On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:



Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
are inherently bad.

I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published
procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both
the AIM and the 7110.65

I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the
overall safety of the system we fly in.

We share that goal. I have no interest in flaming anyone, but I would like
to improve safety by having someone educate that facility so that they do
things the way it's done in the rest of the country.

To have a few facilities implementing IFR departure procedures differently
from the rest of the country is inherently bad. Whether the procedure
needs to be changed or not.

I do not equate education with flaming; and as I mentioned before, I'll be
happy to give you some ATC contacts who can take the ball further in a
proper method.


My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that
are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to
cumologranite.

I would agree. But educating ATC in your area that pilots (even if they
are non-military) may, at their prerogative, fly a published ODP is a
different issue. And if a conflict results from that, it will be with
traffic, and not with terrain.


If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider.


I was hoping to convince you by logic rather than a Usenet opinion poll.
It seems I have failed at that. But please think about it and, as I said,
I'd be happy to give you some ATC contacts whose goals are professional,
and not "flaming".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)