember is designed as “all-engine” gradient), in conjunction with an AFM engine-out climb gradient, does not in itself make the takeoff weight “safer” as some may believe.
• This may be contrary to some beliefs. But this is the way the FARs are written.
• In addition and more import, for some runways which do not have a published gradient, using the standard gradient of 3.3% or 200ft/nm in conjunction with an AFM engine-out climb gradient chart or table, will yield weights that are greater than a FAR compliant runway analysis would yield. In other words using the gradient method of determining takeoff weight will not assure clearing close-in obstacles! This is because of the way TERPS addresses close-in obstacle
• This is an extract from the TERPS Order addressing Close-in Obstacles
• For close-in obstacles, that is those obstacles 3 sm or less from the departure end of the runway, which penetrate the obstruction clearance slope, by TERPS criteria become “a factor”. As such the following must be accomplished:
• Publish a note identifying the obstacle type, it’s location relative to the departure end of runway, the height AGL and MSL, and
• Publish standard takeoff minimums with a required climb gradient to a specified altitude, and
• Publish a ceiling and visibility to “see and avoid” the obstacle, and/or
• Develop a text or graphic route to avoid the obstacle.
• Note: however when a low close in obstacles result in a climb gradient to an altitude 200 feet or less above the departure end runway elevation, only the first bullet applies; which is to simply “Publish a note identifying the obstacle type, it’s location relative to the departure end of runway, the height AGL and MSL”.
• Thus, in these instances, just because no minimum climb gradient appears in the procedure, does not mean that 200 ft/nm or 3.3% will be safe!!!!!
Last edited:
again, directly from APG.....
• APG can generate an Engine Out Departure Procedure or EODP for those runways where the takeoff weight is deemed to be too low due to restrictive obstructions within the takeoff corridor.
• APG utilizes a proprietary procedures generator that graphically depicts the procedure, as well as terrain and obstacles.
• Using this tool, APG is able to develop a turn procedure which will avoid compromising obstructions, while complying with FAR 135 and 121 by use of Advisory Circular 120-91.
• With the end goal being to increase takeoff weight or payload!!
• APG utilizes the following selection criteria ….
• If the runway in question has a defined Obstacle Departure procedure, APG will attempt to use it as a first choice, otherwise
• If the runway has a published SID or Departure Procedure, it will be used as a second choice. Absent these two choices APG will see..
• If the departure runway has a published missed approach,
• If none of the above are available or the takeoff weight is still unacceptable,
• APG will develop a tailored Engine Out Departure Procedure (EODP).
• In preparing an Engine Out Departure Procedure, APG will use the following development criteria…..
• When developing a tailored EODP, APG will ….
• Develop the procedure using AFM engine inoperative data.
• Compliance with FAR 135 and 121 obstacle clearance criteria using Advisory Circular 120-91.
• In addition, the Engine Out Departure Procedure is prepared recognizing that in the event of an engine failure and if used in conjunction with the Captains’ emergency authority, the procedure has precedence over:
• Noise abatement,
• Other air traffic,
• SID or DP procedure requirements, or
• Any other normal operational requirement
• Looking back at the Obstacle DP for DeKalb-Peachtree, APG would use this DP as the first choice in creating an engine-out DP.
• Along with the analysis report for runway 20L, the operator would receive…..
• The procedure text.
• This procedure would be used to define the centerline of the APG corridor, to determine the obstacles used in the runway analysis.
• Sample of another procedure where an obstacle DP is not available, however a published SID is…….
Would be Eagle Co, where the Gypsum SID is used as the basis for creating an EODP. Here the Gypsum SID is used to define the centerline of the corridor, depicted by the yellow line, for determining takeoff weights.
• This graphic is a screen snapshot of the procedure as displayed on our procedures generator.
• The terrain is displayed from our digital elevation model (DEMs).
• The obstructions, navaids and waypoints shown in blue are obstructions from the OC Chart, Digital Obstacle File (DOF) and FAA Databases.
• Because of the scale chosen so the entire display could be shown in this slide, the obstacles at the lower center of the graphic are “bunched”.
• Along with the takeoff weights for runway EGE 25DP, the operator would receive …..
The procedure text.
Note that the suffix “DP” has been added to the runway identifier in these examples to denote that the weights derived for the runway require a Departure Procedure.
For an example of a runway which does not have:
• an obstacle departure procedure, or
• a SID or
• a suitable missed approach procedure to follow.
• Or if the the weight generated by one of these procedures is considered to be too low,
• Let’s look at an option……….
• Sun Valley Idaho, Runway 13.
• In this example, APG has developed a tailored departure procedure in an effort to increase takeoff weight. It is a slight modification of an existing obstacle departure procedure.
• Along with the takeoff weights for runway 13DP1, the operator would receive …..
• The procedure text. Again, note the “DP” suffix added to denote a turn procedure.
• In each of these sample procedures that we’ve just reviewed, only those obstructions within the Advisory Circular obstacle corridor are used to determine the takeoff weights. Remembering, that if a turn is required, APG will expand the corridor from a width of 4000 feet to 6000 feet.
• In the past, procedures like these were hand drawn on topographical maps which had been taped together to form a complete picture. Drawing the procedure, selecting obstacles, entering the data into the computer would take one person the better part of a work day. And if the weights weren’t good enough, the process would be started again using a different procedure or flight path. The computer allows us to complete this entire process in less than one hour.
Sorry, I'm not a Ford pilot, so you aren't going to find me in Detroit.
Last edited:
Jet,
Thanks for the valuable insight you and the others have provided on Runway Analysis. Excellent points both for and against. I would like to see our department use both APG and Ultranav to get the total picture, but due to financial constraints I think we will be only be able justify one platform at this time, and I believe that will be APG. One of the most import aspects to APG is like you said, that it allows you to prove to the FAA how you were able to depart and meet the climb requirements without fear of being considered to operate carelessly and reckless. One last thing, when you say us 91 guys are operating under a loophole what are you referring too?
Thanks
PJ
This is the most uninformed post I have read in a long time.
All the RA data is based on an engine failure at V1. You file a normal DP and if you do lose an engine at V1, you execute the escape procedure. You don't file "no DP" or file to some random waypoint on the escape procedure. Complete FUD.
Every airline has specific escape procedures for certain airports and they ALWAYS file standard DP's with the understanding that the crew will inform ATC ASAP if they elect to deviate from the clearance to follow an escape procedure.
waddawurld
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 27
I think what jet2work is trying to say is: what if you lose an engine at some point after takeoff and you are on a standard SID? If you then try to deviate from the standard route to the APG route you are now in unknown territory with no guarantees. If you're going to lose an engine the odds are MUCH greater that it will occur somewhere along the departure path than at a single point(V1).
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
