Originally Posted by
BIRDIE
And that procedue may not necessarily be an ODP. It may be a SID since a SID also provides obstacle clearance.
I have been told that when departing from an airport served by a SID with a non-standard climb gradient AND no ODP, the standard climb gradient (3.3%) will satisfy obstacle clearance in the event of an engine failure. I don't agree with that but I can't prove it.
Anyway, not trying to provoke anyone and I'm not on here for entertainment. I was looking for guidance. Probaby time to drop it and move on. I will plan to meet the non-standard climb gradient OEI until I can prove otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------
I do not agree with that either. A SID with a non-standard climb gradient means that 3.3% does not apply. The non-standard part may be 3.4% which is above TERPS. I do not agree with the engine failure element either. The FAA does not care if your engine fails when they are surveying and obstacle clearance plane. Engine failure is a consideration, the new AIM amendment clears this issue. The PC12 pilot has to consider an engine failure just as much as the Citation pilot has to consider an engine failure...the PC12 pilot has to consider more in my opinion.
My KFSD example has no SID published , but it has the Trouble "T"...which is an ODP. If you do the math, it is a 6.6% climb gradient...WAAAY above TERPS.
I am going to do the same thing. I will comply with the ODP or SID, and I will compute performance for OEI and load accordingly. If I am taking off from any airport that does not have a DP or ODP or SID, and if it is 110 degrees and my airplane won't climb at at least 3.3%, then I will flight plan accordingly to maintain that 3.3%, because the FAA has checked that out for me. I am not doing myself (or my passengers) any favors if I can only maintain a 2% climb gradient and I clip a cell phone tower that the FAA determined to be at 2.5%.....below the 3.3% clearance plane.