No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Roy Smith wrote:
wrote:

No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the
runway is because an aircraft is on final.


Newps wrote:

Then you are blind because the aircraft is right there on final.


There are airports where you can't see final from the hold short line
due to trees. Runway 29 at HPN comes to mind.

That being said, I really don't see any operational difference to me why
I've been asked to hold short.

Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
difficult than it is.

Airpersoj wrote:

But, the tower controller issues that heading with
the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
vector..eventually.

What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.


Airpersoj wrote:If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
vectors?"

To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

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


When would an ODP ever be specifically issued unless more than one
procedure
was available and traffic separation depended on which one you flew?

Well, how about if my life depended on flying it?

That's the issue - that it is perfectly fine to depart IFR using visual
terrain avoidance. That ODP's are not specifically
issued/suggested/etc/otherwise to ensure the safest egress from a facility
bordered by mountains; that's just wrong...to me.

The last instruction I received was "proceed on course, contact departure."
That was a left turn to fly the clearance issued routing. The ODP calls for
a right turn. The delta is almost 80 degrees combined - a heading of 140
vice 220.

So, when I contacted the tower later, I asked why a heading of 220 wasn't
mentioned or suggested. Is "proceed on course" really the most appropriate
instruction instead of something like "fly heading 220, contact departure"?
The answer was more or less:

oh no, people make the left turn all the time, maintain there own visual
separation with the terrain, no problem. Why would we suggest a right turn?
Besides, if you turn right according to the ODP and don't tell us, you might
cause an issue with arriving traffic into the pattern (for the VFR tower).
If we're not expecting that by you having made the request, that could be
bad. Oh, but by the way, the military guys always turn right because
they're required to fly the ODP, but we know that and expect it. But the
choice is yours, just tell us, and we'll coordinate that with the APPCON.

Is there a certain percentage of misconception among some pilots that they
might get a bit more help than that when departing IFR from a towered
facility? I think so. I think it might be far safer if the pilot was
required to waive the ODP instead of the other way around. I also think the
instruction to proceed on course is so ambiguous as to be dangerous, but
that's just imho.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

oh no, people make the left turn all the time, maintain there own visual
separation with the terrain, no problem. Why would we suggest a right turn?
Besides, if you turn right according to the ODP and don't tell us, you might
cause an issue with arriving traffic into the pattern (for the VFR tower).
If we're not expecting that by you having made the request, that could be
bad. Oh, but by the way, the military guys always turn right because
they're required to fly the ODP, but we know that and expect it. But the
choice is yours, just tell us, and we'll coordinate that with the APPCON.

If it's VMC, then it is your responsibility to see and avoid other traffic.
But it is also your perogative to fly the ODP on an IFR departure without
notifying ATC.

As I've said, and which you seem resistant to, that facility needs some
education.


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

Newps wrote:

Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
difficult than it is.

"Whatever" says a lot. Your perspective is that of a controller who thinks in
terms of trying to do the job right for eight hours, then split for a beer or
whatever. ;-)

The informed pilot perspective, however, is to act upon the premise of "the
least cost of being wrong" when confronted with an ambiguous situation,
perceived or real. It's called survival.

And, for you to presume I can see the aircraft on final disregards many
possibilities, including perhaps that the weather is 200 and 1/2.~

Greg Esres wrote:

Airpersoj wrote:But, the tower controller issues that heading with
the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
vector..eventually.

Ok, I can live with that. ;-) I take it you disagree with the blanket
statement that a heading and vector mean the same thing?

I do, unless it is at a place where context resolves any doubt in my mind.



Airpersoj wrote:If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
vectors?"

And if the answer were "No", would you infer that the controller
intended the heading to apply only after flying any DP or is able to
maintain his own obstruction clearance?

I would infer that ATC couldn't care less; that I am solely responsible
for my own obstacle clearance. I would, and have, reply that I am going
to fly the XYZ DP."



Airpersoj wrote: He was probably talking about a non-tower airport
in Glass G airspace.

Do you not think that departing a non-radar class D airport is an
almost identical situation as departing a class G in regards to that
initial heading assignment?

It varies so, that it is probably best to start from the premise that a
Class D airport without radar could provide a departure clearance similar
to what a Center does out of a Class G IFR airport. (Then, there are
Glass G VFR airports where it really becomes a crap shoot ;-) As to the
Class D non-radar airport, it all depends upon the IFR ATC clearance they
issue in the context of the obtacle environment for that airport. Bottom
line: the pilot is *always* the one on the hook, first anf foremost.

To keep the system working, it's the pilot's duty to challenge any ATC
clearance or instruction that is ambigous, but in a cooperative manner
unless urgency is of the utmost importance.

Newps wrote:

Airpersoj wrote:

But, the tower controller issues that heading with
the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
vector..eventually.

What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.

Airpersoj wrote:If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
vectors?"

To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

Newps wrote:

Airpersoj wrote:

But, the tower controller issues that heading with
the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
vector..eventually.

What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.

Ok, let me change "eventually" to "sooner or later." You can't apply the
circumstances at BIL to all airports.



Airpersoj wrote:If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
vectors?"

To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

wrote:

Newps wrote:


Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
difficult than it is.


"Whatever" says a lot. Your perspective is that of a controller who thinks in
terms of trying to do the job right for eight hours, then split for a beer or
whatever. ;-)

The informed pilot perspective, however, is to act upon the premise of "the
least cost of being wrong" when confronted with an ambiguous situation,
perceived or real. It's called survival.

And, for you to presume I can see the aircraft on final disregards many
possibilities, including perhaps that the weather is 200 and 1/2.~

So you do want to make it harder than it is. When you are sitting there
at the end of the runway and there is an airplane on final, no matter
what the conditions, if I know you can see him I don't have to tell you
why I said to hold short. But if it is 200/ and a 1/2 and there's a
plane on a mile final then I will tell you why. Everything is based on
what you can or cannot see. It's also based on your equipment. If you
are an airliner or other aircraft with TCAS I can expand that area
because you can see the aircraft on your display.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

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.

Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.