APG, EFB Pro, Ultranav

[fokkerjet]

Also interesting is that the escape procedures are never test flown; they're developed via computer software, and then released.

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?

 

[jet2work]

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[fokkerjet]

Seeing the obstacle, doesn't mean that you will be able to avoid it with an engine loss. Neither does operating an aircraft having 3 or more engines, mean that you will clear those same obstacles with an engine loss either.

 

[jet2work]

Seeing the obstacle, doesn't mean that you will be able to avoid it with an engine loss.

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..

Neither does operating an aircraft having 3 or more engines, mean that you will clear those same obstacles with an engine loss either.

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.

 

[fokkerjet]

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?

 

[jet2work]

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

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.

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."

 

[fokkerjet]

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.

 

[jet2work]

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[fokkerjet]

This is getting tiresome. I hate to make any assumptions, but is English your second language? (you know - who flys a Fokker).

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.

 

[jet2work]

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.

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.