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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that circumstance. It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it would become a factor.- Hide quoted text - Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the given ODP is not authorized for runway 20. -Robert No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP. It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial of an ODP based on safety. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no "triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely followed. Is this not so? On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:46:58 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: This is not my understanding. According to old Wally Roberts, who once published great IFR articles for the IFR Refresher, the TERPS guys are required to evaluate departures for every runway for any airport for which an IAP is published, and if obstacles penetrate the 200:1 plane, then an ODP is required. Therefore if a pilot follows the 200:1 plane in all cases where there is an IAP published, and no ODP, he is assured of obstacle clearance (unless the runway is designated NA). There is no need for published IFR Takeoff Minimums for this to apply, as I understand it. This has always been my understanding. If there is a source that proves this to be incorrect, I would appreciate being so enlightened. The TERPS guys are indeed required to evaluate every qualified runway for an IFR airport (an airport with one, or more IAPs). In some unusual situations a runway, such as a secondary dirt or turf runway may not be approved by the regional Airports Division. But, this is unusual. So, for every qualified runway the evaluation will be made. If the TERPS folks decide it would require an excessive climb gradient for the aircraft that typically use the airport they will NA it. If they do not NA it, then they must provide Part 97 takeoff minimums in order to have a diverse departure area or an ODP. They go hand in glove. If you find an exception, let us know. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Jan 17, 4:38*am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. *I also agree that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. *My question is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for a particular runway. *I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that circumstance. It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it would become a factor.- Hide quoted text - Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the given ODP is not authorized for runway 20. -Robert No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP. It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. *It is about "NA" means an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be unsafe. *That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial of an ODP based on safety It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs. -Robert |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that circumstance. It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it would become a factor.- Hide quoted text - Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the given ODP is not authorized for runway 20. -Robert No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP. It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial of an ODP based on safety It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs. -Robert Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the door is open for a 91.13 violation. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Jan 17, 11:28 am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that circumstance. It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it would become a factor.- Hide quoted text - Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the given ODP is not authorized for runway 20. -Robert No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP. It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial of an ODP based on safety It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs. -Robert Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the door is open for a 91.13 violation. MSFS should be patched, so that when someone attempts to fly it anyways, it should just call "FDISK C:" :P |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Jan 17, 8:28*am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: -Robert Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text - I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13 -Robert |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: -Robert Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text - I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13 -Robert Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport. No NOTAM is required. If you disagree that they have made an OPD safety assessment that has determined IIR (IMC actually) departures from that runway are unsage, then lets agree to disagree. ;-) As to whether anyone would get violated, that is like asking when the local cops will be around to enforce that local stop sign that is ran quite often. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
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. On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:03:55 -0800, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no "triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely followed. Is this not so? It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums. |
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 |