I was eyeing this manual the last few months:
Work continues. Learning tons. Slowly delving into madness.
I’m doing a short “EHAM-EGLL” demo based on this video https://youtu.be/z33Aeb2bkts?t=400
I was wondering… where do I find the Acceleration Height, Thrust Reduction and Engine Out Acceleration heights for EHAM? (as shown at 6:40 in the video) I searched the Jeppesen charts for EHAM, but I couldn’t find a specific mention of these values. Most tutorials just plug them in without explaining where they took this value from. Are they standard values used for each airport, rules of thumb, or specific to each SID route?
Now we know why I am not posting anything in the “How I became a pilot” thread.
Don’t kill yourself trying, with this. I don’t know much about EHAM, sorry, but I can say this. Special heights for Thrust Reduction/Acceleration Height, and OEI Acceleration more often than not are dependent on whether there is a Noise Abatement Procedure, or if there are some company SOP for other factors like terrain clearance (we’ve got one for Quito, SEQM, for example).
Here’s an example of Lima NAP…
If none exist, then by standard 800 ft above airfield elevation for both thrust reduction and acceleration height, 1,500 ft above airfield elevation for engine out.
Much more information can be found in the ICAO Document 8168, Vol 1, Section 7. Look for it, as it can be found and downloaded.
And by the way, looking up while writing this, I find there is some information for EHAM noise abatement procedures. Look here, scroll down about 1/3 of the page…
Funny old thing. It sends you off to look in the exact ICAO Doc I just mentioned. No getting away from it, then
Haha nice, I was just about to mention those factors! Although you’ve explained it much better then I could.
Our engineering department designs all of our Special (non-standard) EO procedures. In the event we lose one there is zero expectation that the controlling agency will have a clue what we are doing until we tell them.
The guy in the tutorial linked previously specified:
3000 for ACCEL HT, 1500 for Thrust Reduction HT, and 800 for EO Accel HT. From what I understand, he should’ve set 3000 for ACCEL HT, 1500 for Thrust Reduction HT, and 1500 for EO Accel HT, no? Or did I understand it wrong?
The EHAM Jeppesen NAP says that takeoff power should be applied from 0 to 1500 ft, then Climb power from 1500 to 3000 ft.
I can have a look at the KLM SOP if that would help you when I am back at work?
That’d be much appreciated, thank you!
Will do, expect something next week Friday or so!
Yeah, that would make sense, if it is the noise abatement procedure you have as reference for the specific airport. It is provided that the minimum height before thrust reduction (800 ft) is complied with, which is the case. After 3,000 ft, the FMS would change from SRS mode to CLIMB, and you would start accelerating, allowing you to clean up the flaps. Up to 3,000 ft, you would maintain the same flap config you took off with.
Found some Boeing specific documents which seems to agree with what @Cygon_Parrot is saying. I’ll still have a look a the SOP though:
From the devs themselves: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/452168-noise-abatement-from-charts-into-fmc/
EO ACCEL HT is the odd ball here because it’s based mainly on company SOP or a prescribed procedure (EO SID, as an example), which, unless someone gave you one, you wouldn’t know what the SOP value is. For the purposes of the sim, you can just leave it at the default [800 ft].
engine out accel height I manually change in the FMGC on the approach to be the final height I wish to climb to (either published missed approach height or sector safe whichever I deem best). I don’t want to reduce my rate of climb until I am sector safe.
Likewise for us. We use a program called APG (Aircraft Performance Group) which uses data from the flight manual, the SIDs, our specific aircraft weight and balance, environmental factors, and their terrain database to create a custom departure procedure in the event of an engine-out. Generally, we only use it where 1) obstacles are a problem and 2) the published SID has a performance requirement that our aircraft can’t meet, but we still want to depart legally. Personally, I look at it as a way to find a way to get yourself into trouble, so I tend to use it rarely and conservatively. But to your point - if we crap an engine and take up the APG profile, I doubt ATC is going to have any idea what we are doing…
Now figuring out the world of Flight Control Laws in the Airbus. Very, very cool stuff to learn.
I was able to “simulate” Alternate Law operation by shutting down the ELAC 1 & 2 systems, Direct Law by shutting down the ELAC 1 & 2 and deploying the landing gear, and Mechanical Backup by shutting down all ELAC, SEC and FAC systems… with the proper indications and everything!
I giggled like a school girl when I saw that Flight Sim Labs went that far in their simulation.
I haven’t been able to find anything of interest in the documentation on the network Chuck, It’s probably something more pilot training related and not touched upon at all in MX.
That’s your chart, correct Chuck? If so, really nice!
(I would add one more tab: LAWN DART. And under it, loss or all hydraulic power. )
Nice to see the pfd showing correct symbology
It’s fun watching you dive into this civil aviation “module” so thoroughly. Sometimes people poo-poo the civil aviation stuff, and poo-poo the thought of having it within DCS World, but a lot of satisfaction can be derived from properly running through the checklists to get a complex plane up and running, to the destination, and shut down without ever firing a shot. Yes, FSX and P3D have civil aviation covered, but I do think there is room in DCS for stuff like this. Not to derail the thread…but I just think it’s cool how you’ve approached this. Nice job…!
To be honest, it’s so much more work than I initially thought. I completely underestimated the time I’d have to invest to get somehow proficient. The learning process is not a time sinkhole because it’s hard… but more because I need to un-learn all the bad habits I took from flying in other “combat” sims. I’ve come from flying an overpowered aircraft whenever I want, wherever I want in any way I want… to flying in a very structured environment that’s limited by boundaries, laws and regulations I’m learning about as I go.
The A-10C has about 3 autopilot modes. The 737 has N1, SPD, VNAV, LVL CHG, SPD INTV, ALT HLD, V/S, ALT INTV, LNAV, HDG SEL, VOR LOC and APP. And some of these modes can be used in conjunction with each other. I won’t describe each mode in detail, but having a general idea of what they do and when they’re employed alone requires a lot of research. Of course, I could just use the “Push CMD and set VNAV + LNAV” approach, but I want to understand the capabilities of the aircraft. Just knowing “oh, I could use this… what if I do that instead?” makes me explore a whole world I’ve never had the chance to experience properly before.
Overall, I’m loving it. When I first took off in the 737 doing a perfect roll without any alarm ringing, I knew I had achieved something. Engaging the autopilot that was set properly and watching EHAM shrink in the distance gave me a sense of satisfaction as if I had tamed a beast. I have come to a point where the PFD messages ring a bell and I actually know what it’s telling me. It may sound stupid, but I really like having that cheeky grin once I figure out the small things like “oh, I forgot to switch my baro pressure to STD since I’m above the transition altitude!” I’ve seen so many tutorials with glaring mistakes with the commentator going “huh? Why’s that happening? Uh… I dunno, moving on!”.
Keep in mind: I haven’t even landed the 737 or A320 “properly” yet. I’m still in the CRUISE section. After that, I’m attacking the approach and landing phases. Should be pretty interesting.
Civilian sims have grown on me. They’re more relaxing. They’re not about this I-shot-you-first-no-you-didn’t-yes-you-did sort of over-the-top competitiveness I see in combat sims at times.