No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

wrote:


Newps wrote:


Greg Esres wrote:


Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
associated at all with any radar facility.

Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
they may have the tower give you a vector.


That is a contradiction in terms. If the tower controller can't see you on
radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading.

If there is no radar in the tower the approach control will assign the
vector. If you get a heading in your takeoff clearance it is a vector.
Period.

Newps wrote:

wrote:


Newps wrote:


Greg Esres wrote:


Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
associated at all with any radar facility.

Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
they may have the tower give you a vector.


That is a contradiction in terms. If the tower controller can't see you on
radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading.

If there is no radar in the tower the approach control will assign the
vector. If you get a heading in your takeoff clearance it is a vector.
Period.

That happened to me personally at KMRY a few years ago, taking off to the east
towards the rapidly rising mountains. I had filed the MRY 3 vector SID, which
required a turn to a heading of 315, or so, to fly away from the terrain and over
the ocean.

I was assigned the heading by the tower just after takeoff. I replied, "Is this
for vectors?" Silence. I then said, "I cannot achieve a climb gradient to climb
straight out. Silence. I then said, "I am turning left to a heading of 315 to
follow my filed departure." Then, there were some "ahhs and errrs" and I was
handed off to departure control.

I later learned that the TRACON cannot see you on an east departure until you're
about 1,100 feet, agl, due to the fact the antenna is located several miles away
so it can serve KSNS as well.

I was well aware that the Runway 10 non-radar SID had a climb gradient of 400
feet per mile for almost 4500 feet.

I can't find the message where you mention HLN, which has a non-radar approach
control. I believe you mention there aren't many of those around these days,
which is correct.

And, at a place that does have a tower and a non-radar approach control it's all
pretty well sorted out with full use of IAPs and DPs except when visuals can be
issued or good weather permits hopefully familiar pilots to request VFR climbs.

Then, there are the cases of VFR towers with no approach control of any kind,
such as Jackson, WY. A bit of grey creeps into that picture since ZLC provides
terminal services and has no radar below the mountain tops. Plus, the tower is
part-time so it goes from one shade of grey to another when the tower closes.

This is grey for pilots, not controllers. The Air Force proved that at Jackson.
After that Jackson got a part-time tower but no remoted ASR (unlike MSO).

What is on the increase are RNAV IAPs at Class G (and, in some cases surface
Class E) airports with no tower and with Center providing terminal services
without radar below the mountain peaks. As a matter of policy, ATC pretty well
walks away from terrain clearance at these airports. It's up to the pilot to
ferret out the Obstacle DP, which in some cases will be in apparent conflict with
the initial ATC clearance.

To make it safe and consistent from JFK Airport to BIH Airport, the aviation
community would be far better served if the initial ATC clearance at the BIH-type
airport included the obstacle DP, then onto routing at the terminus of the ODP,
that would tie to the en route phase of the clearance.

Then, let the burden fall on the pilot to say on a clear day or night, "I don't
want the obstacle DP, I request a VFR climb to XYZ VOR."

The system would be safer as a result. And, with the pending rule change that
may come out mandating obstcle DPs unless ATC assigns a vector or SID, then
perhaps we will get there.

BTW, Billings has an easy vector environment compared to many mountain area
airports. You are basically flat landers to the north and east. MSO should have
it so good.