No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:22:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

Agreed, of course. That is not at issue.

The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I
consider that inherently bad.

And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been trying
to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been
trying
to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction.

Well, I think it comes down to philosophy. I think it's just as much a
pilot training issue. The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish.

I now know what I can do to additionally ensure the safety of any flight I
undertake, which is to always depart IFR using an ODP when available. That
removes the controller training level from the risk equation.

Tangentially, here are a couple of other 'best practices' (or personal
minimums) to avoid other safety traps I've noticed.

1) Never cancel IFR until a landing is assured (i.e., after landing), or
airport/nearby activity is enough that an unsuccessful approach will be
immediately noticed. (Credit to United Airlines: learned while listening to
channel 9 landing in a severely remote area late at night).

2) Decline visual approaches at night.

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.


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

"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.

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. 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.

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)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

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.

Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What
protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to
either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA.
Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no
approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft
or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
protect.


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.

True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I
would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more
smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have
requested it, even though it's not required.



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.

Absolutely, and until ATC and you concur on that course of action, I think
proceeding according to the ODP is the ideal strategy to reach the enroute
system.

Robert Henry wrote:

Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What
protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to
either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA.
Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no
approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft
or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
protect.

IFR aircraft are always provided separation from each other until
touchdown, the type of airspace does not matter. The fact that one
aircraft is inside some kind of ring or below the MVA is not relavant.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point?

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.

What protection would be provided?

Separation from other IFR traffic.

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?

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


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

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.


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

"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:rIZqb.402$5e.280@lakeread06...

Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point?

No. IFR separation rules still apply.

Aircraft operating under IFR in VMC must still be separated.
They are not separated from aircraft operating VFR in VMC.

What protection would be provided?

IFR separation should still be provided

Radar services are not being provided to
either aircraft along the ODP

If radar services can not be provided then the aircraft should
be separated under non-radar rules.

True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I
would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more
smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have
requested it, even though it's not required.

Getting back to the original topic in the thread, it's clear
that it's helpful to inform ATC of one's intentions.

Cheers,
Sydney