OPERATIONS

Departure Obstacles
Strategies for avoiding things
that can snag and grab

COURTESY HTTP://WWW.TOM CUCCIO.COM

BY JAMES ALBRIGHT [email protected]

I
was in Aspen, Colorado, about 15 years ago, sitting in the There are at least three strategies for dealing with airport
FBO with at least 10 other crews all doing the same thing: departure obstacles, each valid in its own way but each with
looking at the overcast. The obstacle departure procedure limitations that must be understood to maximize safety mar-
for the Aspen-Pitkin County/Sardy Field Airport (KASE) gins. And therein lies the problem: The rules are spread across
simply says, “use SARDD DEPARTURE.” That departure pro- at least seven FARs, two documents from the International
cedure requires the weather be at least 400-1 and mandates a Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.S. Advisory Circular
climb of at least 460 ft./nm all the way up to 14,000 ft. and the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
“If we can’t see the obstacles,” I explained to our CEO and (TERPS), also known as FAA Order 8260.3B. But once you un-
derstand the competing regulatory issues, you can dispassion-
ately sift through the strategies and pick one that works for you.
Net versus actual flight path That process begins with looking at how your airplane’s perfor-
mance gets reported in your Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).

Takeoff Climb Performance

The takeoff performance data in your AFM may not be de-
signed as you might think.
First off, the takeoff path of the airplane must assume the
loss of the critical engine. The U.S. rules for transport category
aircraft are covered by 14 CFR 25, Section 25.111. Internation-
ally, these rules are covered by ICAO Annex 8, Part IIIA, Para-
graph 2.2.3.
Secondly, the “net” takeoff flight path reflected by AFM
performance data represents the actual takeoff flight path
reduced at each point by a gradient of climb equal to 0.8% for
two-engine airplanes, 0.9% for three-engine airplanes and 1.0%
lead passenger, “we have to out-climb them. We are too heavy for four-engine airplanes.
to do that so we have to wait until the weather improves.” These reductions are found in 14 CFR 25.115. ICAO Annex
Just then we heard the roar of another corporate jet roll- 6 requires a net takeoff path be used. In either case, these
ing down the runway. Everyone rushed to the windows as the numbers reflect a margin of safety. A margin of 0.8% for a
airplane disappeared into the low overcast. Was that crew two-engine aircraft doesn’t sound like much and it isn’t: just
acting recklessly or were we crews in the FBO missing some- 0.008 x 6,076 = 48.6 ft./nm. There is, however, another margin
thing important? to consider.

48 Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 www.bcadigital.com

 in feet and d is the distance from the DER in nautical miles.
Procedures Based on Let’s say, for example, we have an obstacle that is 1,500 ft.
All Engines Operating above and 5 nm (30,380 ft.) away from the DER. The obstacle
has a gradient of 1,500 ÷ 30,380 = 0.0494, or 4.94%. The ICAO
Unlike aircraft takeoff performance data, obstacle depar- MOC is always 0.8%, so our PDG is 4.94 + 0.8 = 5.74%. Our
ture procedures are designed assuming all engines operating height above the obstacle would be (0.0574 x 30,380) - 1,500)
(AEO). The U.S. rules are given in TERPS, Volume 1, Para- = 244 ft. Under TERPS, the climb gradient is h ÷ (0.76 x d), or
graph 201: “Criteria are predicated on normal aircraft opera- 1,500 ÷ (0.76 x 5) = 395 ft./nm. (That’s 6.5%, much higher than
tions for considering obstacle clearance requirements.” ICAO the ICAO PDG.) So our ROC = 0.24 x 395 = 95 ft./nm. At 5 nm,
has a similar provision in Document 8168, Volume II. our height above the obstacle will be 5 x 95 = 475 ft., almost
Both ICAO and TERPS specify a minimum climb gradient double the ICAO margin.
for all departure procedures. ICAO calls this the minimum
procedure design gradient (PDG) and says it can never be less
than 3.3%. TERPS calls this the minimum climb gradient (CG)
Low, Close-In Obstacles
and says it can never be less than 200 ft./nm. These values While ICAO and TERPS cast a very wide net when considering
most departure obstacles, both seem to ignore obstacles known
by the seemingly innocuous term “low, close-in obstacles.”
ICAO and TERPS climb gradient comparison TERPS and ICAO do not adjust climb gradients, takeoff min-
imums or procedures for any obstacles that are not higher than
200 ft. within the first nautical mile from the DER. TERPS,
Volume 4, Paragraph 1.3.1 requires only that “the location and
height of any obstacles that cause such climb gradients” be
annotated. The same “catch” exists in ICAO Document 8168,
Volume II, Paragraph 2.
In either case, a note is published to help us identify and
plan to avoid these obstacles, but these are rarely written with
enough specifics to help the pilot.

KBUR Takeoff Minimums and

are about the same, since 200 ÷ 6,076 = 0.033, which is simply Obstacle Departure Procedures,
another way of writing 3.3%. FAA SW3TO, 4 Feb 2016
ICAO and TERPS also specify a surface below the aircraft’s
path that identifies a zone where obstacles cannot penetrate
without having to change the climb gradient. (There is an
exception for low, close-in obstacles but more on that later.)
The ICAO obstacle identification surface (OIS) starts at the
departure end of runway (DER) and inclines upward by 2.5%.
The TERPS obstacle clearance surface (OCS) also starts at the
DER and inclines upward by 152 ft./nm. The values are about
the same, since (152 ÷ 6,076 = 0.025, which is 2.5%.
If you take the minimum climb gradient and subtract the ob- Consider, for example, the note associated with Runway 33
stacle surface you get the safety margin between the two. Un- at Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, California (KBUR). There are
der ICAO, the minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is 3.3 - 2.5 = “multiple trees, poles, terrain, buildings, road beginning 33
0.8%. Mathematically, MOC = 0.008 x d, where d is the distance ft. from DER, 30 ft. right of centerline, up to 100 ft. AGL.” For
from the DER expressed in feet. Note that this value does not anyone who has used that runway, finding a 100-ft. AGL target
change with the climb gradient. MOC is 0.008 x 6,076 ft./nm = 33 ft. from DER would seem an easy task, except that it doesn’t
48.6 ft./nm, no matter how steep is your climb gradient. exist. The poorly worded sentence provides the pilot with very
Under TERPS, the required obstacle clearance (ROC) is 24% little useful information.
of the climb gradient. Mathematically, ROC = 0.24 x CG. For The FAA offers a digital obstacle file for the U.S. at http://
the minimum climb gradient of 200 ft./nm, you have an ROC of www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/
0.24 x 200 = 48 ft./nm. But as you steepen your climb, you also dof/, but these are very large, cumbersome, and take a good
increase your ROC. computer to really digest. If you wanted to try, you would see
If an obstacle, other than a low, close-in obstacle (more on that the file covering KBUR is 790 pages long and includes
that later), penetrates the OIS/OCS, the procedure’s climb gra- these two gems:
dient must be raised to preserve the MOC or ROC. Under ICAO, 06-030661 O US CA BURBANK 34 12 56.17N 118 21 50.28W
the 0.8% MOC is added to the gradient created by the obstacle. POLE 1 00050 00846 R 2 C U A 2013106
If, for example, a line from the DER to the obstacle is 5%, the 06-001786 O US CA BURBANK 34 12 52.00N 118 21 41.00W
procedure design gradient is raised to 5.8%. POLE 1 00048 00831 L 1 A U C 2014152
Under TERPS, the climb gradient is adjusted to the following So, if you were able to find these two obstacles out of the
formula: CG = h ÷ (0.76 x d), where h is the height of the obstacle thousands given, and if you plotted them, you would see exactly

www.bcadigital.com Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 49

 OPERATIONS
the location of two of your low, close-in obstacles. The most
critical appears to be 53 ft. above and 812 ft. from the DER,
almost on centerline.
Is this a problem? Let’s say it is raining, the weather is above
standard and you are permitted to leave with the minimum
climb gradient of 300 ft./nm to 5,000 ft. That comes to 300 ÷
6,076 = 0.0494, or 4.94%. If the maximum weight for this climb
gradient requires a ground run following an engine failure that
GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

Two low, close-in obstacles at KBUR

equals the runway available, you can expect to cross the DER Aspen-Pitkin County/Sardy Field SARDD THREE
at 15 ft. (for aircraft that have wet runway performance data). Departure, FAA SL-5889
A 4.94% gradient across a distance of 812 ft. results in a climb
of 0.0494 x 812 = 40 ft. If you cross the DER at 15 ft., that means Strategy: OEI Performance
you are at 40 + 15 = 55 ft. when you cross the pole marked as
DOF 06-001786, which is 53 ft. above the DER. You have a clear- for AEO Procedures
ance of only 2 ft. A call to the airport manager might be useful, Not too many years ago most pilots would tell you that the only
but without a very good database of terrain and obstacles, the way to legally and safely depart a mountainous airport was to
only way to guarantee low, close-in obstacle clearance is to use your aircraft’s one engine inoperative (OEI) performance
cross the DER at or above 200 ft. charts to meet the AEO departure procedure’s gradient.
If, for example, your planned weight at Burbank produces an In the Gulfstream G450, for example, the AFM restricts us to
engine-out climb gradient of 600 ft./nm, you will need to have only 47,000 lb. gross weight when leaving Aspen on the SARDD
at least (6,076 x 200) ÷ 600 = 2,025 ft. beyond your planned THREE Departure at 20C and 7,000 ft. pressure altitude —
takeoff run to guarantee that you will clear any low, close-in that’s just barely enough fuel to fly for an hour and without any
obstacles. kind of safe fuel reserve. Armed with that information, the pilot
would be forced to wait out the weather.
This strategy grounds the aircraft for obstacles that are
miles away laterally and perhaps gives too generous a vertical
margin as well. While they are maximizing their distant obsta-
cle clearance, the published obstacle departure procedures do
not consider low, close-in obstacles when establishing weather
minimums or minimum climb gradients.

Strategy: Reduce Vertical Margins

Another technique is to keep the net takeoff path safety margin
(between 0.8% and 1.0%, depending on number of engines) and
Low, close-in obstacle avoidance, the “Brute Force” method. remove the TERPS 24% ROC or the ICAO 0.8% MOC.
In the Aspen example, the required climb gradient is 460
Of course giving up such a large chunk of runway can be ft./nm. You can remove the ROC by multiplying the CG by 0.76
unnecessarily prohibitive if the low, close-in obstacles aren’t (1 - 0.24), which means you only need to climb at 460 x 0.76 =
really that close. A sound strategy for dealing with departure 350 ft./nm. An ICAO departure will also be given in ft./nm but
obstacles must consider all obstacles, even those TERPS and should also have the value given as a percentage. If not, divide
ICAO choose to ignore with nothing more than a nebulous the ft./nm by 6,076 ft. to get a percentage. An ICAO departure
note. Unfortunately, most strategies are blind to the issue. with a 460 ft./nm example becomes 460 ÷ 6,076 = 7.6%. To

50 Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 www.bcadigital.com

OPERATIONS
remove the MOC, subtract 0.8. Your new climb gradient target
is 7.6 - 0.8 = 6.8%.
Using this strategy can be problematic because there is math
involved and the principles can be confusing. Commercially
available programs can automate the process, but these too, in
my opinion, can be confusing. When entering the obstacle de-
parture procedure gradient in one such program, you are asked
to note if the procedure is designed under ICAO or TERPS. If
you select ICAO, the program subtracts the 0.8% MOC from
what it calls the “gross gradient” to produce a “net gradient.”
Likewise, if you select TERPS, the program multiplies the
“gross gradient” by 0.76 (1 - 0.24) to produce a “net gradient.”
Selecting TERPS in our Aspen example yields a takeoff gross
weight of 55,720 lb., an increase of over 8,000 lb.
Pilots may be misled into thinking they are only giving up
their FAR Part 25 net takeoff path and still have the more ICAO and TERPS lateral obstacle consideration area comparison

an instantaneous readout of “position uncertainty” you very

seldom see your airplane more than 0.05 nm off course. That’s
just 300 ft.! While departure procedures continue to be built off
these wide lateral areas, we as pilots are allowed to narrow our
gaze if we have a plan.
TERPS procedure construction can be very complicated; the
lateral margins vary with distance from the departure end of
the runway. The lateral margin starts at 200 ft. either side of
runway centerline and quickly expands by thousands of feet to
as much as 3 mi. ICAO procedure construction mimics TERPS
in many ways and becomes almost as wide. Unless the proce-
dure says otherwise, the climb gradient on these procedures
The impact of removing required obstacle clearance from perfor- could be based on obstacles that are miles away.
mance computations ICAO Annex 6 narrows the lateral margin that must be con-
sidered by large (more than 5,700 kg, about 12,500 lb.) turbine
generous TERPS ROC. This isn’t the case. TERPS and aircraft. The margin can be as tight as 1,000 ft. but will be no
ICAO Document 8168 do not use the terms “gross gradient”
and “net gradient” to describe ROC and MOC. Using this
program your climb gradient ends up being equal to the ob-
stacle height plus only the net takeoff flight path factor. (For
a two-engine airplane, that comes to only 48.6 ft. for every
nautical mile traveled.)
Let’s say we are dealing with an obstacle right at the maxi-
mum allowed without having to increase the climb gradient,
which comes to 152 ft./nm. So, we could conceivably have an
obstacle at 5 mi. that is 5 x 152 = 760 ft. higher than the DER.
Loading the airplane to achieve the required climb gradient of
200 ft./nm means we will be at 5 x 200) = 1,000 ft. plus the net
flight path difference of 5 x 0.008 x 6,076 = 243 ft. We would
clear the obstacle by 1,000 + 243 - 760 = 483 ft. If we elect to load
our aircraft with more fuel and passengers so as to achieve only
the 152 ft./nm climb gradient, our margin is cut in half.
This strategy also leaves untouched low, close-in obstacles and
ignores one more factor in the departure obstacle avoidance prob- Example vertical/lateral clearances under TERPS at 10 nm
lem. We often think of obstacles vertically: We have to out-climb
what is directly beneath us. But we must also consider the lateral more than 3,000 ft., depending on course guidance, turns and
dimension. distance from the runway. U.S. Advisory Circular 120-91 pro-
vides a method of applying an obstacle clearance area that is
Strategy: Airport Obstacle Analysis narrower than the TERPS area and is almost as narrow as the
tightest ICAO margin. If an aircraft can maintain course within
Obstacle departure procedures are designed with very wide 3,000 ft., the required climb gradient can drop significantly,
lateral tolerances under both ICAO and TERPS. Those min- and that can allow much higher payloads.
imum climb gradients could be unnecessarily high because Let’s say you are departing in a two-engine aircraft from
they are considering obstacles miles away from course center- an airport that leads into a valley with what looks to be a chal-
line. Perhaps this was necessary back when an aircraft climb- lenging obstacle departure procedure. The SID says you need
ing into a cloud deck was lucky to be within a mile of course to climb at 400 ft./nm to an altitude that is 4,000 ft. above the
centerline. What about today? If you have an airplane with departure end of the runway. Looking at the chart it appears

52 Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 www.bcadigital.com

the greatest problem will be around 10 nm after takeoff about 3 obstacles are about a mile right of course.
nm to the right. The departure takes you right down the middle The published climb gradient is 460 ft./nm, which comes to
of the valley, so if you lose an engine on takeoff how high above 460 ÷ 6,076) = 7.57%. The DER is 7,680 ft. We will reach 14,000
the obstacle will you really be? ft. in (14,000 – 7,680) ÷ 460 = 13.74 nm. A theoretical controlling
obstacle height can be derived from the TERPS formula: CG =
h ÷ (0.76 x d). Solving for the height of the obstacle we see that
h = 0.76 x d x CG = 0.76 x 13.74 x 460) = 4,804 ft. Our obstacle
gradient appears to be 4,804 ÷ (13.74 x 6,076) = 5.75%.
Google Earth allows us to trace the departure procedure and
produce a terrain elevation profile for an on-course departure
(shown in blue) and for one that deviates to the right inside
the TERPS obstacle clearance area until it is 1 nm to the right
(shown in red). Right of course we see an obstacle at 9,250 ft.
MSL, 4.5 nm from the DER. This obstacle will be 9,250 – 7,680
= 1,570 ft. above the DER. We can compute its gradient: 1,570
÷ (4.5 x 6,076) = 5.74%, pretty close to our theoretical gradient.
We can repeat this process for what appears to be the most
challenging obstacle if the airplane were to remain precisely on
course, a peak of 8,700 ft. found 7.2 nm from DER. The peak is
8,700 – 7,680 = 1,020 ft. above DER. The gradient of this obsta-
Example vertical/lateral clearances under TERPS at 10 nm cle is: 1,020 ÷ (7.2 x 6,076) = 2.33%. This is less than the TERPS
152 ft./nm OCS, since 0.0233 x 6,076 = 142 ft./nm. If you could
The procedure required obstacle clearance is ROC = 0.24, remain on course you would only need the minimum 200 ft./
CG = 0.24 x 400 = 96 ft./nm, which means at 10 nm it will be 960 nm climb gradient.
ft. A two-engine aircraft will also have the net flight path mar-
gin of 0.008 x 10 x 6,076 = 486 ft. While TERPS assumes the
departure begins at DER on the runway, your aircraft manu-
als are usually predicated on 35 ft., which means you will cross
almost 3 nm abeam the obstacle at an altitude 960 + 486 + 35 =
1,481 ft. higher than the obstacle.
Now let’s say we narrow our lateral boundaries to the
maximum provided in AC 120-91, just 3,000 ft. from either
wingtip. We can increase our payload since we no longer have
to out-climb the more distant obstacles and will give up the
TERPS 24% ROC.
That means we will cross 3,000 ft. abeam another obstacle at
an altitude 486 + 35 = 521 ft. higher than the obstacle.
Using terrain-mapping software, such as Google Earth,
we can draw the Aspen SARDD obstacle departure proce-
dure course line from the DER all the way to the completion
of the procedure. We can also diagram the borders of the
obstacle clearance area and discover the most challenging

Extract of aircraft performance group example output,

Gulfstream G450, Aspen
Of course this kind of analysis is impractical without the
benefit of extensive terrain databases and sophisticated soft-
ware. Many major airlines have been using these systems for
years. One such system is available from Aircraft Performance
Group) (APG, http://www.flyapg.com) available with a subscrip-
tion and in many commercial flight-planning services.
Plugging our Aspen example into the software yields a sig-
nificant increase in gross weight, nearly an extra 20,000 lb.,
which would be enough to make the East Coast. The program
has the added benefit of factoring in low, close-in obstacles. But
this software must also be used with care.
The software sometimes uses unpublished procedures that
require additional steps in the event of an engine failure. You
would have to file one procedure with the intent of using it
under normal conditions. In the event of an engine failure, you
Comparing “on course” versus “1 nm right” SARDD departure may have to reprogram flight management systems or other
obstacles, using Google Earth elevation profile feature avionics while letting ATC know you are deviating from the

www.bcadigital.com Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 53

OPERATIONS
filed procedure. This is certainly possible but not something engine can you still meet the AEO climb gradient? What follows
with which you should burden yourself while dealing with an is my personal theory.
engine failure in mountainous terrain. If you are flying a two-engine aircraft you are getting half
The example “33DP” procedure, however, precisely mimics your climb gradient from each engine. If you lose an engine,
the SARDD THREE procedure. In fact, it is more precise, offer- your climb gradient decreases by at least 50% because you
ing bank angles, a turn based on position and not altitude, and a will also have the parasite drag from the windmilling or seized
specific time to begin flap retraction and acceleration. We can, engine.
as a result, have confidence that we can load our G450 to 69,279 It follows, then, that your all-engine climb gradient will be at
lb. and: (1) be able to stay clear of all obstacles in the event of an least double your one-engine climb gradient. Since you’ve re-
engine failure if we stay within 3,000 ft. of our filed and planned duced your target climb gradient by a maximum of 24% and
course, (2) not have to worry about changing departure proce- will have double the climb gradient available, you should be OK.
dures in the event of an engine failure, (3) have enough fuel to Since the loss of an engine in a three-engine aircraft results
make it to our destination on the east coast and (4) avoid all low, in 33% thrust loss and in a four-engine aircraft results in a 25%
close-in obstacles. thrust loss, each aircraft should be OK since the maximum
There still remains one loose end that the regulations do gradient reduction is 24%. In the case of our Gulfstream with a
not address and that most proponents of increasing departure 5.8% OEI climb gradient, we can guess our AEO climb gradi-
weights fail to recognize. If you increase your weight above the ent will be at least 11.6%, much higher than the 7.6% obstacle
point where OEI performance will meet the AEO climb gra- departure procedure requirement.
dient you know you are OK if you lose an engine because you
have (1) ensured you clear all obstacles by required vertical and
lateral margins, and (2) you do not have to meet the departure
procedure climb gradient because you have a failed engine. But
what if you don’t lose the engine? If your AFM does not have
AEO takeoff climb path data, how can you be sure you will
meet or exceed the procedure’s minimum climb gradient? The
FAA is silent on this subject other than to say it is something
you need to consider.

Meeting AEO Climb Gradients at

Higher Weights
Let’s say, as with the Aspen example, you have an ODP climb
gradient of 7.6% and elect to reduce that by the TERPS 24% G450 simulator climb tests, AEO versus OEI
ROC, lowering your OEI climb gradient to (1 - 0.24) x 7.6 = 5.8%.
You know you will clear the obstacles because the climb gradi- I’ve tested this theory in a few aircraft simulators and it
ent minus the ROC is based on that. Now if you don’t lose an appears to be valid. In the case of a G450 loaded to near APG
weights, the AEO takeoff climb performance was 2.5 times
greater than with OEI. Armed with this data, I believe my
aircraft will meet the required climb gradient with all engines
operating, even after I’ve increased the gross weight to under-
Meeting obstacle departure procedure perform the climb gradient with an engine failed by the TERPS
gradients with one engine inoperative ROC margin. You can test your aircraft by having the simulator
operator freeze the gross weight and run an altitude-versus-
distance track on two tries, one flying AEO and another with
an engine failed at V1.

Rationalizing Your Margin of Safety

Picking a departure obstacle avoidance strategy is not as
straightforward as one might think. Simply choosing to load the
aircraft up so the AEO climb gradients are met with OEI does
assure distant obstacle clearance and departure procedure
compliance, but it does not assure all low, close-in obstacles
are avoided. Electing to increase takeoff gross weight erodes
Meeting obstacle departure pro- the aircraft’s vertical margin of safety, but in many cases the
cedure gradients with all engines combined margins are unnecessarily wide. Using departure
operating, higher gross weights obstacle analysis software provides pilots with the ability to
narrow the lateral margins so as to discount obstacles that are
miles off course with the additional assurance that low, close-in
obstacles will be avoided too.
But in every case where the vertical margin is decreased, pi-
lots must understand how much of a margin is left over before
they can decide if they are safe “enough.” Let’s return to our
Aspen example to bring theory into practice.

54 Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 www.bcadigital.com

 υ Strategy One: Our G450 was grounded in Aspen with a maximum takeoff weight
of 47,000 lb. We could have flown for an hour and expected to top every obstacle
within a few miles by a vertical margin that included the 24% ROC in TERPS as well
as the 0.8% net takeoff path. This strategy fails to address low, close-in obstacles.
υ Strategy Two: We could have increased our takeoff weight to 55,720 lb. by remov-
ing the TERPS 24% ROC. We still have the 0.8% net takeoff path vertical margin,
but this isn’t much when looking down on those jagged cliffs north of Aspen. If we
found ourselves just 1 nm right of course, we would pass the mountain at 4.5 nm by
just 218 ft. This strategy also fails to consider low, close-in obstacles.
υ Strategy Three. Using computerized terrain and obstacle analysis software, we
can increase our takeoff weight to over 69,000 lb., enough to fly to the east coast.
We are assured of clearing all low, close-in obstacles, as well as those that are more
distant. We must fly much tighter lateral tolerances and will end up with the same
reduced vertical margins as found with the second strategy.
Modern aircraft have a way to address the tighter lateral tolerances. Navigating
to within 3,000 ft. of course line is pretty easy if you ensure your GPS is operating
with a good receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) check and you are
able to set your course deviation indicator to give you ample warning of a deviation.
All of this electronic wizardry will be for naught, however, if you fail to “step on the
good engine” and eliminate all adverse yaw with rudder.
The vertical performance is more problematic. In our Aspen example we are
cutting our vertical margin over the most demanding obstacle from 500 to only
218 ft. How much of that margin will remain if you encounter a 10-kt. tailwind a few
hundred feet in the air? What about a temperature inversion? Finally, if the rudder
isn’t perfect, any adverse yaw will erode that vertical margin further. Even in ideal
conditions, crossing that shear mountaintop with only 218 ft. is sure to set off the
enhanced ground proximity warning system.
Is Your FBO
Picking a Strategy Directory
It has been said that the safest way to fly is to never leave the ground. Of course that
also has an adverse effect on one’s paycheck. We are constantly required to weigh
“the safest way” with “safe enough.” In our Aspen example, there is a tradeoff be-
Accurate?
tween how much fuel and how many passengers you can carry versus the vertical
clearance you can hope for in the event of an engine failure. I can’t pick a strategy Know Before You Go.
for you since you may not be flying the same type of aircraft and your risk tolerances
are surely different than mine. But I can offer my strategy as a possible template.
Whenever I go to an unfamiliar airport I run an airport obstacle analysis using
APG software. If the charts say I can load up to maximum weight on published
procedures, I know I can rely on my airplane’s built-in performance computer
and know I will beat all obstacles while meeting AEO climb gradients. Of course I
need to do this for every departure because obstacles (manmade and natural) are
constantly changing. Order Your 2016
If the software says I am obstacle limited, I will consider the gross weight speci-
fied for published procedures only, and even then only as an absolute maximum. Directory Now!
The winds and temperature at altitude have to cooperate for this plan to work.
I then brief the crew that we are about to take off with reduced vertical and lat-
eral clearances and we will need to do a GPS RAIM check. Then I’ll brief the other
pilot on what I expect from each of us in the event of an engine failure. Visit:
I have been using airport obstacle analysis software for 10 years and I could fur- aviationweek.com/2016acukwik
ther say I have been doing so without incident. But I haven’t lost an engine in all that
time. I do practice in the simulator a lot and my favorite place to practice is Aspen
when loaded to APG weights. You need to see that cliff at 4.5 nm getting closer with
the EGPWS going crazy to really understand how narrow that 0.8 net takeoff path
For data licensing, contact:
percent margin really is. My aircraft has synthetic vision and a flight path vector [email protected]
that assures me through it all that I am not going to hit that mountain. It is still un-
nerving, nonetheless.
Back to Aspen. Five years after our original scenario I was back in Aspen
with a new airplane and a new company. Our dispatchers were as despondent as
the rest of the crews in the FBO. I loaded up our Gulfstream V to the weight we
needed to make the East Coast, which split the difference between the strategy
one weight and the maximum strategy three weight found in the APG software
application. We departed on time and I am sure there were a few crews stuck on
the ground wondering, “are those guys operating recklessly or are we missing The Only Directory You Can Trust
something important?” BCA

www.bcadigital.com Business & Commercial Aviation | May 2016 55