Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Total 4500
Time Pressure
Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Aircraft; Human Factors
On departure from ORD Runway 22L; (ORD5 Departure); crew were given 180 heading and complied with this direction after takeoff. Shortly thereafter determined we would not achieve published climb gradient and PM (Pilot Monitoring) immediately notified ATC. ATC then informed crew of possible conflict; but did not assign different heading or altitude.Turning south off Runway 22L shortens the distance available to achieve climb gradients on this radar SID with a problematic lack of information (specifically track distance) to determine climb performance. Additionally; with the heading being assigned as the aircraft is cleared for takeoff this provides little time to assess performance. There appears to be a lack of pre-charted information with WAT (Weight; Altitude; Temperature) inputs to assist in rapid climb assessment.Publish a WAT (Weight; Altitude; Temperature) based chart for aircraft based on a worst case track distance off selected runways at ORD for specific runways...basically a Regulated Takeoff Graph (RTOG). Suggest ORD implement more RNAV SIDs...track distance on established procedures is key. Crews may want to consider requesting headings other than 180 on the ORD5 as well; or request other departure runways with more frequency.
Took off ORD Runway 22L on ORD5 [departure]. Assigned heading 180 after takeoff. Turned to heading 180 passing 2;200 feet MSL. Noted that we would not make climb gradient. I notified ATC of inability to make altitude restrictions. ATC noted possible deviation and gave contact number.Taking off 22L the 5.5 and 8.5 DME rings are very close after [takeoff]. Being turned to 180 after [takeoff] narrows the distance. Reviewing climb charts prior to [takeoff] it did not seem to be a problem to achieve 700-1;000 FPM climb rate to meet altitude/DME gates. Not being an RNAV SID we had no indications that we would be challenged to make restrictions while on the ground. Once airborne and turning 180 heading and cleaning the aircraft up we determined we were unable to make constraints. I made an immediate call to ATC notifying them of inability. ATC was interested why we had not informed Tower. I advised we had no indications that we would not be able to meet those restrictions until airborne. We put GCO 5 and 8 DME rings in fix page which actively displayed on the Nav display (FMS fix page does not allow .5 or other less than a whole number. Additionally I had GCO hard tuned on my VOR receiver to enhance pilot awareness.Suggestions: 1. ATC should establish and use RNAV departures. Crews would be able to determine ability to make crossing restrictions while on the ground with more assuring. 2. ATC should not turn aircraft on a 180 heading from 22L. This makes meeting altitudes very challenging. 3. Do not accept southbound turns off 22L. Request RWY 28R. 4. FLT OPS tech could publish climb data with turns to the south off RWY 22L. This seems to be the highest risk RWY and departure turn due to the proximity to MDW from this RWY.
Air carrier flight crew discovered during initial climbout from ORD that they were unable to meet the climb gradient requirement for the ORD5 Departure.