No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:


ATC is responsible for providing separation between IFR aircraft. IFR
refers to the RULES under which the aircraft are flying and NOT to the
weather conditions.

Yes, but see and avoid applies to IFR also. I can now see that there is more
to it than that.

What protection would be provided?

Separation from other IFR traffic.

Sure, as long as the arrival remains IFR. If the arriving aircraft is
cleared for the visual, the departing aircraft is probably not going to be
released, and if the departing aircraft is released, the arriving aircraft
is probably going to be given delaying / spacing vectors. If the arriving
aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's different.
Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft
proceeds west according to the ODP, then what?


Radar services are not being provided to
either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below
MVA.

I don't know what you mean by "the ring". But since when are radar
services required for IFR traffic separation? Radar allows for less
separation, but non-radar IFR regulations have been around for a long
time.

Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case

Why and how?

because... there are no approaches that traverse this ODP, so in IMC there
would be no truly VFR aircraft (we hope )
or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
protect.

(Unless *both* aircraft report traffic in sight, and consent to "maintain
visual separation")

But you are implying that they are NOT protecting this airspace unless the
pilot specifically requests an ODP (something he is NOT required to do)
when you talk about the possibility of "head to head" encounters.

No, the tower is saying, we don't know what you are going to do, so it'd be
nice if you would tell us. Are you saying that the tower is responsible for
protecting the ODP? I don't believe that's the case, else they wouldn't
have to request a release.

That said, I totally agree that since there is clearly ambiguity (tower
thought: let's see, the aircraft has an easterly flight plan, but the ODP is
westerly...I wonder which way he is going to turn after departure since he
might be able to outfly the terrain over there visually?), I think the tower
would be well advised to clarify. Instead, they have clearly stated that the
pilot can do what he wants (just like you say - pilot prerogative), and
they'll figure it out/react/respond accordingly.

So as Sydney notes, it would be best to state intentions, but that would not
have made any difference if I had hit the ground less than 3 minutes after
departure. That's what I would like to prevent from happening to someone
else. Let's get back to that.

Bob