Second Stage Climb Gradient?

"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

"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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.