If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
To expand on my KDDC example a bit, every runway had an amendment to
Part 97 issued via the federal register at one time establishing only standard takeoff minimums for all those runways. If both standard and higher-than-standard are required than the regualtory form will have more information on it, and that triggers the "T" And, if an ODP is issued, that will be done as a separate, but related action into the IFR database. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully
satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two more. (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46 miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would confirm this. (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain characteristics, is there not? On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:59:13 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to have published takeoff minimums. So you are saying the answer to my question is "no". In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own". This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is certainly contrary to my understanding of several years. Your belief is incorrect. Check the NACO chart legends for the Triangle T. The definition is, "Take-off Minimums not standard and/or Departure Procedures are published. Refer to tabulation." If no Triange T appears on the approach charts for an airport with one or more IAPs (i.e., and IFR airport) (use KDDC as an example) then all runways have standard takeoff minimums and all runways have diverse departure areas. Perhaps you consider a diverse departure area as a "roll your own." But, that isn't the way the system views it. It means you don't have to follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever. But, even a diverse departure area has its limits, and the next revision of the AIM will address this. If you are making a diverse departure out of a qualified IFR airport you need to be established on an airway or otherwise at a 91.177 altitude within 25 miles of the airport in non-DMA areas, and 46 miles in DMAs. Back to Big Bear: The airport has a Triangle T of course. The tabulation states NA for Runway 26, higher than standard for 8 (or standard with a climb gradient) and to use the RNAV DP. Jeppesen does a better job in that they list the takeoff minimums for every runway at an IFR airport even when they are standard and there is a diverse departure area. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
original statement is correct: "If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM and you will be clear of obstructions." On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:06:31 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two more. (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46 miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would confirm this. How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude. It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane. (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain characteristics, is there not? I'm not teaching a TERPS course. It is all covered in Volume 4 of TERPS, 8260.3B. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
I inferred it from your statement:
" It means you don't have to follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever" There is a restriction - 200FPNM. Which is what I said in the first place . On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:06:31 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two more. (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46 miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would confirm this. How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude. It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane. (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain characteristics, is there not? I'm not teaching a TERPS course. It is all covered in Volume 4 of TERPS, 8260.3B. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here. I will leave you with a challenge, however. Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously). On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my original statement is correct: "If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM and you will be clear of obstructions." Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that clear previously, I missed it. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Final Glide Calculation over Obstacle | [email protected] | Soaring | 3 | February 7th 07 04:49 PM |
How to adhere to this obstacle departure procedure? | Peter R. | Instrument Flight Rules | 38 | April 25th 05 09:00 PM |
Garmin 196 & obstacle database. | max | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | March 16th 05 08:51 AM |
Obstacle Clearance Altitude / Height | Tim | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 21st 04 10:33 AM |
Notes on NACO Obstacle Departure Procedures | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | July 15th 04 10:20 PM |