Question for John Tullamarine and Old Smokey
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for John Tullamarine and Old Smokey
John, Old Smokey,
Standard Obstacle Clearance runs a slope upwards from a point 35 feet above the end of the departure runway at 152 feet per nautical mile to check for obstacles.
My questions, after searching TERPS and PANS OPS, are these;
1. How far does this evaluation go out ?
2. Why do some manufacturers choose 400 above airport elevation (or clear of obstacles if higher) to enter the third (transitional) segment and some manufacturers choose 1500 above airport elevation (or clear of obstacles if higher) to do the same ?
Many thanks in advance,
Bruce Waddington
Standard Obstacle Clearance runs a slope upwards from a point 35 feet above the end of the departure runway at 152 feet per nautical mile to check for obstacles.
My questions, after searching TERPS and PANS OPS, are these;
1. How far does this evaluation go out ?
2. Why do some manufacturers choose 400 above airport elevation (or clear of obstacles if higher) to enter the third (transitional) segment and some manufacturers choose 1500 above airport elevation (or clear of obstacles if higher) to do the same ?
Many thanks in advance,
Bruce Waddington
Moderator
My ops eng work has been pretty well exclusively to Oz rules so I'll leave the first question to OS and Mutt who play in other jurisdictions.
400ft is the minimum third segment under the normal airworthiness design rules (I can't open the FAA site just now to cite the FAA rule but one of us will, no doubt, do so in due course) so the usual flight manual data has this as the lowest data level for analysis.
Normally the takeoff is taken to have been completed at 1500ft so the usual AFM data presentation will provide for 400ft through to some level generally not exceeding 1500ft. There is no reason why an OEM can't use a higher level if that is considered to offer a marketing or similar advantage for a particular Type.
Sometimes a system limitation will truncate that range eg RR Dart aircraft usually are limited to 600ft due to an autofeather pump limitation as I recall.
400ft is the minimum third segment under the normal airworthiness design rules (I can't open the FAA site just now to cite the FAA rule but one of us will, no doubt, do so in due course) so the usual flight manual data has this as the lowest data level for analysis.
Normally the takeoff is taken to have been completed at 1500ft so the usual AFM data presentation will provide for 400ft through to some level generally not exceeding 1500ft. There is no reason why an OEM can't use a higher level if that is considered to offer a marketing or similar advantage for a particular Type.
Sometimes a system limitation will truncate that range eg RR Dart aircraft usually are limited to 600ft due to an autofeather pump limitation as I recall.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
400'
400' is a carry over from the water injected days. It would allow for acceleration and clean up before you ran out of water. I looked for that piece of information for a long time.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 'tween posts
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may,
TOCS takeoff climb surface(for each r/w) is the area beyond clearway, or if no clearway exists then a min 60m from r/w end upto15000m.
do correct me if i am wrong
TOCS takeoff climb surface(for each r/w) is the area beyond clearway, or if no clearway exists then a min 60m from r/w end upto15000m.
do correct me if i am wrong
Bruce
IIRC, TERPS runs the evaluation out to where, in the case of diverse departure
(omnidirectional for PANS-OPS) the OCS intercepts the lowest compatible airway MEA or MIA (min instrument altitude). For SIDS, I am not sure but probably similar--an MEA. Note, it is the lowest airway MEA, so there might be a disconnect between the lowest and the airway you are departing on.
OEMs do perf charts differently, some go well beyond 1500' AFL, the one I am familiar with charts to 12,000 AFL including corrections to the V2 speeds when level-off is above 1500 feet.
GF
IIRC, TERPS runs the evaluation out to where, in the case of diverse departure
(omnidirectional for PANS-OPS) the OCS intercepts the lowest compatible airway MEA or MIA (min instrument altitude). For SIDS, I am not sure but probably similar--an MEA. Note, it is the lowest airway MEA, so there might be a disconnect between the lowest and the airway you are departing on.
OEMs do perf charts differently, some go well beyond 1500' AFL, the one I am familiar with charts to 12,000 AFL including corrections to the V2 speeds when level-off is above 1500 feet.
GF
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
12 Posts
Many airports have departure procedures over flat terrain. I seem to remember that having a lower third segment can allow a higher takeoff weight at least in some cases.
Anyone care to confirm for me.
Anyone care to confirm for me.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Longitudinal distance for OCS
Gentle people
Somewhere in the back of the old grey matter, I recall the longitudinal distance for OCS as being 7,500m. Unfortunately, I cannot find the specific reference.
However, in a recommendation to my company for a EOSID for PANC RWY32 because engine out considerations of third segment (1100ft QNH) which on a straight takeoff path puts aircraft through a major LAC (light aircraft lane (but that is another story), I came across CAAP (Civil Aviation Advisory Publication) 235-4(0), which apart from providing a great deal of information on EOSIDs, provides a great many references relating to engine out/performance critera. The URL is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/235_4.pdf
Somewhere in the back of the old grey matter, I recall the longitudinal distance for OCS as being 7,500m. Unfortunately, I cannot find the specific reference.
However, in a recommendation to my company for a EOSID for PANC RWY32 because engine out considerations of third segment (1100ft QNH) which on a straight takeoff path puts aircraft through a major LAC (light aircraft lane (but that is another story), I came across CAAP (Civil Aviation Advisory Publication) 235-4(0), which apart from providing a great deal of information on EOSIDs, provides a great many references relating to engine out/performance critera. The URL is:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/235_4.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B.W the PANS OPS 4 further indicates that the acceleration segment criteria have been deleted, as formerly published in ICAO Document 8168, Volume II, First, Second and Third Editions. 1500 ft as a minimum acceleration hight seems to be a reasonable value covering all versions of PANS OPS. Just my 2 cents.
