No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:05:23 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I
experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot
if
not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I
think
that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I.

I agree with you and would like to know which ATC facilities feel this
way.
The ATC facilities with which I am familiar do NOT feel this way.


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



Robert,

Your response was blank. Both on my ISP and on GOOGLE. I think your
response got dropped. Could you "say again"?

Thanks.


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

"Robert Henry" wrote in message news:C5fpb.9559$Re.3059@lakeread06...

I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I
experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot if
not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I think
that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I.

fwiw.

FWIW Robert, was this in US or Canada?

Sydney

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:




Robert,

Your response was blank. Both on my ISP and on GOOGLE. I think your
response got dropped. Could you "say again"?

Thanks.


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

Yeah, I'd rather not. The APPCON controller involved may have received some
"counseling" subsequent to my discussion with the supervisor about the whole
thing. It was east of the Mississippi River, if that helps.

Bob

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:08:09 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

Yeah, I'd rather not. The APPCON controller involved may have received some
"counseling" subsequent to my discussion with the supervisor about the whole
thing. It was east of the Mississippi River, if that helps.

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.

If you don't feel comfortable disclosing it here, please contact someone
who can get the controllers properly trained. Scott Dunham is one such
person. He participates in AVSIG (www.avsig.com) and, if you don't have
it, I can get you an email address for him.

You did say that this was an issue with both tower and TRACON controllers;
and you imply that you are not sure about whether they have been retrained.
Hence my concern about whether this problem will arise in the future to
affect me or someone I care about.




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

Tom S. wrote:

Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?

No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to

fly.

Huh!!! And all this time I thought a heading was a "heading", and a heading
and altitude instruction was a "vector".

Altitude has nothing to do with it. A haeding is a vector and vice versa.

Fred E. Pate wrote:

I thought that VFR towers (with a DBRITE) could *suggest* headings if you're having a hard time finding the airport or about to collide with traffic but could not assign headings unless, as posted by others, it is a relayed departure vector from the TRACON.

You are correct. Typical phraseology would be "N123 suggest heading 180
for the airport."


So what is a non-vector heading anyway? Who gives them? And how do you know when you've gotten one? Do you have examples?

A controller would use them instead of saying something like "Proceed
direct to the smokestack then the airport will be at yout two o'clock."
They would be used by a VFR tower controller. You know you got one
when the word suggested or similar wording is used. That's how you know
it's optional.

So what is a non-vector heading anyway? Who gives them? And how do
you know when you've gotten one? Do you have examples?

Any heading assignment that occurs outside of "radar contact". IOW,
any heading assigned by a non-radar tower.

Even though you can't point to a single in-context reference

Huh? Nowhere in the .65 is the initial heading assignment referred to
as a vector. Such assignments are on occasion given by towers who
have no means of providing obstacle protection, hence they are not
vectors. Simple, eh?

Most of the rest of your post is an effort to establish dominance by
delving into a lot of ATC minutiae that really aren't relevant to the
above point.

You cannot point to any other similar procedures in any paragraph of
the IFR or Nonradar chapters nor can you explain how, when, where, or
why these unreferenced procedures would be applied.

Because it's irrelevant. The point is that non-radar towers DO issue
headings, even when the aircraft will not immediately vectored after
takeoff. I could speculate on the why, but you're in a better position
to know than I am, if you will acknowledge that it happens.

This is why the distinction between a "vector" and a "heading" is
important.

Whether the initial heading into a DVA is a vector or not is a matter
of semantics. A better description to me is that the heading is an
unpublished ODP. But a pilot receiving a heading can't tell the
difference between one that will provide obstacle protection and one
that won't.

In Wally Roberts article "Radar Services Terminated", he doesn't
directly address the vector vs. not-vector issue, but instead focuses
on the issue about when radar contact will be established. If not
established within one mile, he shows a strong inclination not to
accept any heading that differs from a published DP or SID.

There wasn't anything on TV :-(

There never is. I haven't watched it in 4 years. I hope you have
better plans for your retirement than watching TV and scanning
newsgroups. ;-)

Greg Esres wrote:

Because it's irrelevant. The point is that non-radar towers DO issue
headings, even when the aircraft will not immediately vectored after
takeoff.

They are one and the same.