www.code7700.com (index.

htm)


Code7700 (index.htm)
the learning never stops!

Custom Search

All Engines Operating at least double One

Engine Inoperative
Departure Obstacle Analysis
If you reduce your One Engine Inoperative (OEI) vertical
performance climb as a way of increasing payload while still
meeting obstacle clearance requirements, you will still need to
meet All Engines Operative (AEO) obstacle departure
procedure climb gradients. Very few Airplane Flight Manuals
(AFMs) provide AEO takeo climb performance because there
is no regulatory requirement to do so. If that is the case for
you, how do ensure you can meet the ODP climb gradient?;

Eddie Sez:
The FAA isn't much help here; they say only that you must consider it. What
follows is simply a theory that I think makes perfect sense. I've tested this in CL-
604, GIV, GV, and G450 simulators. I am including my G450 test results here. I
 cannot provide you an answer other than to say these are
my results and I encourage you to check them in your
simulator.

Figure: AEO versus OEI takeo climb performance, two-engine example, from
Eddie's notes.

Why This Matters

The "old school" strategy for dealing with obstacle departure climb gradients
is to use the AFM's OEI performance data to beat the AEO minimum climb
gradient:
The Pitkin County / Sardy Airport in Aspen, Colorado (KASE) obstacle
departure procedure requires the weather be at least 400-1 with a minimum
climb gradient of 460 feet per nautical mile to 14,000 feet. If an AFM doesn't
have AEO performance data, a typical response would be to plan to meet or
exceed the requirement using OEI data. That way, even if you lose an engine,
you will make the requirement.

Figure: Meeting the ODP climb gradient with OEI, from Eddie's notes.

There are several strategies to increase departure payload, fuel and/or

passengers, while still meeting obstacle clearance requirements. Most of
these strategies involve reducing the vertical margin above obstacles,
reasoning that if an engine is lost, the aircraft no longer has to meet AEO
climb gradients. That is certainly true. More about that: Departure Obstacle
Avoidance - A Strategy (doa.htm).

The problem with these strategies is that if the AFM does not have AEO
takeo performance data, how does one ensure ODP climb gradients will be
met if no engines are lost?
 Figure: Meeting the ODP obstacle clearance gradients with OEI, from Eddie's
notes.

In the Aspen example, the published AEO climb gradient is 7.6 percent and
the required obstacle clearance is 24 percent. If the aircraft is loaded to
provide for only (7.6) (1 - 0.24) = 5.8 percent, obstacle clearance is still assured
even if an engine is lost. But if the aircraft doesn't lose an engine it still needs
to meet the 7.6 percent gradient. Will it?

Deriving Minimum AEO Takeo Climb Performance

from OEI Performance
You can come up with a conservative estimate of All Engine Operating (AEO)
takeo climb performance by multiplying the Airplane Flight Manual One
Engine Inoperative (OEI) performance by the factor indicative of the power
loss. If you are ying a two-engine aircraft, for example, you are getting half
your climb gradient from each engine. If you lose an engine, your climb
gradient decreases by at least 50 percent because you will also have the
parasite drag from the wind milling or seized engine. Therefore:

A two engine aircraft operating with AEO will at least double its OEI climb
gradient.
A three-engine aircraft operating with AEO will outperform its OEI climb
gradient by at least 33 percent.
A four-engine aircraft operating with AEO will outperform its OEI climb
gradient by at least 25 percent.
This theory is based simply on the fact the AEO number represents 100% of
the thrust and the OEI is derived from the proportional loss of thrust (one-
half, one-third, or one-fourth) with an additional penalty of the failed engine's
parasite drag. But does the theory hold up in actual practice? This can be
checked easily enough if your AFM provides both AEO and OEI data, or with
an accurate ight simulator.

G450 Simulator Test

Figure: Comparing AEO and OEI takeo performance, KASE, SARDD THREE,
from Eddie's notes.

I've tested this several times, most recently in a G450 simulator. We loaded
the airplane up to the gradient required to clear all obstacles, froze the fuel
and ew two takeo s. The rst was with an engine failed at V1 and the second
with everything cooking. Our AEO performance was 2.6 times greater than the
OEI performance. This validates our theory that the AEO climb gradient will be
at least double the OEI gradient.

If you are ying a three-engine or four-engine aircraft, in fact if you are ying
any multi-engine aircraft other than a G450, I would be very happy to post
your results. Just ask the simulator operator to give you an altitude / distance
plot and make sure the conditions are equal for both an AEO and a OEI run.
"Contact Eddie" below.