How do you leave this airport IMC?

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" said:

Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the
centerline.
My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
real, of course.)

I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
me do it?


Possibly just because it's fun and harmless (under the hood with an
instructor, that is).

Or if you really stretch your imagination, you might come up with a rare
scenario in which a zero-visibility departure is warranted (say you're in a
remote area with someone who's having a medical emergency). In that case,
you're probably better off having at least tried it once before.

That is one of the few situations where I would consider a zero-zero
takeoff. I agree that it is good practice and good to know that it can
be done in an extreme situation.

Matt

You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.

If you are really concerned, climb over the departure airport until you feel
comfortable in proceeding.

Bob Gardner

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..

On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.

Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.

Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?


Morris

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?





"Bob Gardner" wrote in
:

You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It
has no operational significance and is not part of an instrument
approach procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff
minimums.

If you are really concerned, climb over the departure airport until
you feel comfortable in proceeding.

Bob Gardner

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..

On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.

Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the
night, but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken
up and it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.

Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?


Morris

On 27 May 2005 22:49:31 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?



I don't have the charts in front of me right now, but, as I recall, there
is no instruction to "proceed at 2300'". And the manner of flying a DP is
to continue climb at 200 ft/nm until at the MEA.

The airway you are supposed to intercept is the one to which you have been
cleared.

"On Course" for the rwy10 DP (if that's the one with the climb to 2300'
instruction) means the direct route from the point at which you attain
2300' to the closest point on the airway to which you have been cleared.

For the other runway, it would be after attaining 400' AGL.

And you should not hit obstacles because these routes with the restrictions
cited in the DP's have been checked for obstacle clearance.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.




On 27 May 2005 22:49:31 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?



I don't have the charts in front of me right now, but, as I recall,
there is no instruction to "proceed at 2300'". And the manner of
flying a DP is to continue climb at 200 ft/nm until at the MEA.

The airway you are supposed to intercept is the one to which you have
been cleared.

"On Course" for the rwy10 DP (if that's the one with the climb to
2300' instruction) means the direct route from the point at which you
attain 2300' to the closest point on the airway to which you have been
cleared.

For the other runway, it would be after attaining 400' AGL.

And you should not hit obstacles because these routes with the
restrictions cited in the DP's have been checked for obstacle
clearance.


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

On 28 May 2005 07:27:01 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.

No, not "to any heading" but rather to the heading that will take you to
the airway to which you have been cleared.


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

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.




No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:

1) cross the runway end at 35'
2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
would choose your on course or clearance heading.


Mike
MU-2

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles. Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach, California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse, through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.

This has been valuable for me.

I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure for
any airport with an IAP.

It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
not know this.

So, thanks to all the contributors for this.


wrote in message ...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles. Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.

I should have stated "any airport with an IAP and no ODP"


" wrote in message
...
This has been valuable for me.

I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure
for
any airport with an IAP.

It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
not know this.

So, thanks to all the contributors for this.


wrote in message ...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude
is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or
clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles.
Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums
anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to
standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use
Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.