[转]FAA如何看待复飞梯度与标准的问题的

从FAA角度看复飞爬升梯度问题。原文地址 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_74e6e4da0100uuzr.html

因为国内没有法规或者咨询通告给出明确解释。我在FAA的网上找到了06年的一份AC,很显然,09年CAAC的AC有部分取材于此。主要讨论了起飞时如何制作一发失效程序,在文件的结束部分,提到了着陆复飞、中断着陆时对于一发失效复飞程序制作的建议,摘录如下:

17. MISSED APPROACHES, REJECTED LANDINGS, AND BALKED LANDINGS.
a. General.
(1) Parts 121 and 135 do not specifically require an obstacle clearance analysis for one-engine-inoperative missed approaches or rejected landings. While it is not necessary to perform such an analysis for each flight, dispatch, or landing weight limitation, it is appropriate to provide information to the flightcrews on the safest way to perform such a maneuver should it be required. The intent is to identify the best option or options for a safe lateral ground track and flightpath to follow in the event that a missed approach, balked landing, rejected landing, or go-around is necessary. To accomplish this, the operator may develop the methods and criteria for the analysis of one-engine-inoperative procedures which best reflect that operator’s operational procedures.

(2) Generally, published missed approach procedures provide adequate terrain clearance. However, further analysis may be required in the following circumstances:
(a) Published missed approach has a climb gradient requirement;
(b) Departure procedure for the runway has a published minimum climb gradient;
(c) A special one-engine-inoperative takeoff procedure is required; or
(d) There are runways that are used for landing but not for takeoff.

原文链接:http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC 120-91/$FILE/AC120-91.pdf

此AC明确了法规现状,FAR121与FAR135均确实没有要求,但是给出了若干种需要制作一发失效复飞程序的情况。同时,在原文中还给出了一发失效复飞程序与一发失效起飞程序的区别(不同复飞情况,使用不同程序,如终端着陆可使用一发失效起飞程序,我猜想同一机场的一发失效复飞程序要求应没有一发失效起飞程序来得苛刻)。

当然,考虑到我们服从的应是CCAR,从效益的角度来讲,由于法规没有约束,能否使用较有利标准是个不好界定的问题。但是,一旦出现黑天鹅,代价是我作为一名放行签派员无法承受的,因此我仍坚持单发无法达到要求爬升梯度的情况下,不能使用较有利的标准。