No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then
again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.


Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

It all left me with a warm fuzzy feeling, thinking these were going to put a
finger in the works.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
If the problem has been taken care of, then fine. However, if the problem
has not been taken care of, then it should be for all of our sakes.

That assumes there is a problem. The way it has been explained to me is
that the rules that apply for departing IFR at a non-towered field apply in
this case, and that operating under the understanding that terrain
separation services are available when departing a towered field (especially
a VFR-only one as in my case) is just a bad one.

So from that perspective, that looks to be the way the system works, not a
system problem. Now, if the controllers here would like to jump in and
correct me, great, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Also, I made some inquiries with some people that know, and I wrote it up
for NASA.

I will also recommend to anyone to plan the departure according to the ODP
and make sure it is requested. Flying the ODP without telling ATC about it
can create separation issues. In this case, the ODP goes right into the
arrival corridor for the field.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message k.net...

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:30:38 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

That assumes there is a problem. The way it has been explained to me is
that the rules that apply for departing IFR at a non-towered field apply in
this case, and that operating under the understanding that terrain
separation services are available when departing a towered field (especially
a VFR-only one as in my case) is just a bad one.

I have read and reread this paragraph, and I must confess I don't
understand what you are saying, at least in the context of ATC and ODP's.

If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.



So from that perspective, that looks to be the way the system works, not a
system problem. Now, if the controllers here would like to jump in and
correct me, great, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Again, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. At least, I don't
understand how you are saying "the system works".


Also, I made some inquiries with some people that know, and I wrote it up
for NASA.

I will also recommend to anyone to plan the departure according to the ODP
and make sure it is requested. Flying the ODP without telling ATC about it
can create separation issues. In this case, the ODP goes right into the
arrival corridor for the field.

If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
problem.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...


If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
problem.

Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
ODP was not issued.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:39:57 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .


If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
problem.

Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
ODP was not issued.


Weather conditions don't make any difference. Whether they protect the ODP
or not depends on the flight rules under which you are flying. VFR or IFR.

If you were IFR they should have been protecting the ODP, regardless of the
weather conditions. Or they should have given you alternate departure
instructions. If they are not doing this, they need training.




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

Roy Smith wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:
Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?

I thought so. A VFR tower is one which can not provide separation
services. They have no radar, or a radar (BRITE) which isn't
certified to provide separation. If they issue vectors they are
at the direction of an associated approach control which has to
meet some criteria I don't know about (having to do with how
quickly they can pick up departures on radar).

However, I don't know how NewPS's definition that a heading issued
by a VFR tower is really always a vector actually plays out IRL.
We have definately have headings issued to us by towers where I know
radar contact was over 3000 ft and there was no "suggest" about it.
OTOH we have also had headings given to us outside PC airspace under
VFR where the controller is only supposed to "suggest" headings,
not vector -- "oh, golly, guess I did forget to say 'suggest' ".

So I dunno -- either there are an awful lot of controllers at
VFR towers who have trouble with the word "suggest", or there
are some subtleties to the distinction between heading and
vector. I have no way of knowning.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:u4Gpb.565$0d2.102@lakeread06...

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...


If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route
clear,
then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
problem.

Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
ODP was not issued.


When would an ODP ever be specifically issued unless more than one procedure
was available and traffic separation depended on which one you flew? Is the
assignment of an ODP something that if they don't specifically issue it as
part of your IFR clearance, then you can't fly it?

The way it works in my airspace is that I issue you an IFR departure
clearance *after* I deconflict you from other IFR traffic. You fly any
pertinent ODP at your discretion unless I assign something else. You do an
ODP and get with traffic, and I am the guy who screwed up.

Chip, ZTL