I have a question about the ceiling and visibility minima as
alternates for climb gradients in departure procedures. A good
example is at Aspen (KASE), straight out of the FAA Instrument
Procedures Handbook, but they don't explain the portion I find
difficult to understand. I've duplicated the entire text of the
procedure at the bottom of this message.

So the issue I have is that the required ceiling to avoid the 460 ft/
nm gradient is 3100 feet. That makes an MSL altitude of just under
11,000 feet as the minimum for the bases of the clouds. But, if the
clouds are lower, the 460 ft/nm gradient is to be maintained all the
way to 14,000 feet MSL.

So are all the obstacles below the 11,000 foot ceiling, or not? If
not, how can the 3100-3 minimums with standard climb gradient result
in a safe operation? Conversely, if all the obstacles penetrating the
40:1 surface are indeed below 11,000 feet, then why require the 460 ft/
nm gradient all the way to 14000 feet? I understand that there will
be some obstacle clearance provided by the gradient, whereas the
ceiling can be right on the obstacle, but 3000 feet of difference
between the two seems too much for that explanation.

The old TERPS (in paragraph 1208) stated that "The ceiling value shall
be the 100-foot increment above the controlling obstacle or above the
altitude required over a specified point from which a 40:1 gradient
will clear the obstacle." What does the second part, after the "or,"
mean? And does that have anything to do with the Aspen procedure? I
believe that the newest revision of the TERPS has deleted that second
part and added the description of a visual-climb-over-the-airport
procedure. Is that supposed to be a replacement with different
terminology, or are those two things not related?

ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY/SARDY FIELD
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 15, NA. Rwy 33, 3100-3
or 1000-2 with a min. climb of 460' per NM to 14000.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Climb heading 340° to
8700, then climbing left turn to 16000 heading 270° to
intercept and proceed via I-PKN northwest course
outbound on backcourse and DBL R-244 outbound to
GLENO Int/DBL 22.7 DME. Climb in GLENO holding
pattern (SW, left turns, 064° inbound) to cross GLENO
at 16000 before proceeding in route.
NOTE: Rwy 33, 8179' tree 3447' from departure end of
runway, 1379' left of centerline.

The IPH also has an example of the visual-climb-over-the-airport
procedure, which is very explicitly stated as part of the ODP:
BECKWOURTH, CA
NERVINO
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwys 7, 25, 3500-3 for climb in
visual conditions.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 7, 25, for climb in
visual conditions: cross Nervino Airport at or above
8300 before proceeding on course.

thanks,

Peter

wrote:
> I have a question about the ceiling and visibility minima as
> alternates for climb gradients in departure procedures. A good
> example is at Aspen (KASE), straight out of the FAA Instrument
> Procedures Handbook, but they don't explain the portion I find
> difficult to understand. I've duplicated the entire text of the
> procedure at the bottom of this message.
>
> So the issue I have is that the required ceiling to avoid the 460 ft/
> nm gradient is 3100 feet. That makes an MSL altitude of just under
> 11,000 feet as the minimum for the bases of the clouds. But, if the
> clouds are lower, the 460 ft/nm gradient is to be maintained all the
> way to 14,000 feet MSL.
>
> So are all the obstacles below the 11,000 foot ceiling, or not? If
> not, how can the 3100-3 minimums with standard climb gradient result
> in a safe operation? Conversely, if all the obstacles penetrating the
> 40:1 surface are indeed below 11,000 feet, then why require the 460 ft/
> nm gradient all the way to 14000 feet? I understand that there will
> be some obstacle clearance provided by the gradient, whereas the
> ceiling can be right on the obstacle, but 3000 feet of difference
> between the two seems too much for that explanation.
>
> The old TERPS (in paragraph 1208) stated that "The ceiling value shall
> be the 100-foot increment above the controlling obstacle or above the
> altitude required over a specified point from which a 40:1 gradient
> will clear the obstacle." What does the second part, after the "or,"
> mean? And does that have anything to do with the Aspen procedure? I
> believe that the newest revision of the TERPS has deleted that second
> part and added the description of a visual-climb-over-the-airport
> procedure. Is that supposed to be a replacement with different
> terminology, or are those two things not related?
>
> ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY/SARDY FIELD
> TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 15, NA. Rwy 33, 3100-3
> or 1000-2 with a min. climb of 460' per NM to 14000.
> DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Climb heading 340° to
> 8700, then climbing left turn to 16000 heading 270° to
> intercept and proceed via I-PKN northwest course
> outbound on backcourse and DBL R-244 outbound to
> GLENO Int/DBL 22.7 DME. Climb in GLENO holding
> pattern (SW, left turns, 064° inbound) to cross GLENO
> at 16000 before proceeding in route.
> NOTE: Rwy 33, 8179' tree 3447' from departure end of
> runway, 1379' left of centerline.
>
> The IPH also has an example of the visual-climb-over-the-airport
> procedure, which is very explicitly stated as part of the ODP:
> BECKWOURTH, CA
> NERVINO
> TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwys 7, 25, 3500-3 for climb in
> visual conditions.
> DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 7, 25, for climb in
> visual conditions: cross Nervino Airport at or above
> 8300 before proceeding on course.
>
> thanks,
>
> Peter
>
Visual Climb Overairport (VOA) is a fairly recent implementation to
TERPS criteria and simply does not lend itself to application at
airports with very close in terrain.

Aspen does NOT have a VOA. The ceiling and visibility is simply a
facade. All it means is that if you were somehow able to cross the
departure end of Runway 33 at 3100 feet, agl, you would now be 40:1
clear along the departure path.

Some FAA suits claim it enables you to avoid obstacles on a
"progressive" basis until leaving 10,920 msl. That, of course, is field
full of meadow muffins.

Moral: If you can't make good the climb gradient, you have your hands
full of crap.

Correction: "VOA" should be "VCOA"

That's quite troubling. Is it true that with the new TERPS criteria,
the Aspen departure procedure would have been written differently, or
is teleportation still going to be implied in newly-developed
procedures?

Why don't they set the ceiling to be above all the obstacles as is
implied in all the text books I've looked at? The books (including
the FAA IFH and IPH) say that you should avoid obstacles visually
along the departure, without mentioning that you have to somehow cross
back over the airport.

On Oct 24, 7:13 am, Bee > wrote:
>
> Visual Climb Overairport (VOA) is a fairly recent implementation to
> TERPS criteria and simply does not lend itself to application at
> airports with very close in terrain.
>
> Aspen does NOT have a VOA. The ceiling and visibility is simply a
> facade. All it means is that if you were somehow able to cross the
> departure end of Runway 33 at 3100 feet, agl, you would now be 40:1
> clear along the departure path.
>
> Some FAA suits claim it enables you to avoid obstacles on a
> "progressive" basis until leaving 10,920 msl. That, of course, is field
> full of meadow muffins.
>
> Moral: If you can't make good the climb gradient, you have your hands
> full of crap.

A normal IDP requires 152 ft/nm, about 350 ft. min @ 120
KIAS.
Many airports have obstacles that require a steeper climb,
so they publish "non-standard TO minima"
Some airports cannot be departed safely in IMC due to local
terrain.
Altitudes required to clear an obstruction include a margin,
2,000 feet in mountainous regions and 1,000 feet in other
areas.
The IDP gradient at Aspen is based on the angle from the
departure end to the critical obstacle, a rate that is well
above the engine-out performance of most airplanes. [460
ft/nm will be close to 1,000 ft/min and most turboprops
won't do that on one engine, it is the worst your plane can
do that is the performance you need to consider.]
Once past the critical obstacle, a climb at standard rates
will be safe. [Again, those rates may be above the
performance of many smaller, low powered aircraft.]

The ideal airplane for Aspen is probably an F15-F22 class
fighter, go vertical to FL 240. But most pilots don't fly
with that much power.

Aspen is a dangerous place for the unprepared and a
wonderful place for those who know how to fly in the
mountains, when to fly and have the equipment and stay
within the limits.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a question about the ceiling and visibility minima as
alternates for climb gradients in departure procedures. A
good
example is at Aspen (KASE), straight out of the FAA
Instrument
Procedures Handbook, but they don't explain the portion I
find
difficult to understand. I've duplicated the entire text of
the
procedure at the bottom of this message.

So the issue I have is that the required ceiling to avoid
the 460 ft/
nm gradient is 3100 feet. That makes an MSL altitude of
just under
11,000 feet as the minimum for the bases of the clouds.
But, if the
clouds are lower, the 460 ft/nm gradient is to be maintained
all the
way to 14,000 feet MSL.

So are all the obstacles below the 11,000 foot ceiling, or
not? If
not, how can the 3100-3 minimums with standard climb
gradient result
in a safe operation? Conversely, if all the obstacles
penetrating the
40:1 surface are indeed below 11,000 feet, then why require
the 460 ft/
nm gradient all the way to 14000 feet? I understand that
there will
be some obstacle clearance provided by the gradient, whereas
the
ceiling can be right on the obstacle, but 3000 feet of
difference
between the two seems too much for that explanation.

The old TERPS (in paragraph 1208) stated that "The ceiling
value shall
be the 100-foot increment above the controlling obstacle or
above the
altitude required over a specified point from which a 40:1
gradient
will clear the obstacle." What does the second part, after
the "or,"
mean? And does that have anything to do with the Aspen
procedure? I
believe that the newest revision of the TERPS has deleted
that second
part and added the description of a
visual-climb-over-the-airport
procedure. Is that supposed to be a replacement with
different
terminology, or are those two things not related?

ASPEN-PITKIN COUNTY/SARDY FIELD
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 15, NA. Rwy 33, 3100-3
or 1000-2 with a min. climb of 460' per NM to 14000.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Climb heading 340° to
8700, then climbing left turn to 16000 heading 270° to
intercept and proceed via I-PKN northwest course
outbound on backcourse and DBL R-244 outbound to
GLENO Int/DBL 22.7 DME. Climb in GLENO holding
pattern (SW, left turns, 064° inbound) to cross GLENO
at 16000 before proceeding in route.
NOTE: Rwy 33, 8179' tree 3447' from departure end of
runway, 1379' left of centerline.

The IPH also has an example of the
visual-climb-over-the-airport
procedure, which is very explicitly stated as part of the
ODP:
BECKWOURTH, CA
NERVINO
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwys 7, 25, 3500-3 for climb in
visual conditions.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 7, 25, for climb in
visual conditions: cross Nervino Airport at or above
8300 before proceeding on course.

thanks,

Peter

wrote:
> That's quite troubling. Is it true that with the new TERPS criteria,
> the Aspen departure procedure would have been written differently, or
> is teleportation still going to be implied in newly-developed
> procedures?
>
> Why don't they set the ceiling to be above all the obstacles as is
> implied in all the text books I've looked at? The books (including
> the FAA IFH and IPH) say that you should avoid obstacles visually
> along the departure, without mentioning that you have to somehow cross
> back over the airport.

You have to ask the FAA why they insist and that stance.

It can't stand logical analysis, much less technical.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A normal IDP requires 152 ft/nm, about 350 ft. min @ 120
> KIAS.
> Many airports have obstacles that require a steeper climb,
> so they publish "non-standard TO minima"
> Some airports cannot be departed safely in IMC due to local
> terrain.
> Altitudes required to clear an obstruction include a margin,
> 2,000 feet in mountainous regions and 1,000 feet in other
> areas.
> The IDP gradient at Aspen is based on the angle from the
> departure end to the critical obstacle, a rate that is well
> above the engine-out performance of most airplanes. [460
> ft/nm will be close to 1,000 ft/min and most turboprops
> won't do that on one engine, it is the worst your plane can
> do that is the performance you need to consider.]
> Once past the critical obstacle, a climb at standard rates
> will be safe. [Again, those rates may be above the
> performance of many smaller, low powered aircraft.]

From AC 120-91:

7. TERPS CRITERIA VERSUS ONE-ENGINE-INOPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS.

a. Standard Instrument Departures (SID) or Departure Procedures (DP)
based on TERPS or ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services—Aircraft
Operations (PANS-OPS) are based on normal (all engines operating)
operations. Thus, one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements
and the all-engines-operating TERPS requirements are independent, and
one-engine-inoperative procedures do not need to meet TERPS
requirements. Further, compliance with TERPS all-engines-operating climb
gradient requirements does not necessarily assure that
one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements are met. TERPS
typically use specified all-engines-operating climb gradients to an
altitude, rather than certificated one-engine-inoperative airplane
performance. TERPS typically assume a climb gradient of 200 feet per
nautical mile (NM) unless a greater gradient is specified. For the
purposes of analyzing performance on procedures developed under TERPS or
PANS-OPS, it is understood that any gradient requirement, specified or
unspecified, will be treated as a plane which must not be penetrated
from above until reaching the stated height, rather than as a gradient
which must be exceeded at all points in the path. Operators must comply
with 14 CFR requirements for the development of takeoff performance data
and procedures. There are differences between TERPS and
one-engine-inoperative criteria, including the lateral and vertical
obstacle clearance requirements. An engine failure during takeoff is a
non-normal condition, and therefore takes precedence over noise
abatement, air traffic, SIDs, DPs, and other normal operating
considerations.

Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft has a
CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.

Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and adjust
gross weight, weather or other parameters because pilots
[and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.



"Bee" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > A normal IDP requires 152 ft/nm, about 350 ft. min @ 120
| > KIAS.
| > Many airports have obstacles that require a steeper
climb,
| > so they publish "non-standard TO minima"
| > Some airports cannot be departed safely in IMC due to
local
| > terrain.
| > Altitudes required to clear an obstruction include a
margin,
| > 2,000 feet in mountainous regions and 1,000 feet in
other
| > areas.
| > The IDP gradient at Aspen is based on the angle from the
| > departure end to the critical obstacle, a rate that is
well
| > above the engine-out performance of most airplanes.
[460
| > ft/nm will be close to 1,000 ft/min and most turboprops
| > won't do that on one engine, it is the worst your plane
can
| > do that is the performance you need to consider.]
| > Once past the critical obstacle, a climb at standard
rates
| > will be safe. [Again, those rates may be above the
| > performance of many smaller, low powered aircraft.]
|
| From AC 120-91:
|
| 7. TERPS CRITERIA VERSUS ONE-ENGINE-INOPERATIVE
REQUIREMENTS.
|
| a. Standard Instrument Departures (SID) or Departure
Procedures (DP)
| based on TERPS or ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation
Services—Aircraft
| Operations (PANS-OPS) are based on normal (all engines
operating)
| operations. Thus, one-engine-inoperative obstacle
clearance requirements
| and the all-engines-operating TERPS requirements are
independent, and
| one-engine-inoperative procedures do not need to meet
TERPS
| requirements. Further, compliance with TERPS
all-engines-operating climb
| gradient requirements does not necessarily assure that
| one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements are
met. TERPS
| typically use specified all-engines-operating climb
gradients to an
| altitude, rather than certificated one-engine-inoperative
airplane
| performance. TERPS typically assume a climb gradient of
200 feet per
| nautical mile (NM) unless a greater gradient is specified.
For the
| purposes of analyzing performance on procedures developed
under TERPS or
| PANS-OPS, it is understood that any gradient requirement,
specified or
| unspecified, will be treated as a plane which must not be
penetrated
| from above until reaching the stated height, rather than
as a gradient
| which must be exceeded at all points in the path.
Operators must comply
| with 14 CFR requirements for the development of takeoff
performance data
| and procedures. There are differences between TERPS and
| one-engine-inoperative criteria, including the lateral and
vertical
| obstacle clearance requirements. An engine failure during
takeoff is a
| non-normal condition, and therefore takes precedence over
noise
| abatement, air traffic, SIDs, DPs, and other normal
operating
| considerations.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft has a
> CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
>
> Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and adjust
> gross weight, weather or other parameters because pilots
> [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
>
>
If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that language, you have
it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some pretty sharp FAA
ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed aviation community.

The sharp people at the FAA write, the lawyers edit.

The FAA will allow pilots to kill themselves in Part 91
operations, they tighten up under 121,135 commercial ops.

Me, I want to have lots of room under the belly. The 300
King Air climbs well on one engine, particularly when the
weight is less than 14,000 lbs. TOW.

But a 90 series King Air or even a 200, is under powered at
high and hot airports.

It is my policy to be able to se and avoid, or fly IFR with
margins even beyond the word in the law.

"Bee" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft has
a
| > CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
| >
| > Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and
adjust
| > gross weight, weather or other parameters because pilots
| > [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
| >
| >
| If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that
language, you have
| it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some
pretty sharp FAA
| ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed aviation
community.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The sharp people at the FAA write, the lawyers edit.

No FAA lawyer edited AC 120-91.
>
> The FAA will allow pilots to kill themselves in Part 91
> operations, they tighten up under 121,135 commercial ops.

No, pilots usually kill themselves under Part 91.
>
> Me, I want to have lots of room under the belly. The 300
> King Air climbs well on one engine, particularly when the
> weight is less than 14,000 lbs. TOW.
>
The 300 is certified under Part 25 isn't it?

> But a 90 series King Air or even a 200, is under powered at
> high and hot airports.

Part 23 airplanes, all bets are off.
>
> It is my policy to be able to se and avoid, or fly IFR with
> margins even beyond the word in the law.

Good for you. But, most of the real guidance is not a matter of law.
>
> "Bee" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft has
> a
> | > CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
> | >
> | > Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and
> adjust
> | > gross weight, weather or other parameters because pilots
> | > [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
> | >
> | >
> | If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that
> language, you have
> | it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some
> pretty sharp FAA
> | ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed aviation
> community.
>
>

No, the 300 is a special part 23


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The sharp people at the FAA write, the lawyers edit.
|
| No FAA lawyer edited AC 120-91.
| >
| > The FAA will allow pilots to kill themselves in Part 91
| > operations, they tighten up under 121,135 commercial
ops.
|
| No, pilots usually kill themselves under Part 91.
| >
| > Me, I want to have lots of room under the belly. The
300
| > King Air climbs well on one engine, particularly when
the
| > weight is less than 14,000 lbs. TOW.
| >
| The 300 is certified under Part 25 isn't it?
|
| > But a 90 series King Air or even a 200, is under powered
at
| > high and hot airports.
|
| Part 23 airplanes, all bets are off.
| >
| > It is my policy to be able to se and avoid, or fly IFR
with
| > margins even beyond the word in the law.
|
| Good for you. But, most of the real guidance is not a
matter of law.
| >
| > "Bee" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | Jim Macklin wrote:
| > | > Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft
has
| > a
| > | > CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
| > | >
| > | > Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and
| > adjust
| > | > gross weight, weather or other parameters because
pilots
| > | > [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that
| > language, you have
| > | it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some
| > pretty sharp FAA
| > | ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed
aviation
| > community.
| >
| >

I think the 300/350 is part 23 commuter, or something like that.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> The sharp people at the FAA write, the lawyers edit.
>
> No FAA lawyer edited AC 120-91.
>>
>> The FAA will allow pilots to kill themselves in Part 91 operations, they
>> tighten up under 121,135 commercial ops.
>
> No, pilots usually kill themselves under Part 91.
>>
>> Me, I want to have lots of room under the belly. The 300 King Air climbs
>> well on one engine, particularly when the weight is less than 14,000 lbs.
>> TOW.
>>
> The 300 is certified under Part 25 isn't it?
>
>> But a 90 series King Air or even a 200, is under powered at high and hot
>> airports.
>
> Part 23 airplanes, all bets are off.
>>
>> It is my policy to be able to se and avoid, or fly IFR with margins even
>> beyond the word in the law.
>
> Good for you. But, most of the real guidance is not a matter of law.
>>
>> "Bee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> | Jim Macklin wrote:
>> | > Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft has a
>> | > CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
>> | >
>> | > Any competent pilot will consider such "details" and adjust
>> | > gross weight, weather or other parameters because pilots
>> | > [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
>> | >
>> | >
>> | If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that language, you have
>> | it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some pretty sharp FAA
>> | ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed aviation community.

The 300 was certified under SFAR 41, the 350 was certified
in the new commuter category.



"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
|I think the 300/350 is part 23 commuter, or something like
that.
|
|
| "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Jim Macklin wrote:
| >> The sharp people at the FAA write, the lawyers edit.
| >
| > No FAA lawyer edited AC 120-91.
| >>
| >> The FAA will allow pilots to kill themselves in Part 91
operations, they
| >> tighten up under 121,135 commercial ops.
| >
| > No, pilots usually kill themselves under Part 91.
| >>
| >> Me, I want to have lots of room under the belly. The
300 King Air climbs
| >> well on one engine, particularly when the weight is
less than 14,000 lbs.
| >> TOW.
| >>
| > The 300 is certified under Part 25 isn't it?
| >
| >> But a 90 series King Air or even a 200, is under
powered at high and hot
| >> airports.
| >
| > Part 23 airplanes, all bets are off.
| >>
| >> It is my policy to be able to se and avoid, or fly IFR
with margins even
| >> beyond the word in the law.
| >
| > Good for you. But, most of the real guidance is not a
matter of law.
| >>
| >> "Bee" > wrote in message
| >> ...
| >> | Jim Macklin wrote:
| >> | > Yes, I know that no FAA lawyer dies when a aircraft
has a
| >> | > CFIT during an IDP after an engine failure.
| >> | >
| >> | > Any competent pilot will consider such "details"
and adjust
| >> | > gross weight, weather or other parameters because
pilots
| >> | > [and passengers] die, not FAA lawyer.
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | If you are implying that some FAA lawyer wrote that
language, you have
| >> | it wrong. That advisory circular was written by some
pretty sharp FAA
| >> | ops folks who are trying to inform a misinformed
aviation community.
|
|

In case you all think this only applies to impossible locations like
Aspen, check out Northampton, MA, 7B2.

Read the obstacle departure procedure. Look at the obstacles
on the approach place and imagine how much margin you would
have if you departed there and followed the procedure. You
need more that 1000 feet only a few runway lengths ahead.

It's a pretty scairy ridge out there, and it's at sea level!

Bill Hale