Ques. About Special Departure Procedures

[your_dreamguy]

Hello,

At my company, we are required to brief special departure procedures at our landing airport as part of our in-range checklist. Does anyone know why this is done? I would think doing a single-engine missed would require following the published missed. Also, wouldn't special departure procedures apply only to departures and not missed approaches and/or single-engine missed approaches?

Your thoughts.

 

[Muppets]

Hmmmm...We brief the missed on the IAP. It is my understanding that the single engine departure is for takeoff only (terrain). Also, if you did go missed on an approach (single engine) ATC would not know where you were going if different from the plate. best bet is to ask someone in your training dept. I have flown for several airlines and never briefed the airfield performance procedure on arrival.

 

[radarlove]

It's not an easy answer, it depends on the aircraft you're flying. Most modern jets can power through a missed approach single-engine without whacking into obstacles, but some don't have the climb performance.

There are others on the board that know terps, second-stage whatever, but in the end, if you were told to brief it, it is either because 1) you don't have the single-engine climb capacity to safely exercise the missed approach, or 2) the training guy that put the procedure into effect has his head up his arse and is "remembering the day" when he had to brief it, since the B727 couldn't make the climb in Reno, so by god, you have to brief it.

 

[SSDD]

Every performance company has different requirements. In our operation we have special departures, and in the case of RNO a special missed approach procedure. It would not be appropriate to brief the special departure for a missed approach.

 

[Friday Harbor]

Your company is likely using the approach climb gradient of 2.1% for a single engine missed approach. This is the number required in part 25 and is the chart available in many AFM's. This gradient is lower than terps missed approach criteria.

In other words, if all you can do is 2.1%, you may hit the mountains on a published missed approach single engine. You may also climb better than 2.1%, or the mountains may not penetrate that on a particular published missed approach. The problem is many AFM's don't tell you the gradient you will climb, and missed approaches don't tell you what is required. Part 121 does not require you to calculate obstacle clearance on a single engine missed approach.

My company is exactly the same way. Others may handle the problem differently, with special missed approach procedures. Your company most likely doesn't look at each missed approach.

 

[SSDD]

Friday, which post are you referring to?

 

[Friday Harbor]

I was replying to the first post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Alcatraz]

Hello,

At my company, we are required to brief special departure procedures at our landing airport as part of our in-range checklist. Does anyone know why this is done? I would think doing a single-engine missed would require following the published missed. Also, wouldn't special departure procedures apply only to departures and not missed approaches and/or single-engine missed approaches?

Your thoughts.

Is this for the rare event of a single engine go around initiated AFTER the MAP or DH? For example, executing an ILS in a mountainous area where the DA is, say 500 feet, and you go around at 200 feet due to a flock of birds which then kill your engine. I don't think a published missed will protect you with the proper gradients if the go around is initiated AFTER the DA/MAP.

RNO ILS 16R seems to be a good example. There isn't too much difference between the "regular" ILS and the SILVER ILS other than the requirement for a special engine failure procedure on the SILVER ILS... yet the regular ILS has a DA that's 1100 feet above TDZE. (I know one requires DME also, but I still can't see where that would be a factor... just look at the ILS DME 16R, which still has a huge DA). If you had an engine failure on the "regular" ILS, you technically aren't required to execute the special missed with an engine failure, you would just do the published missed from the DA.

I've worked for two airlines that operated from RNO with the approval for the SILVER ILS (and they were different special engine failure procedures!), and neither airline's training departments were able to answer this question very well.

 

[J32driver]

Is this for the rare event of a single engine go around initiated AFTER the MAP or DH? For example, executing an ILS in a mountainous area where the DA is, say 500 feet, and you go around at 200 feet due to a flock of birds which then kill your engine. I don't think a published missed will protect you with the proper gradients if the go around is initiated AFTER the DA/MAP.

Ladies and Gentlemen... WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Missed approach instructions do not protect you if you initiate the go around below MDA or DH. If you shoot the approach, see the airport, proceed well below MDA and try to land, then go around from just over the runway... the only thing that will guarantee you don't hit the mountains is the special departure procedures.

There are places where the Missed approach is different from the special departure, which is different from the engine out special departure. Try briefing 3 different escape paths for one approach. Thats fun!

 

[Donsa320]

Ladies and Gentlemen... WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Missed approach instructions do not protect you if you initiate the go around below MDA or DH. If you shoot the approach, see the airport, proceed well below MDA and try to land, then go around from just over the runway... the only thing that will guarantee you don't hit the mountains is the special departure procedures.

There are places where the Missed approach is different from the special departure, which is different from the engine out special departure. Try briefing 3 different escape paths for one approach. Thats fun!

J32 has it pretty good. In some cases a heavy single engine DC-9 cannot fly a published missed approach even from the MAP. Runway 27 at BOS, I believe, is one of them. Each operator has to look at all published missed approach procedures on their system and determine if their airplanes can make them under all conditions. If they cannot then alternate procedures must be in place, as at BOS. Those procedures should be noted on the release.

 

[xkuzme1]

...

Inside of the MDA/DH a missed approach is considered a balked landing and requires a 3.1% climb gradiant. The 2.1% climb gradiant is what is required ouside of MDA/DH. A normal take off is required a 2.4% climb gradiant.

However that fits to your aircraft, some AC may not be able to meet those requirments if a SE missed or a balked landing is initiated. That why "special engine out" procedures exist. If your company has them, your a/c may not be able to meet one of those requirments. Thats why 10-7 pages are "specials" and are usually company specific.

Thats the way I understand it!

 

[RequiredNav]

FAA Notice 8400.80

In the case of the SILVER ILS at RNO, the procedure achieves lower minimums than the standard ILS due to a higher than standard missed approach climb gradient (greater than 200ft/nm). Since an engine-out aircraft may not be able to meet the required climb, an engine-out escape path may be utilized.

Also, as mentioned earlier, regardless of the procedure utilized, TERPS does not provide obstacle protection for any missed approach below the MDA or DA. Additionally, TERPS NEVER considers engine failure conditions.

FAA Notice 8400.80 provides some of the regulatory guidance on this topic.

Hope this helps.


FAA NOTICE 8400.80


SUBJ:







SPECIAL INSTRUMENT APPROACH AND ENGINE-OUT MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURES


1. PURPOSE. This notice clarifies the relationship of special instrument approach procedures, associated engine inoperative missed approach procedures (if applicable), and the Principal Operations Inspector’s (POI) responsibility in the review and approval process of such procedures.

2. DISTRIBUTION. This notice is distributed to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters; to the branch level in the regional Flight Standards divisions; to the Flight Standards District Offices, and to the Regulatory Standards Division at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. This notice is also distributed electronically to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters and to all regional Flight Standards divisions and district offices. This information is also available on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Web site at:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8400/N8400-80.doc.

3. BACKGROUND.

a. Recently, there has been a lack of uniformity in the authorizations for operators to use special instrument approach procedures (IAP). Some operators have been authorized to use special approach procedures while other operators, operating the same type of aircraft having the same performance capability, have been denied the same procedures. Many of these special IAP are not eligible as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 97 public procedures because the missed approach procedure requires a higher climb gradient than what is acceptable under the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) criteria for a public procedure. Because of the higher missed approach climb gradients, many operators have developed emergency engine inoperative missed approach procedures that differ from the special IAP missed approach procedure. Engine inoperative extraction procedures are not required to follow TERPS guidelines nor are the airlines even required to develop such procedures under 14 CFR.

b. Some of the recent denials for operators to use a particular special IAP have been based on mixing the normal missed approach requirements of the special IAP, with the non-regulatory emergency engine inoperative missed approach/extraction procedure. In particular, some operators have been wrongly required to present evidence that their aircraft could comply with the climb gradient requirements of the special IAP with an engine inoperative. Other operators have been wrongly denied the use of special IAPs because the engine inoperative procedureswerenot accepted.
4. ACTION. POIs should consider requests for special IAP and engine inoperative (emergency) missed approach procedures as two distinctly separate elements. A special IAP does not require an engine inoperative missed approach/extraction procedure for approval. Although normally submitted together in one package there is no regulatory requirement for an operator to develop an engine inoperative missed approach procedures when asking for approval of a special IAP. When a POI reviews the special IAP, the POI should verify that the proposed aircraft can meet the performance requirements under all “normal” operating conditions and the operator has properly documented the procedure as outlined in the 8260-7 and –10. Operators may elect to combine both procedures on one approach plate provided it is clearly stated that under normal operating conditions, the published missed approach must be flown and that only when operating in an emergency condition should the engine inoperative procedure be considered.

a. When approving a special IAP, the POI should verify the operator has in place the required training and operational requirements identified on FAA Form 8260-7 and –10. The operator need only comply with the operational requirements identified on FAA Form 8260 when the aircraft is operating in its normal condition, i.e., all engines operating. For example, if the FAA Form 8260 requires a climb gradient of 500 feet/nautical mile, this climb requirement should only be evaluated for the aircraft with all engines operating and not be considered as a threshold for the aircraft to meet with an engine inoperative. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that the aircraft does not conduct the special IAP at a weight and/or temperature that would not permit the aircraft to meet the climb gradient requirements, under normal operational conditions, as specified on FAA Form 8260. The aircraft need not meet the climb gradient requirements of a special IAP at all operating weights and temperatures provided the operator has procedures to limit special IAP when such conditions exists that would prevent the aircraft from achieving the specified performance requirements.

b. Although not a regulatory requirement, operators should be encouraged to develop engine inoperative missed approach procedures for all IAPs for which the aircraft would not be able to comply with the climb gradient performance requirements of the normal published missed approach procedures with an engine inoperative. While also not regulatory, when a special climb gradient is specified on an engine-inoperative missed approach procedure, operators should be encouraged to provide a table on the special approach plate that provides the equivalent rate of climb requirements based on an assumed groundspeed the aircraft is likely to achieve when operating with an engine inoperative. These procedures, if developed, only require POI acceptance. Operators with engineering departments may request from their POI acceptance of their special engine inoperative/extraction procedure development process in order to eliminate the acceptance of each special procedure.

c. It is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that, for any engine inoperative missed approach procedures developed for use within their operation, sufficient performance engineering studies have been developed to verify the procedure provides adequate obstacle clearance throughout the procedure. When developing emergency engine inoperative extraction procedures, operators may be limited to flight paths that would only allow for obstacle avoidance until sufficient altitude is achieved to land at the airport or fly to an alternate airport as required by the type of emergency. It should be remembered that the typical TERPS obstacle clearance requirements are not required to be met when an aircraft in being operated in an emergency condition. Operators should submit to the POI summarized performance data for his/her review. The POI’s acceptance of the engine inoperative (emergency) missed approach procedure should be based in part on his level of confidence in the operator’s engine inoperative performance data. The operators’ policies, procedures, and training for the utilization of engine inoperative missed approach procedures should be reviewed as part of this acceptance process.