Given the AIP (AD 1-1 ) says in respect of private flights:
4.5.2 The take-off minima selected for all flights by single-engine aeroplanes should be adequate to ensure a high probability of a successful forced landing being made should a failure of the engine occur after take-off.
and a successful forced landing is defined as is an inevitable landing on land or sea from which one may reasonably expect no injuries on board or on the surface.
I would be interested in views on your minima regarding both RVR and ceilings for private flights assuming appropriately licenced and in current practice.
Incidentally the PT SE minima are:
4.4.3 The minima for take-off by single-engine aeroplanes when flying for Public Transport are 1,000 ft cloud ceiling and 1,800 m
Runway Visual Range (RVR). The minima selected for all flights by single-engine aeroplanes should be adequate to ensure a
high probability of a successful forced landing being made should a failure of the engine occur after take-off.
I think a general minima is a very course tool assuming indeed you are generally happy with low bases. I think as soon as the base is below a 1,000 feet it becomes a bit of a lottery so far as any landing is concerned descending from above. In the same way if you go into coud anywhere between 500 and 1,000 feet there isnt a great deal of difference. However so much depends on the airport. Take Bembridge for example. Depart to the West over rising ground but with a southerly turn plenty of landing sites and not to much to effect a forced landing so with a 500 foot cloudbase if you enter cloud and immediately had a failure nose down and with luck the scenery is going to be reasonably kind. In exactly the same way to the East you are going to hit wet, simple, and other than water there is nothing to be concerned about. Alderney is an even better example and I have departed with the cloud (fog) almost on the deck. Whether it was good VFR or IMC the results of an engine failure would have been very similiar. So knowing the topography and exactly what you will do during the intial climb out is a far more important part of the decision making process in my book. If you dont know the topography I think the minima immediately increase. In reality between 500 feet and 1,000 feet you are going to be into cloud in any aircraft with reasonable performance very quickly and shortly after that I am not sure it becomes any different than flying on top of a 1,000 foot or lower cloudbase. The usual thinking is to land straight ahead anyway with a failure immediately after take off so even with low bases I am not although that sure how much difference the base makes. However the bigger concern for me would be maintaining control. If you are current on instruments and pretty well up to speed you obvioulsy will handle the emergency as well as possible but there is no doubt if you are not going into cloud very shortly after take off can be quite discomforting. There is a discipline switching from visual to instruments and the work load during the climb out is inevitably that much higher so plenty of opportunity entering cloud early to forget how much of a pitch down is needed etc.
I think it is interesting that in FAA land pilots are “required” to demonstrate a simulated engine failure on climb out whereas in EASA land this is seldom covered in the two yearly review so not something many pilots without or with instrument flying rehearse.
So what about a RVR of 500m and an overcast of 200’ departing over a mixed use area?
It sounds like you have a particular case in mind cargofeller?
If you are looking for ammunition with respect to a particular departure you have witnessed, it might be better to be a bit more explicit about the runway, the aircraft, pilot qualifications, day/night etc so that the jury can deliberate with more facts.
Oh, and Fuji Abound, I think you need to look more carefully at easterly departures from Bembridge. There is quite a high wooded ridge with a caravan park on it which is most likely to catch the pieces following an EFATO.
and a successful forced landing is defined as is an inevitable landing on land or sea from which one may reasonably expect no injuries on board or on the surface
Where is that defined?
and a successful forced landing is defined as is an inevitable landing on land or sea from which one may reasonably expect no injuries on board or on the surface
Where is that defined?
Indeed. That would rule out many departures in day VMC.
Timothy – easterly the engine failure would need to be almost immediately after take off not to clear the caravan park and rather you than me entering cloud before clear of the beach i reckon minima would need to be less than 500 feet.
I think the successful forced landing definition is ICAO Annex 6. ( I also think it crops up in the Ops Procedures exam as well.)
No particular case in mind, its a training issue. The vagueness of the definition of minima for Ariel work and private flying as contrasted with the PT minima but requiring the same high probability of a successful outcome in the event of an engine failure as the public transport requirement.
The ad1-1 references refer to minima which must be about visibility and ceiling and therefore IMC departures.
In that case of VMC departures they fall outside the minima requirements and VMC departures don’t specifically have the concerns of low clouds and poor visibility which might impair the ability to pull off a successful forced landing. EFATOs are trained for in PPL training at anything from 300’-600’ which we do in VMC. It might be impossible to have a high probability of a successful forced landing with a VMC departure but this is not a requirement for VMC only IMC.
Training wise you cannot simulate an engine failure at 500’ in cloud with a ceiling of 200’.I would be interested in views on your minima regarding both RVR and ceilings for private flights assuming appropriately licenced and in current practice.
On take off, sufficient to maneuver comfortably around any obstacle in the departure path. In practice this averages around 800 feet and at least two miles visibility. Given the NTOFP of your average piston twin, this would also apply to a twin.
Must admit have not flown low IFR in a single engine – the larger airports with ILS may tend to have built up areas on the approach path in any event, whether you break out at 1,000 feet or 200 feet is somewhat moot. Also on a typical IFR flight, with IMC forecast, its pretty difficult to plan a flight with 1,000 feet ceilings along the whole route – there is bound to be higher terrain between reporting stations that reduces this safety margin.
Given your risk exposure filing IFR in a SE should always be preferable, as by definition you are tending to be flying higher more of the time, and therefore have a better gliding range in the event of engine failure.
Hence preferring relatively old fashioned fixed gear SE which will help follow the old WW2 advice: ‘when a prang seems inevitable endeavour to hit the softest, cheapest obstacle in the vicinity *as slow and gently as possible’.*
The biggest challenge is fog not a low cloud base. Departing into a 300m vis is an interesting question in a single particularly SEP.
