Second Stage Climb Gradient?

[Bill]

I was told by a co-worker that a new Part 91-mandatory compliance reg
has come out, requiring all airplanes to meet a min. climb gradient of
2.5% for second stage climb gradient, unless published otherwise. In
other words, if no specific gradient is published for XYZ airport,
then the airplane must be able to climb out at 2.5% minimum.

I am unable to locate any regs or anything that address this, so if
anyone has further info and the reg, AC circular, etc, please let me
know

Thanks

[Peter Duniho]

"Bill" > wrote in message
m...
> I was told by a co-worker that a new Part 91-mandatory compliance reg
> has come out, requiring all airplanes to meet a min. climb gradient of
> 2.5% for second stage climb gradient, unless published otherwise.

Sure doesn't sound like anything that would show up in Part 91. There's
basically nothing in Part 91 that requires an airplane to be able to climb
at all.

I assume that you don't really mean this applies for all flights, and that
this is some sort of commercial/IFR departure procedure thing?

Pete

[[email protected]]

Bill wrote:

> I was told by a co-worker that a new Part 91-mandatory compliance reg
> has come out, requiring all airplanes to meet a min. climb gradient of
> 2.5% for second stage climb gradient, unless published otherwise. In
> other words, if no specific gradient is published for XYZ airport,
> then the airplane must be able to climb out at 2.5% minimum.
>
> I am unable to locate any regs or anything that address this, so if
> anyone has further info and the reg, AC circular, etc, please let me
> know

It's not second-stage. That is a Part 25 performance requirement. Having
said that, your friend is about right. There was a big NPRM a few months
ago with lots of instrument procedures issues in it. One of the proposals
was to make obstacle DPs mandatory for all IFR operations unless an ATC DP
or radar vector is assigned. It can be argued that it has always been the
case that any climb gradient on an ATC DP becomes regulatory if you accept
the departure. Pretty much the same can be said for departure vectors.

If the rule is adopted as proposed, presumably the obstacle DP will gain
the same status as an ATC DP. If so, any stated CG will be regulatory.
And, if no CG is stated, then 200 feet per mile, not 2.5%, would be
regulatory.

When, or if, the proposed rule will be adopted is something I don't know.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Bill" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I was told by a co-worker that a new Part 91-mandatory compliance reg
> > has come out, requiring all airplanes to meet a min. climb gradient of
> > 2.5% for second stage climb gradient, unless published otherwise.
>
> Sure doesn't sound like anything that would show up in Part 91. There's
> basically nothing in Part 91 that requires an airplane to be able to climb
> at all.
>
> I assume that you don't really mean this applies for all flights, and that
> this is some sort of commercial/IFR departure procedure thing?

Today its 200 feet per nm for GA.

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Today its 200 feet per nm for GA.

There is no requirement for all airplanes to meet a 200 feet per NM
gradient, or any other climb capability.

Perhaps you, like the original poster, intended to restrict your statement
to IFR departures where no other climb requirement has been published?

[Fred E. Pate]

Bill wrote:
> I was told by a co-worker that a new Part 91-mandatory compliance reg
> has come out, requiring all airplanes to meet a min. climb gradient of
> 2.5% for second stage climb gradient, unless published otherwise. In
> other words, if no specific gradient is published for XYZ airport,
> then the airplane must be able to climb out at 2.5% minimum.
>
> I am unable to locate any regs or anything that address this, so if
> anyone has further info and the reg, AC circular, etc, please let me
> know
>
> Thanks

I believe the 2.5% thing is called "second segment climb gradient" and
it is a requirement in Part 25 (Transport Category aircraft). If I
remember right, it refers to climb performance with the loss of one
engine on takeoff, after the gear has come up, but before the flaps.

The 200 ft/nm thing mentioned by others is a TERPS criteria for
designing the departure obstacle clearance route, and also for missed
approaches, I think. The obstacles can't penetrate a 152 ft/nm surface,
giving you a 48 ft/nm buffer if you just meet the minimum climb.

I'm not familiar with any NPRM, but if you fly IFR, the 200 ft/nm
requirement is fairly well regulated by physics--so you'd better be able
to meet the climb gradient regardless of the law!

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
>
> I assume that you don't really mean this applies for all flights, and that
> this is some sort of commercial/IFR departure procedure thing?
>
> Pete

It has been true for years that anyone who accepts (commercial or just Part
91) SID with a climb gradient (now called ATC DP) accepts as part of the
clearance the assurance that the climb gradient will be met.

What Part 91-only has not been legally responsible for is any climb gradient
on an obstacle DP that is not assigned by ATC (formerly IFR departure
procedure).

Having said that, there was a najor NPRM circulated early this year that
updated RNAV stuff, etc, and also proposed to make the use of obstacle DPs
mandatory for IFR departures unless ATC assigns an ATC DP. If adopted as
proposed, this would apply to all IFR operations.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message ...
> [...] If adopted as
> proposed, this would apply to all IFR operations.

In other words, NOT all flights. Just the IFR ones. Which is what I
suggested was the case.

[[email protected]]

> In other words, NOT all flights. Just the IFR ones. Which is what I
> suggested was the case.

In view of the title of this news group I assumed that was the context of the
original posting since VFR aircraft and IFR DPs have nothing to do with each
other, just as Part 25 takeoff flight paths have nothing to do with Part 23
aircraft.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message ...
> > > In other words, NOT all flights. Just the IFR ones. Which is what I
> > > suggested was the case.
> >
> > In view of the title of this news group I assumed that was the context
of
> the
> > original posting
>
> "This" newsgroup is "rec.aviation.piloting" for me.

That explains the problem. :)

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
>
> Quit making assumptions. Start paying attention to what's actually been
> written and where it's actually been written.
>

Kiss my ass