APG, EFB Pro, Ultranav

[jet2work]

Please, you're doing such a great job with explaining Part 25, just who does fly a Fokker?

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????

 

[fokkerjet]

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?

 

[fokkerjet]

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. No it doesn't. APG is giving you Part 25, single engine, obstacle clearance data. It will offer an alternate procedure, if it will allow for an increase in takeoff weight. It's not IAW TERPS. APG also shows you different scenarios like what an increase or decrease in temperature will allow you to do. Takeoff weight is adjusted for various factors, including runway contamination, pressure changes, winds, temperature, flap selected and bleeds. Also corrections are factored for inoperative equipment, like anti-skid and ground spoilers inop. 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. Yeah, it's giving you obstacle clearance for current conditions!

(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 WTF you taking about? You file as normal, lose an engine, declare an emergency, and deviate as planned. You do not fly the emergency departure procedure, all engines running! 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 maybe alternate procedure, standard is straight out, to 30 miles, 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 Yes it is!. 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. Little more than that. Besides holding at VAILE, and climbing, it also requires a non-standard (for single-engine) bank angle, and airspeed restrictions.

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 You may want to re-read the TORA/TODA? 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​

Read the notes on the bottom of Jepps 10-9: Runways 23,14 and 32 state that the last 290', 450' and 130' respectively, is unusable for landing compulation (nor as a stopway). Can you figure out why the Runway 05, has a TORA of 5000' and TODA of 5290'?
If you could not tell by now, I highly recommend APG. And no, I do not work for them. boy, I'm glad!​

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.

 

[jet2work]

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.

 

[jet2work]

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.

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???

 

[fokkerjet]

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!!!!!

 

[fokkerjet]

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???

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.

 

[PlaneJohn]

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.

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

 

[ILOVEBEER]

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.

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]

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).