Departing IFR at SMO w/ Tower Closed

On 6 Nov 2005 21:17:24 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

Ok, here is a hypothetical question about departing from Santa Monica
and about IFR departures at uncontrolled fields in general. Suppose it
is after 9pm (the tower is closed) but before 11pm (departures still
permitted). Assuming that the field is IFR, what would be the proper
way to obtain clearance and depart? Is there an RCO on or near the
field to allow communciations with SoCal departure, or does one need to
phone in to get the clearance?

Also, "Takeoff Minimums" are listed as follows:

SANTA MONICA, CA
SANTA MONICA MUNI
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 3, 700-2 or
climb of 290' per NM to 1000.
DEPARTURE PROCEDU Rwy 3, climb
climbing right turn direct SMO VOR/DME.
SMO R-261 to SADDE Int. Rwy 21, climbing
to intercept SMO R-250 and FIM R-148
All aircraft continue climb on course.

My question is twofold:
1. What is the proper procedure for SMO?

2. What would the proper procedure be for an uncontrolled/closed tower
field after hours with such a departure procedure listed, assuming a
clearance with void time, etc? Would I expect ATC to specify this
procedure in my clearance? Would executing this DP be at my
discretion? Obviously for obstacle clearance it might be advisable.
Would I need to inform ATC? What if it conflicted with the clearance I
was issued? How would this work?

I have no experience with SMO, but lots of experience departing IFR from
uncontrolled fields.

In most instances, ATC will NOT specify a DP. Executing the DP procedure,
at least for Part 91 flights, is pilot option. There is no requirement to
notify ATC.

There should be no conflict with the AIM recommendations:
-----------------------
AIM 5-2-6 ODPs (Obstacle Departure Procedures) are recommended for
obstruction clearance and may be flown *without* ATC clearance unless an
alternate departure procedure (SID or radar vector) has been specifically
assigned by ATC.
-------------------

If there appears to be a conflict with the AIM recommendations, then you
should clarify that with ATC prior to departure.

It's a good idea to look at a sectional and acquaint yourself with the
obstacles just in case ATC makes an error in your clearance, especially for
a night IFR departure.


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

In most instances, ATC will NOT specify a DP. Executing the DP procedure,
at least for Part 91 flights, is pilot option. There is no requirement to
notify ATC.

SMO lies in critical airspace. There is no way SoCal is going to launch
an IFR departure without very specific instructions.

It is so critical that a few years ago a Kingair elected to
circle-to-land Runway 3 after the tower was closed and they ended up
with a loss of separation with an air carrier departure out of LAX that
had been turned northwest over the ocean but too close to SMO.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:47:09 -0800, Tim wrote:



In most instances, ATC will NOT specify a DP. Executing the DP procedure,
at least for Part 91 flights, is pilot option. There is no requirement to
notify ATC.

SMO lies in critical airspace. There is no way SoCal is going to launch
an IFR departure without very specific instructions.



You've mentioned this a few times.

What are those specific instructions when departing IFR from SMO with the
tower closed?

That was one of the questions the OP posed.

If the TRACON is issuing radar vectors off the ground, then, as I quoted
from the AIM, that would supersede any ODP. But ATC is then responsible
for obstacle clearance, of course.


It is so critical that a few years ago a Kingair elected to
circle-to-land Runway 3 after the tower was closed and they ended up
with a loss of separation with an air carrier departure out of LAX that
had been turned northwest over the ocean but too close to SMO.

What was the KingAir's clearance?

Whether it was a problem (i.e. who buys the 'deal') for the KingAir pilot
would depend on his specific clearance.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
If the TRACON is issuing radar vectors off the ground, then, as I quoted
from the AIM, that would supersede any ODP. But ATC is then responsible
for obstacle clearance, of course.

How can they issue radar vectors before you're in radar contact?

Roy Smith wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

If the TRACON is issuing radar vectors off the ground, then, as I quoted
from the AIM, that would supersede any ODP. But ATC is then responsible
for obstacle clearance, of course.


How can they issue radar vectors before you're in radar contact?

They know they will have radar contact within a "reasonable" period of
time after takeoff. KMRY is the same way with the radar site several
miles from the airport.

It's all a matter of how the region and the facility determine what will
work for their radar coverage and airspace.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:01:05 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
If the TRACON is issuing radar vectors off the ground, then, as I quoted
from the AIM, that would supersede any ODP. But ATC is then responsible
for obstacle clearance, of course.

How can they issue radar vectors before you're in radar contact?

This has come up before. If SMO is Class E surface area when the tower is
closed (and it probably is), then the heading to fly after takeoff can be
specified by ATC. Maybe there is a DVA. "After takeoff", of course,
refers to leaving 400' AGL on runway heading.

In previous discussions, there has been some confusion as to how the pilot
knows that the vector should be considered a "radar vector" and I don't
think there's been a real clear-cut answer. Certainly happens at big city
airports; and it wouldn't surprise me if that was in effect at SMO in the
shadow of LAX.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:01:05 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:


This has come up before. If SMO is Class E surface area when the tower is
closed (and it probably is), then the heading to fly after takeoff can be
specified by ATC. Maybe there is a DVA. "After takeoff", of course,
refers to leaving 400' AGL on runway heading.

SMO is Class E at 700 feet agl when the tower is closed.

So far as I know there are no DVAs other than at some USAF facilities.
SMO would be "de facto" DVA to the west because of the ocean. To the
east, there are tall buildings and some mountains although the mountains
are easily avoided with a vector.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

How can they issue radar vectors before you're in radar contact?


Why not? The aircraft's position is known to a high degree of accuracy.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:47:09 -0800, Tim wrote:


In most instances, ATC will NOT specify a DP. Executing the DP procedure,
at least for Part 91 flights, is pilot option. There is no requirement to
notify ATC.


SMO lies in critical airspace. There is no way SoCal is going to launch
an IFR departure without very specific instructions.




You've mentioned this a few times.

What are those specific instructions when departing IFR from SMO with the
tower closed?

I don't know. I know the airspace constraints of that location but, as
I said in a previous post, I have not flown IFR out of KSMO.

That was one of the questions the OP posed.

I know. And, he probably would get better information by giving SoCal
TRACON a call.


If the TRACON is issuing radar vectors off the ground, then, as I quoted
from the AIM, that would supersede any ODP. But ATC is then responsible
for obstacle clearance, of course.

Yes, but...there are many worse locations where they vector below the
MVA and do not, in fact, assure any obstacle clearance below MVA. It is
a very obscure area.


It is so critical that a few years ago a Kingair elected to
circle-to-land Runway 3 after the tower was closed and they ended up
with a loss of separation with an air carrier departure out of LAX that
had been turned northwest over the ocean but too close to SMO.


What was the KingAir's clearance?

Don't recall the specifics other than the tower was closed and ATC
bought the "deal," but in the press release the FAA claimed that 3 miles
or 1,000 was merely a guideline.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:44:39 -0800, Tim wrote:

Yes, but...there are many worse locations where they vector below the
MVA and do not, in fact, assure any obstacle clearance below MVA. It is
a very obscure area.

Obscure?

7110.65 5-6-1c and 5-6-3 seem pretty clear on when radar vectors below MVA
are allowed.

At which facilities is ATC issuing vectors and NOT assuring obstacle
clearance?

How are they communicating to the pilot that these vectors do not assure
obstacle clearance?

If, in fact, they are issuing vectors without assuring obstacle clearance,
or without actively soliciting the pilot concurrence with these vectors,
then this seems to me to be a dangerous practice, and not in accord with
ATC published procedures. It should be corrected.


=============================
You've mentioned this a few times.

What are those specific instructions when departing IFR from SMO with the
tower closed?

I don't know. I know the airspace constraints of that location but, as
I said in a previous post, I have not flown IFR out of KSMO.

It seems to me that you're just guessing at what might be going on. You
may well be correct, but the information I have gleaned from your posts
does not seem to me to be terribly useful.


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