You're on the approach when there's a deer!

[E_Dawg]

Just to add, I fly a prop. If you have seen the mesa video of the Dash hitting the baggage cart you know what can happen, the 4 blade 8 foot prop flies off and engine bits go every which way.

If you really want to get into all the hypotheticals, who's to say it won't go straight through the fuselage. That's not gonna be a great outcome... just another thing to think about.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

just another thing to think about.

Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner!

That's why blanket statements like...

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

A transport aircraft is going to climb better than the lowest common denominator the TERPS were designed for.

can kill.

There's more to it than pushing the power up and blasting off.

That's why, although I like the Doug's question, we needed (and probably still need) more info to make any kind of intelligent statement on what to do. Lots of good ideas, but without knowing all of the specifics it's kind of hard to discuss. Good scenario to toss out at students though...whether they're primary or upgrade/captain candidates.

-mini

[E_Dawg]

Originally Posted by minitour

Blanket statements can certainly get someone killed. Especially if you just go around saying "hey I'm in a transport category airplane, I can outclimb terps" (period). That kind of thinking, blanket statements, thinking in absolutes...can kill. It isn't that simple.
-mini

Normal missed approach climb gradient is 200'/nm. Call it a dangerous blanket statement if you want to, but it's hard for me to imagine a transport plane that can't do 500 fpm at 150kts. My plane can beat that. That is not an opinion that can 'kill', that is simply a fact. Obviously if the missed calls for a higher climb gradient that is under consideration. To me, that beats the crap out of hitting a deer in MOST situations!!

[minitour]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

That is not an opinion that can 'kill', that is simply a fact.

Well you certainly have it all figured out. Excellent.

-mini

[E_Dawg]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying OTHER than 'that kind of thinking... can kill ya'. I know you're playing devil's advocate and it was good for me to think about it. That's the whole point of the thread. No hard feelings

[minitour]

Actually just stating a transport cat plane can out climb TERPS all the time might not be 100% accurate and that kind of blanket thinking can indeed kill you if you think you're just going to pour the coals on and go vertical.

200'/mile is ~ 3.3%

Minimum requirements for part 25 are 2.1% for 2 engine planes on an approach climb (OEI) and 3.2% for Landing climb (all engines operating). That's still .1% below the required climb gradient. Yeah, there's that safe zone the obstacles aren't allowed to hit, but you're already blowing some of that when you are possibly in the flare when you see Bambi. And sure, most planes can do better than the minimum...but not always. Your plane isn't required to do any more than what part 25 says.

Here are the certification regs. You get better minimum OEI climb with 3 and 4 engine planes (obviously), but only up to 2.7%.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.155.17

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.155.18

The climb out of ASE on the departure (assuming a miss from the runway...since that's when you'd see the deer) is as high as 14% off of the ASE departure. LINDZ gets you down to 7.6%. Double that which is required for an all engine operating climb. That's probably why approach minimums are 2300' AGL up there, so you've got a chance when executing a missed approach. There's also a reason I've been told over and over by guys with 10x the experience you and I have combined...go in there only when it's VFR. Leave there only when it's VFR. Be able to see what you're going to hit.

For Comparison
ROA - 3.6%-4.3% Climb on the departure. The ILS goes down to ~600' AGL for a reason.

LAX - As high as 8.3% depending on the departure being used.

PHX - As high as 6.3% again depending on the departure/fix/runway.

JFK - As high as 8.9% " " "

Point is, it's not just ASE, TEX, etc that you need to consider these climb gradients when thinking about what to do when something like this happens. It isn't always just a case of "oh, transport category plane...that means I can outclimb it". Sometimes all that does is put you higher into the rocks when you run into them.

-mini

[E_Dawg]

Good info. Thanks for doing the legwork. I never said you will beat the terps criteria OEI, although you and I both know most times even OEI you still will beat 200f/nm. I still think your argument is along the lines of not wearing a car seatbelt because there's a chance you could be thrown clear of the accident and avoid injury. You're advocating hitting the deer on the chance you'll have an engine fail as soon as you add power to avoid it.

Even OEI you can still make it happen, if the terrain is really that bad you can circle above the airport in the climb... that's what you do (initially) on a missed from a circle approach anyways. I'm sure you'll dig into me for that idea as well but it's emergency deviation authority. If you're literally surrounded by cliffs on all sides, just outside the 1.7 or 2.3 mi area then I guess you would be SOL at that point and should have hit the deer after all. That is something to know before you begin the approach... once we pass the MAP we are not rejecting the landing. Maybe that is not the best approach to shoot then, since you're knowingly leaving yourself with only one option: land. All I'm suggesting is taking the least risky option given the facts as you know them at the time. What more can you do...

[E_Dawg]

You know, screw it. On second thought I think I WILL kill Bambi. Full power and aim straight for the jugular to make sure she's nice 'n dead! Fire up the grill, we're eatin dinner tonight!!

[minitour]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

Good info. Thanks for doing the legwork. I never said you will beat the terps criteria OEI, although you and I both know most times even OEI you still will beat 200f/nm. I still think your argument is along the lines of not wearing a car seatbelt because there's a chance you could be thrown clear of the accident and avoid injury. You're advocating hitting the deer on the chance you'll have an engine fail as soon as you add power to avoid it.

Actually if you'll re-read, some of those climb gradients are higher than the requirements for landing climb (which is all engines operating). I dug those up since you were getting hung up on my bringing up the engine failure at ASE.

-mini

[E_Dawg]

No, I got that. So, never go missed then?

[minitour]

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

No, I got that. So, never go missed then?

You still aren't learning. Using a word like "never" isn't a good idea. Neither is a statement like...

Originally Posted by E_Dawg

A transport aircraft is going to climb better than the lowest common denominator the TERPS were designed for.

The blanket statements you're making can kill. You have to have more info than just saying 1) never "go missed" or 2) the transport category aircraft will "climb better" than TERPS. There's just more to it. I'd hope you know this by now.

-mini

[E_Dawg]

I'm taking your statement to the extreme to demonstrate that obviously you would still go missed despite 3.3 being a bigger number than 3.2. Because your actual performance is better than what is minimally required.

Anyhoo, I'm done with this thread, it doesn't seem to be headed anywhere productive. Nor do you seem able to hold a conversation about hypotheticals without talking down to me.

[dasleben]

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by dasleben

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

EXACTLY.

If you cannot go missed (or reject the landing), then maybe you should go somewhere else.

I realize there are groups of pilots out there who do not have this option, such as in the military. For the majority of operations though, if you don't have a "Plan B" to get away from the ground, then you're really boxing yourself into a corner.

[400A]

Originally Posted by dasleben

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

Well, see here is an example of "not quite getting it". If I am going missed at the DH/MAP I know what performance I need, if it is after that point, I have no idea. If I can meet the 3.3% at the MAP, I might need 4.5% 1 mile after the MAP or I might need 3.0% you don't know and there is really no way to know.

The balked landing chart for the Beechjet doesn't give much information either. The highest and hottest I can make a 3.3% balked landing climb (all engines, ECS on, anti ice off) is 8000 feet and 28 deg C. The only point I know where 3.3% will work is at the MAP for that runway. If I am on the runway and go around I don't know what my performance is, unless I have the data for that runway, temp, weigth and position on the runway where I initiated the go around, even that is off.

A go around is always and option, and for a majority of situations being out of position along an approach path and conducting a go around is less risky than forcing a bad landing, either for stablization of because of hazards on the runway. Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

[dasleben]

Originally Posted by 400A

Well, see here is an example of "not quite getting it". If I am going missed at the DH/MAP I know what performance I need, if it is after that point, I have no idea. If I can meet the 3.3% at the MAP, I might need 4.5% 1 mile after the MAP or I might need 3.0% you don't know and there is really no way to know.

The balked landing chart for the Beechjet doesn't give much information either. The highest and hottest I can make a 3.3% balked landing climb (all engines, ECS on, anti ice off) is 8000 feet and 28 deg C. The only point I know where 3.3% will work is at the MAP for that runway. If I am on the runway and go around I don't know what my performance is, unless I have the data for that runway, temp, weigth and position on the runway where I initiated the go around, even that is off.

A go around is always and option, and for a majority of situations being out of position along an approach path and conducting a go around is less risky than forcing a bad landing, either for stablization of because of hazards on the runway. Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

Wow, your first post to me in this thread and you're already talking to me like I'm a chump.

Come back when you have a better attitude, and we'll talk like professionals.

[400A]

Originally Posted by dasleben

Wow, your first post to me in this thread and you're already talking to me like I'm a chump.

Come back when you have a better attitude, and we'll talk like professionals.

Grow some thicker skin. Your post was way more "talking to someone like a chump". This whole discussion has been about what to do if you are past the MAP and there is something on the runway that may or may not require a go around. You come in "knowing it all" and state.

Here's my opinion on this:

If you look in your book prior to departure and see that you won't be able to meet the missed approach climb gradients OEI, perhaps you should pick another airport.

When this whole discussion had nothing to do with single engine missed approach at the MAP.

[dasleben]

It was merely my opinion, and that was backed up by another poster to boot (whom I don't think felt that I was being a jerk about it). Your points are valid, but your execution is lacking.

My point was meant to be general: Don't launch unless you know that you have OEI performance on the missed. It's the most basic way you could cover your own butt. Beyond that, you're absolutely right: if you're past the MAP and/or below MDA/DA you could absolutely have problems if you pop one.

But, just about everything we do in aviation has a calculated risk attached to it. If a pilot wants to be 100% safe all the time, then he shouldn't fly. Hell, tagging the deer in an attempt to mitigate the risks of losing an engine below the MDA could kill you too. Me personally? Based on what I've seen in this thread I go missed. If I pop one between where I balked the landing and MDA, well, I'm just one unlucky SOB that day. However, knowledge of the local terrain, knowing that you can maintain the missed approach climb gradient OEI, and yes, even knowledge of the gradients listed in the ODP can all work together to mitigate your risks.

Here's actually a great article about this: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jul97.pdf

[FlyChicaga]

My point is, if you think you can get in, shouldn't you make sure you can get out?

A balked landing is similar to a takeoff, no? So if you can depart the airport, you should be able to accomplish a balked landing.

[400A]

Originally Posted by FlyChicaga

My point is, if you think you can get in, shouldn't you make sure you can get out?

A balked landing is similar to a takeoff, no? So if you can depart the airport, you should be able to accomplish a balked landing.

I can depart an airport lighter than the weight I am landing at.

You are correct, most of the time if you can depart you can most likely execute a balked landing, however, it comes back again to knowing what the gradients are for that particular runway, at your current weight, altitude, temp, etc. You may no be able to execute the ODP on that runway, but could execute a balked landing, while being able to depart on another runway.

The point isn't to go tit for tat on what ifs, the point is, things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out". There are grey areas in performance and situations, you just need to be able to manage the risk(s) to an acceptable level and be best armed to make the good decisions when it hits the fan.

[FlyChicaga]

Originally Posted by 400A

The point isn't to go tit for tat on what ifs, the point is, things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out". There are grey areas in performance and situations, you just need to be able to manage the risk(s) to an acceptable level and be best armed to make the good decisions when it hits the fan.

Thank you!

That is key. You can talk about what's legal and the "book definitions" until you are blue in the face, but fundamentally you'll be making this decision in seconds. Just be able to explain your decision making process when all is said and done.

[Doug Taylor]

Here's kind of what I was curious about your airline's views on missed approaches passed the missed approach point. This is how we look at it at Southernjets.

Well, at least the way we're supposed to:

Picture 2.png

[minitour]

Originally Posted by 400A

Do not, however, assume just because it works most of the time that it will work that one time you need it and you think you have the performance to out climb the granite because you don't understand how the performance charts work or what TERSP criteria is really giving you.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by 400A

...things aren't always as simple as, "sum bitch flew, sum bitch will fly out"...

Exactly what I've been trying to say the whole thread. Thank you for putting it in to a short, sweet, concise sentence.

-mini

[AUAeropilot]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Here's kind of what I was curious about your airline's views on missed approaches passed the missed approach point. This is how we look at it at Southernjets.

Well, at least the way we're supposed to:

Yeap, and you're talking to the guy that's been tasked to work on the analysis to change it. It's complicated and makes you think about more "what if's" than you can count on one hand, but we're getting through it. There is no regulation that requires the operator to analyze the rejected landing, either all engine or engine out. By means of an AC, we have been tasked to give "guidance" in cases where a flight crew may not be able to perform a rejected landing, any go-around passed the MAP, but there is no legal requirement to do so.

We are learning that the misconception among the pilots is that you are guaranteed obstacle and/or terrain clearance by flying the published missed in a rejected landing scenario and that your landing weights are based on this. You are not; as TERPS is used to establish clearances and as such the TERPS analysis drives the MDA/DH to an appropriate altitude. Many times clue number one that a rej ldg may not be such a good idea is if there is no ILS to a runway or the missed approach turn is well behind you. The landing weight is simply pavement or approach climb requirements and when we run the landing numbers, they could care less if there is a mountain in front of you...SXM runway 10 for example.

Doug and any other southernjets pilots, I would love to get your take on this. Feel free to PM and I'll send you contact info. This is currently being revised in a major way and may even be out in the next couple of years and any understanding I have of what you guys are thinking with respect to this would be benficial moving forward.

It's a touchy subject, but southernjets has had the ODP to be flown all engine in a rejected landing situation in that it guarantees that if an engine blows after a published missed turns away from the ODP, the original takeoff weights were based on the ODP, and as long as the landing weights are lower than MTOW's for that runway, the flight crew is safe at all times of the rejected landing. It's when the divergance from the ODP occurs that you could expose the crew to losing an engine and being up the creek at this point.

Landing weight > MTOW for the same runway....red flag

[Polar742]

If I remember right, the criteria for a balked landing is a 3.3 % gradient with ALL ENGINES running for twins.

As a note, that is significantly higher than the 2.5% OEI gradient for takeoff.

So, while operators that have tailored OEI procedures have an advantage for running higher takeoff weights, and thus can use that for a balked landing procedure, operators that don't use specific turn procedures for OEI operations must use good judgment for terrain avoidance.

Kinda goes back to using your experience as an aviator and in a specific aircraft to know what it can and can not do.

At least, that's how I see it.