Instrument departure, non-IFR airport

Sam,

So a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued by ATC does not
have to be terpsed?


Now, you are asking a question that you previously answered.


Still digging, eh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mar 4, 6:15 am, Sam Spade wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Sam Spade wrote:

wrote:

And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
trouble?

Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.

Victim is taking it a bit far. I was thinking more along the lines of
a denied IFR clearance being identified as contributing to an accident
specifically because the OP was told to get a special VFR clearance to
Riverside. And if you're worried about terrain, usually an IFR
clearance will allow you to climb higher than a special VFR clearance
in Class D airspace.

I can't imagine ATC denying an IFR clearance then issuing a special VFR
clearance unless the pilot requested it.

I think the OP was advised of his options during a discussion about the
issues at Flabob.


Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.

wrote:


Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.


Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
and probably be circling only.

But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
perhaps, Runway 6.

On Mar 5, 1:41 pm, Sam Spade wrote:
wrote:

Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.

Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
and probably be circling only.

But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
perhaps, Runway 6.


Yes, I am based there now. I do not know whether an approach has been
requested. Having an ODP, while nice, doesn't change the fact that an
ODP is not required to depart IFR from an airport without an
approach. Based on all I know, except for the inconvenient fact that
the RAL VOR is OTS indefinitely, the SOP referred to earlier should be
all that is necessary. In lieu of an SOP, so far as I can tell, a
clearance with a void time should be issued, traffic permitting.

akucheck wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:41 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

wrote:


Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.

Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
and probably be circling only.

But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
perhaps, Runway 6.



Yes, I am based there now. I do not know whether an approach has been
requested. Having an ODP, while nice, doesn't change the fact that an
ODP is not required to depart IFR from an airport without an
approach. Based on all I know, except for the inconvenient fact that
the RAL VOR is OTS indefinitely, the SOP referred to earlier should be
all that is necessary. In lieu of an SOP, so far as I can tell, a
clearance with a void time should be issued, traffic permitting.


It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
concern. This is not a typical Class G airport departure. The area
terps require a climb gradient in excess of 400 feet per mile because of
terrain. The controlling terrain is in the RAL Class D area so, other
views notwithstanding, that creates a fair amount of liability on the
part of the FAA.

If you had an RNAV IAP, you would have an RNAV ODP, with would be navaid
independent.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
concern.

How is it that you can work with "this stuff" all the time and still have
such a poor understanding of it?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
concern.


How is it that you can work with "this stuff" all the time and still have
such a poor understanding of it?


Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for
Runway 24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for Runway
24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.


That comparison has already been made.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for Runway
24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.



That comparison has already been made.



You are not only wrong, as usual, you are obtuse, argumentative, and
basically full of ****.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

You are not only wrong, as usual, you are obtuse, argumentative, and
basically full of ****.


Three of those are purely matters of opinion. It is a fact that you cannot
and have not proved me wrong.