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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Sam Spade writes: Why would you think the Instrument Procedures Handbook seems surprisingly vague in this regard? I figured IFR would leave no detail uncovered, but I was unable to find specific instructions on what to do in the handbook. There is a single approved IFR departure procedure published for Big Bear from rwy 8: the OKACO RNAV procedu http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/09469OKACO.PDF The published take-off minimums and obstacle clearance departure procedures make it clear that the take-off minimums for the airport are 1200-2 w/ a min. climb of 282' per NM to 8000' when utilizing this procedure, and that this procedure is only authorized for Rwy 8. See: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/SW3TO.PDF That seems fairly clear to me. -- Dane |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Dane Spearing writes:
The published take-off minimums and obstacle clearance departure procedures make it clear that the take-off minimums for the airport are 1200-2 w/ a min. climb of 282' per NM to 8000' when utilizing this procedure, and that this procedure is only authorized for Rwy 8. See: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/SW3TO.PDF That seems fairly clear to me. Well, now I'm reading conflicting things. Does NA for Runway 26 mean that no instrument departures are allowed from that runway, period, or does it simply mean that none are defined but that you can still "roll your own"? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Viperdoc wrote:
I suggest that you contact a flight instructor and perhaps get an instrument rating. Part of the instruction will include an explanation of the charts. Besides, you are only playing a computer game- what difference does it make? There aren't penalties like flying into granite when you're only sitting in front of your monitor. First, he would have to get into an actual airplane and take flying lesson # 1, then perhaps 30 hours later, solo....and so forth. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Jon wrote:
On Jan 13, 12:28 pm, Sam Spade wrote: [...] Oops! My bad. I didn't look carefull and thought I was responding to a pilot. Yet you continue replying... I know, the devil makes me do it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Mxsmanic wrote:
J.Kahn writes: If no instrument departure gradients are published in a departure procedure, then the default gradient requirement applies, which is 200 ft/NM. OK, thanks. It looks like IFR departures from runway 26 in L35 aren't allowed at all, so I suppose I'll have to depart from runway 8 in the future if I really want to depart IFR. Odd that there's nothing for runway 26 since it leads right over the lake. Gosh, I wish you would submit your resume to the FAA. Then, you could be the boss of TERPS and get these credits for little narrow lakes applied and forget the big friggen mountains a bit further out, you numbskull. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
J.Kahn wrote:
So you can be grounded by unfavorable winds... that sucks. I wonder if the reason is simply that departure in that direction doesn't meet 200 ft/NM at some distance out, maybe 10 or 20 miles, but the FAA has not got around to doing the required survey to arrive at a specified departure gradient requirement so they just declare it NA until someday they get around to it. I believe that you have to be able to have obstacle clearance with 200 ft/NM out to 22 NM from the runway before you have to have a specified gradient other than default, which gets you to 4400 HAA. John They were required to take a look at 26. For the type of aircraft that use that airport, the mountains to the west present an unacceptable climb gradient requirement. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:59 pm, "J.Kahn" wrote: I wonder if the reason is simply that departure in that direction doesn't meet 200 ft/NM at some distance out, maybe 10 or 20 miles, but the FAA has not got around to doing the required survey to arrive at a specified departure gradient requirement so they just declare it NA until someday they get around to it. I believe that you have to be able to have obstacle clearance with 200 ft/NM out to 22 NM from the runway before you have to have a specified gradient other than default, which gets you to 4400 HAA. The 200 ft/nm applies to departure procedures that do not otherwise specify a minimum climb gradient. Absent a departure procedure the pilot is free to make up any procedure he sees fit. The FAA has not come close to visiting every airport and creating DPs for every runway out there. -robert, CFII That is misleading. For a runway at an IFR airport that has NA, they have looked at it. Shame on you for not knowing that. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
In article ,
Sam Spade wrote: That is misleading. For a runway at an IFR airport that has NA, they have looked at it. Shame on you for not knowing that. Is that always true? Let's take a real example -- a bunch of years ago, POU designated the grass off to the side of 6/24 as 7/25. So, here's an airport that has had IFR approach and departure procedures for eons, and all of a sudden, a new runway springs into life. Is the airport not allowed to call the grass a runway until the TERPS guys have had the opportunity to do their analysis? Or can they just do the obvious thing and say "Nobody in their right mind would ever take off IFR from the grass" and leave it at that? In fact, the procedures book has this to say about departing from POU: POUGHKEEPSIE, NY DUTCHESS COUNTY TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, 500-1. Rwys 15,33, 400-1. DEPARTURE PROCEDU Rwy 6,climb direct IGN VOR/DME, then via IGN R-070 to 2000 before proceeding on course. Rwy 15, climb to 600 then climbing left turn to 1000 direct IGN VOR/DME before proceeding on course. Rwy 24, climb to 2000 via IGN R- 250 before proceeding on course. Rwy 33, climb to 600 then climbing right turn to 1000 direct IGN VOR/DME before proceeding on course. No mention of 7/25 at all. What would POU Ground say if I called up and requested, "Taxi to 7, for IFR departure"? For that matter, what if I told Tower on the way in that I was flying the ILS-6, sidestep 7? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Jan 14, 7:02*pm, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote: On Jan 14, 3:59 pm, "J.Kahn" wrote: I wonder if the reason is simply that departure in that direction doesn't meet 200 ft/NM at some distance out, maybe 10 or 20 miles, but the FAA has not got around to doing the required survey to arrive at a specified departure gradient requirement so they just declare it NA until someday they get around to it. * I believe that you have to be able to have obstacle clearance with 200 ft/NM out to 22 NM from the runway before you have to have a specified gradient other than default, which gets you to 4400 HAA. The 200 ft/nm applies to departure procedures that do not otherwise specify a minimum climb gradient. Absent a departure procedure the pilot is free to make up any procedure he sees fit. The FAA has not come close to visiting every airport and creating DPs for every runway out there. -robert, CFII That is misleading. *For a runway at an IFR airport that has NA, they have looked at it. *Shame on you for not knowing that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Then what does your 200ft/nm refer to?? I'm not aware of anything from the FAA that says you are guaranteed you can depart any runway and clear terrain if you maintain 200ft/nm. The only reference I know of regarding 200ft/nm is that it is the default required gradiant if an existing DP does not otherwise specify a required gradiant. Many, many DP's require 300 or even 400ft/nm so not being able to do 200 ft/nm cleary does not prohibit a DP. -Robert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Dane Spearing writes: The published take-off minimums and obstacle clearance departure procedures make it clear that the take-off minimums for the airport are 1200-2 w/ a min. climb of 282' per NM to 8000' when utilizing this procedure, and that this procedure is only authorized for Rwy 8. See: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0713/SW3TO.PDF That seems fairly clear to me. Well, now I'm reading conflicting things. Does NA for Runway 26 mean that no instrument departures are allowed from that runway, period, or does it simply mean that none are defined but that you can still "roll your own"? The former. NA = "Not Authorized" -- Dane |
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 |