Single-Engine Climb requirements

[MauleSkinner]

Don't forget to check your OpSpecs, section C079...everywhere I flew 135, at least some of the lower-than-standard takeoff authorizations required compliance with 135.367, .379, or .398 for all aircraft.

Fly safe!

David

 

[flyboyike]

For Small, non-transport 135 aircraft, (King Air 90, 200, Baron, etc), do you have to have single-engine climb gradient performance?

It has nothing to do with whether you're Part 135 or not. A Part 23 aircraft is not required to show SE climb performance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It has nothing to do with whether you're Part 135 or not. A Part 23 aircraft is not required to show SE climb performance.

Don't confuse certification rules with operational rules...there are a LOT of things that aren't required for certification that ARE required under various operational regulations.

Fly safe!

David

 

[flyboyike]

Don't confuse certification rules with operational rules...there are a LOT of things that aren't required for certification that ARE required under various operational regulations.

Absolutely right, but one would think that an aircraft that can't do something won't magically become capable of that something due only to the type of operation.

In other words, are you saying that there is a gradient requirement for Part 23 aircraft when operating under 135? I'm not saying there isn't, only that I don't see it in the FARs. Can you point me to the pertinent reg?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Absolutely right, but one would think that an aircraft that can't do something won't magically become capable of that something due only to the type of operation.

Again, don't confuse issues...just because it's "not required for certification" doesn't mean that it "can't". Some can, some can't...you just can't use the ones that can't for that particular operation if it's required.

In other words, are you saying that there is a gradient requirement for Part 23 aircraft when operating under 135? I'm not saying there isn't, only that I don't see it in the FARs. Can you point me to the pertinent reg?

Check out my OpSpecs post above.

Fly safe!

David

 

[flyboyike]

Again, don't confuse issues...just because it's "not required for certification" doesn't mean that it "can't". Some can, some can't...you just can't use the ones that can't for that particular operation if it's required.

Check out my OpSpecs post above.

Fly safe!

David

Yes, I understand about Ops Specs. My question is, is there anything in the FARs that mandates a Part 23 aircraft to demonstrate SE climb performance while under 135 and, if there is, can you point me to it?

Much obliged.

 

[Coastin]

Check out Appendix A to part 135

 

[flyboyike]

Check out Appendix A to part 135

Thank you, that's exactly what I was after. If I understand the appendix correctly, almost no light twin would qualify at any meaningful weight. The King Airs, Barons etc are another matter.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes, I understand about Ops Specs. My question is, is there anything in the FARs that mandates a Part 23 aircraft to demonstrate SE climb performance while under 135 and, if there is, can you point me to it?

Much obliged.

119.7 mandates OpSpecs.

From the OpSpecs of the last operator I flew for:

For takeoffs when the RVR is less than touchdown zone RVR and rollout RVR authorized in subparagraph b(2) (if selected), each airplane used must be operated at a takeoff weight which permits the airplane to achieve the performance equivalent to the takeoff performance specified in 14CFR section 135.367 for reciprocating power airplanes...

Granted, it's not a regulation specifically requiring engine-out performance, but effectively it does.

Fly safe!

David

 

[SMOOTHRIDE]

Forgive me;

IFR (below the "other" column on the Jepp SID) you have to make your chosen SID climb gradient, single engine, correct? Legally, maybe not, but if you wanna live to be an old pilot--yes. VFR, it's see and avoid, right y'all? There are many stories out there that we all have--and that's how we learn, by others' experience. So by all means, talk away, it's more fun that way--here goes my attempt:

One time, at band camp, I was flying outta OOBI (gulf), P-3 at night, very heavy, and it was hot and humid (of course). The aft observer reported sparks coming out of the engine, and we had to shut it down (it was safe to do so--we had altitude--which was nice). We dumped fuel, came back, and made an overweight landing (which was ok to do in an emergency 3 engine landing). If not shut down, the engine would have ate itself very soon, the mechs told us the next morning via the borescope inspection. Scary stuff.

I also had an engine roll back in a kingair to min fuel flow just before takeoff when I was ligning up on the runway in KBOI. If that had happened just a few seconds later, it would have been interesting. We aborted and had to taxi back pretty much single engine.

These two situations, in an IFR environment would have resulted in complying with the SID climb gradient single engine. Don't bet it won't happen to you. I have more examples, that time I hit 7 ducks at once in a P-3 while practicing a engine failure after V1 comes to mind. The airplane shuddered. All the maintainers on the ramp stared as we came to a stop in the chocks, guts everywhere. Damn birds.. that was unexpected. Aint that the way it is... Passengers will wait when it's a safety/legal issue. Pick your chief pilots brain, ask the other guys what they have done, and don't be shy about it. You know how pilots are, we love to talk airplanes--all of us. No worries.

The dark, ugly part of this business is when you have to make a safety decision (backed up by regs/ actual safety issues, aircraft limits, your limits, etc...) and your company doesn't back you up. None of us want to delay or cancel a flight, but when you have to, so be it. PAX get home itis or the commpany telling you to go when it's not safe to do so happens quite alot, and you have to stick to your guns. I didn't like that part of the business.

Fly Safe,

SR