I agree Moose 100%. For years, the KC-10 operated knowing we would go below the 2.5% plane in the event of an engine failure. Then we got Change 7 to the 1-1 and that moved the entire OEI profile above the 2.5% plane. The result, grossweights were reduced. Then came SDPs. I like them very much for the same reasons you do. Carriers are responsible for their own OEI obstacle clearance requirements so they publish the same thing (called Engine Out Procedures (EOPs) by the FAA) which is what LivinginMem was referring to. This Advisory Circular dictates the two methods at which those EOPs can be created.

LivinginMem, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the statement "compliance with TERPS all-engines-operating climb gradient requirements does not necessarily assure that one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements are met" raises my suspicion. The big question I have is, why doesn't it?

Could they be talking about close in obstacles? Remember TERPs starts at 35feet above the airfield.

Talking to several guys I know up at AMC, SDPs aren't very well liked --- at all. I guess they're too expensive. Additionally, if they allow us to takeoff at heavier grossweights, then we don't need as many new C-17s and KC-135 replacements. And this is completely within their playbook. Remember they took the KC-10 out of the cargo equation when they were justifying buying more C-17s.

Who knows, I'm just looking for someone to clarify that italized statement above.