On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:45:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish

That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.


I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
pilots who do things by the book.

No, sorry for the confusion. In the discussions that followed, the tower
suggested that I inform them of my intentions to fly the ODP (which is
similar to the circumstances originating this thread, right?), so that they
could coordinate better. The implication was that in vmc RAPCON could
vector arriving aircraft on the visual approach further away from the ODP so
that there would not be a head to head situation. There was nothing to
imply that the ODP was not being protected.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the ODP is being protected, then a
conflict will not arise. If a "head to head situation" arises, then the
ODP was not being protected.

Also, you previously wrote that "both held that an ODP needs to be
requested by the pilot if not issued"

That is just not the case. An ODP never needs to be requested by the
pilot. The pilot may fly it at his prerogative, unless alternate departure
instructions have been received from ATC.


Now, it is my position that the safer procedure would be for the tower to
automatically issue departure heading instructions that are consistent with
the ODP.

It should be the case that any departure instructions issued by the tower
are either consistent with the ODP *OR* with taking you over an area that
is 40:1 clear. In some circumstances (although generally not a towered
field), ATC is *required* to obtain pilot agreement to fly certain
departure routes.



I think we agree on that. (Frankly, I know now that my error was
in expecting this to happen - AGAIN, a misconception (that I believe
non-scientifically could be fairly common about the level of service one can
expect at a towered airport in a radar environment on an IFR flight plan.)
Now, when the pilot contacts departure, he can say, "...can we get on
course?" Departure can say, "radar contact, but I cannot turn you on course
until you reach MVA." If conditions warrant, the pilot can come back and
say, "We will maintain our own terrain clearance, request on course." All
things being equal, that could be approved as requested with an instruction
to maintain visual terrain clearance.




Approach control should NOT give you vectors below the MVA/MIA (with rare
exceptions as noted above).

However, if you say "...can we get on course?", ATC could certainly say
"Proceed on course". They have not given you a vector, and you are still
responsible for terrain clearance.

If you say to ATC, "We'd like to ..." ATC will generally assume that you
feel it is safe and legal for you to do so and that you are able to do so.
Whether they allow it or not usually depends on factors other than terrain.
Some of these factors include traffic and LOA's between facilities that may
require you to be in a certain spot.


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