I like my privatized airport :)

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
terrain?

If there is no published DP then a 200 feet per nautical mile gradient
should clear the terrain.

In this case, there was a published DP with an initial climb to the right.
However, ATC gave me alternate takeoff instructions with a turn to the left,
and looking at the approach chart to MGW you can see that a left turn off of
runway 18 does indeed come uncomfortably close to terrain. MGW Tower
seemed unaware of the departure procedure, and in fact when I specifically
requested it I was told "Unable due to traffic -- Cleared for takeoff, Climb
on runway heading"; that procedure ALSO comes uncomfortably close to
terrain. The published procedure with a turn to the right is indeed the
only rational procedure for departing this airport, even if that means (as
in my case) volunteering to delay an IMC departure until the conflicting
traffic is clear.

Incidentally, this is a really helpful concept to teach on an instrument
proficiency check. I have a routine clearance from "Kaplan Approach" which
I give to pilots during an instrument proficiency check which takes a pilot
straight into a mountain below the MEA when there is no radar vectoring and
thus terrain clearance is entirely the pilot's responsibility; very, very
rarely do pilots pick up on this, and instead almost everyone sets up course
to fly right into the mountain until at an appropriate time I say "Take off
the hood and tell me what is wrong with this picture." This is a terrific
attention-getter for a post-flight talk about CFIT avoidance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

(K. Ari Krupnikov) wrote in message ...
"Richard Kaplan" writes:
1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain obscured I
was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left on Course" which
is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure and would take me
into terrain.

Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
the airport?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, Ari. Yes, there's a standard
climb gradient which applies to airports w/o a published DP. If the
airports don't meet it, there's a published DP.

Richard is saying that MGW has a published DP (presumably because it
does not meet that standard climb gradient), and the controller gave
him instructions which contravened the published DP. If there's a
published DP, there's usually a reason and one better follow it.

At least that's my understanding of what he wrote, FWIW.

Cheers,
Sydney

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
terrain?


Yes, but it applies only at airports with SIAPs. If no specific DP is
published, then the "standard DP" will ensure obstacle clearance to the
minimum IFR altitude; cross the
departure end of the runway a minimum of 35 feet AGL, climb at least 200
feet per
nautical mile, and climb to 400 feet above field elevation before turning.

Richard Kaplan wrote:


2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note I
was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility for
terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After some
on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.

Where do you learn this stuff? If ATC says to proceed direct to some
fix they damn sure do assume terrain separation responsibility.

"Newps" wrote in message
.net...

Where do you learn this stuff? If ATC says to proceed direct to some
fix they damn sure do assume terrain separation responsibility.


ATC assumes terrain separation if they provide navigational guidance in the
form of radar vectors but not if they instruct a pilot to Proceed Direct.
See AIM 5-2-6:

"ATC may assume responsibility for obstacle clearance by vectoring the
aircraft prior to minimum vectoring altitude by using a diverse vector area
(DVA). The DVA has been assessed for departures which do not follow a
specific ground track. ATC may also vector an aircraft off a previously
assigned DP. In all cases, the 200 FPNM climb gradient is assumed and
obstacle clearance is not provided by ATC until the controller begins to
provide navigational guidance in the form of radar vectors."

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain
obscured I was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left
on Course" which is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure
and would take me into terrain.


They probably just said that because whatever you filed would mean a left
turn from a south departure to proceed on course. Turn left on course
doesn't mean you have to start a left turn as soon as your wheels are off
the runway. They can't deny you the DP, if a published IFR departure
procedure is not included in an ATC clearance, compliance with such a
procedure is the pilot's prerogative.



2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note
I was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility
for
terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After
some on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.


Did they arbitrarily send you to MGW, or did you tell them at some point
that you'd like to proceed to MGW in the event of a miss? Again, "proceed
direct MGW" doesn't mean you must start a left turn to MGW at the MAP.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

the runway. They can't deny you the DP, if a published IFR departure

They did deny me the DP until I volunteered that I would delay my departure,
and they still seemed puzzled as to why I wanted to wait.


Did they arbitrarily send you to MGW, or did you tell them at some point
that you'd like to proceed to MGW in the event of a miss? Again, "proceed
direct MGW" doesn't mean you must start a left turn to MGW at the MAP.


MGW was not an arbitrary destination; I had requested to fly the published
missed at JST and then proceed to MGW. "Proceed direct MGW" was indeed
the proposed alternate missed approach procedure; the missed approach
procedure needs to be executed at the missed approach point. Indeed, I
again requested the published missed and was denied it.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message ws.com...
"Byron Miller" wrote in message
...
Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!

Well this may be just coincidence and in any event when n=2 not all that
much can be concluded, but for what it is worth I have had two experiences
when controllers gave me instructions while low altitude in IMC which could
have resulted in a controlled flight into terrain accident, and both
situations occurred at a non-towered field -- once at Morgantown WV KMGW and
once at Johnstown PA KJST.

Richard,

Perhaps I'm not following the juxtaposition. Are you saying that
contract tower controllers gave you these instructions, or that
FAA controllers gave you these instructions whilst you were operating
at a non-towered airport for which they provide approach/departure
services?

I have to admit the "proceed direct MGW" part might have caught
us. Thanks very much for the heads-up, we'll be on alert for that
kind of thing.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...

Perhaps I'm not following the juxtaposition. Are you saying that
contract tower controllers gave you these instructions, or that
FAA controllers gave you these instructions whilst you were operating
at a non-towered airport for which they provide approach/departure
services?

The instructions were from a controller at a non-federal control tower. So
it was a controller who was not an FAA employee. When I mentioned
"non-towered" that was my error; I meant "non-Federal towered".


I have to admit the "proceed direct MGW" part might have caught
us. Thanks very much for the heads-up, we'll be on alert for that
kind of thing.

Yes, very subtle and very scary.. and I am convinced the controller used the
terminology precisely because when he finally assumed terrain responsibility
he said "Fly Heading XXX, Center Assigned Heading". I interpret that to
mean "I check with Center and I am stating for the tape that Center is
responsible for terrain if you hit something on that heading."


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

The instructions were from a controller at a non-federal control tower.
So it was a controller who was not an FAA employee. When I mentioned
"non-towered" that was my error; I meant "non-Federal towered".


My A/FD is almost two years old, but it indicates MGW is an FAA Contract
Tower and JST is still an FAA tower.