I'll have two bobs worth of that please.
'K' - “If you intended to simulate an EFATO at a height of 400' or so; then why by-pass the operationally perfect situation of initiating an overshoot from an instrument approach minima? Not visual, go around, wallop – engine out. Minima at Renmark is (or was) 730'. An overshoot on one engine from that height provides obstacle clearance, a flight path, a 'real' scenario; and, a high work load – quite safely. Why bugger about at 300' with an artificial 'take-off' (not) when a much better, safer alternative means of testing is available? Just saying.”
Just out of idle curiosity I took a look at the Renmark DAP. Then a look at the Adelaide area – for a suitable place to play at flight testing. Kingscoat seems closer with lower minima, higher circling – but, fewer restrictions. Don't know the local 'do's and don't s but it seemed a better operational choice. But that's a personal, prima facie choice only.
Renmark – (YREN)
Minima - Lnav 730'
Circle 800'
No circle SW of 36/07
10 nm MSA 1700'.
Lots of inconvenient aerials about the place etc.
An engine out just after take off (low) would present some problems and demand some thought out, briefed and discussed solutions – with inclement weather around;or, (more to the point) operating under the IFR. The operation was to be IFR which assumes (for test purposes) IMC conditions; that means, to me at least, that OCH and OEI gradients must be considered – for the continued operation case. This notion of simulating an engine out at 3/400 feet seems to be neither fish nor fowl. It proves or tests nothing, pointless really. It also places the aircraft in a 'vulnerable' (IFR) situation (take off minima). The flight path described is at least 400' below the IFR minima; that which ensures obstacle clearance in the event of a missed approach. Furthermore, it robs the aircraft of valuable distance to run. i.e. – 10 miles (MSA) minus the distance from the Mapt, plus the runway, plus the distance to climb to 400'. In order to achieve the mandated 1700' within the 10 nm radius, with OEI, even a well maintained aircraft with an experienced crew would have their work cut out. I am assuming the check flight was under the IFR here. But you do see where the holes in the cheese are. Yet CASA not only sanctioned this unrealistic check flight, but failed to examine the IFR compliance safety case. -ATSB probably never heard of it. Oh, and where is the fatigue analysis?
The idea of failing an engine at the minima, and executing a missed approach is (a) much more demanding and (b) provides a 'real' test of practical operation – under the IFR, with built in safety margins. So why was this crew allowed to operate in this half arsed, imaginative scenario? It proved nothing of any value to the pilot, the examiner or the CASA. CASA need to get real, sort out what they want to see; or butt the duck out.
Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of Rum.
There, my two bob spent as pleased me best.
'K' - “If you intended to simulate an EFATO at a height of 400' or so; then why by-pass the operationally perfect situation of initiating an overshoot from an instrument approach minima? Not visual, go around, wallop – engine out. Minima at Renmark is (or was) 730'. An overshoot on one engine from that height provides obstacle clearance, a flight path, a 'real' scenario; and, a high work load – quite safely. Why bugger about at 300' with an artificial 'take-off' (not) when a much better, safer alternative means of testing is available? Just saying.”
Just out of idle curiosity I took a look at the Renmark DAP. Then a look at the Adelaide area – for a suitable place to play at flight testing. Kingscoat seems closer with lower minima, higher circling – but, fewer restrictions. Don't know the local 'do's and don't s but it seemed a better operational choice. But that's a personal, prima facie choice only.
Renmark – (YREN)
Minima - Lnav 730'
Circle 800'
No circle SW of 36/07
10 nm MSA 1700'.
Lots of inconvenient aerials about the place etc.
An engine out just after take off (low) would present some problems and demand some thought out, briefed and discussed solutions – with inclement weather around;or, (more to the point) operating under the IFR. The operation was to be IFR which assumes (for test purposes) IMC conditions; that means, to me at least, that OCH and OEI gradients must be considered – for the continued operation case. This notion of simulating an engine out at 3/400 feet seems to be neither fish nor fowl. It proves or tests nothing, pointless really. It also places the aircraft in a 'vulnerable' (IFR) situation (take off minima). The flight path described is at least 400' below the IFR minima; that which ensures obstacle clearance in the event of a missed approach. Furthermore, it robs the aircraft of valuable distance to run. i.e. – 10 miles (MSA) minus the distance from the Mapt, plus the runway, plus the distance to climb to 400'. In order to achieve the mandated 1700' within the 10 nm radius, with OEI, even a well maintained aircraft with an experienced crew would have their work cut out. I am assuming the check flight was under the IFR here. But you do see where the holes in the cheese are. Yet CASA not only sanctioned this unrealistic check flight, but failed to examine the IFR compliance safety case. -ATSB probably never heard of it. Oh, and where is the fatigue analysis?
The idea of failing an engine at the minima, and executing a missed approach is (a) much more demanding and (b) provides a 'real' test of practical operation – under the IFR, with built in safety margins. So why was this crew allowed to operate in this half arsed, imaginative scenario? It proved nothing of any value to the pilot, the examiner or the CASA. CASA need to get real, sort out what they want to see; or butt the duck out.
Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of Rum.
There, my two bob spent as pleased me best.