No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Greg Esres wrote:

Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking
about

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you.

what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a heading and
a vector.

The ability to provide obstacle clearance.

And what do you think the difference is to the controller?

Depends on the controller, obviously. ;-)

They don't need to. A heading is a vector.

So you keep saying, but you offer no evidence.

Because that's what it means to everybody except you.

No, airperson said "If the tower controller can't see you on
radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading."

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

They managed to muck this up at KMRY for a long time. Whether it's
straightened out today I don't know. I do know they haven't "TERPsed" out
the prominent obstacles they have selectively chosen to display on their
MVA video map.

Greg Esres wrote:

find a distinction where none exists the proper application of these
procedures might make more sense to you :-/

The distinction that I have described is made by others who have
considerable air traffic experience, both in the field and at a higher
level.

I posted elsewhere a comment from an active controller, and I'll post
a portion of it again he

---------------------snip-------------------------
...if you don't hear radar contact first, then any assigned heading
prior to those words does not constitute a vector. A radar vector is
course guidance predicated on radar. Simply by launching from the
surface on a assigned heading must not be construed as a radar vector.

We assign an initial heading to fly from all our towered fields, and
that is all they are, until you hear radar contact and then receive a
subsequent heading. Then and only then is a radar vector in play.
...
---------------------snip-------------------------

So your accusation that our difference of opinion is due to your
knowledge and my lack of it is in error. If there is at least one
controller that stated what I quoted, there are likely many more. And
I think that what he expressed is more in accordance with the .65 and
other noted authorities than what you posted.

Wally Roberts stated in one of his articles that
---------------------snip-------------------------
The controller is permitted to assign a departure heading without it
being for purposes of a vector, or even for a vector where radar
contact won't be established for greater than the typical distance
from the departure runway...It's clear its appplication isn't clearly
understood by anyone, neither controllers nor pilots.
---------------------snip-------------------------

The point behind that quote is that even if YOU intend your heading to
be a vector, not every controller will, and therefore the pilot can't
depend on the fact that he's being provided terrain clearance.

He was probably talking about a non-tower airport in Glass G airspace.
Alas, most pilots don't know the difference. Thus, from a pilot
prespective, it is best for self presevation to aks whether a heading
assignment is for radar vectors, unless it is a flat-land airport and the
pilot knows the "fleck" from having operated there a lot.

Newps wrote:

Greg Esres wrote:

It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide?

Assuming no DP then as long as you climb in a normal fashion terrain
clearance is not a factor. If there is a DP, like the vector one we
have here at BIL, a minimum climb rate will be listed. I give you the
DP in the clearance and you will be issued a vector on departure.

There are airports with climb graidents associated with the takeoff mnimums
that do not have DPs.

I can't find the message where you mention HLN, which has a non-radar approach
control. I believe you mention there aren't many of those around these days,
which is correct.

And, at a place that does have a tower and a non-radar approach control it's all
pretty well sorted out with full use of IAPs and DPs except when visuals can be
issued or good weather permits hopefully familiar pilots to request VFR climbs.

Then, there are the cases of VFR towers with no approach control of any kind,
such as Jackson, WY. A bit of grey creeps into that picture since ZLC provides
terminal services and has no radar below the mountain tops. Plus, the tower is
part-time so it goes from one shade of grey to another when the tower closes.

This is grey for pilots, not controllers. The Air Force proved that at Jackson.
After that Jackson got a part-time tower but no remoted ASR (unlike MSO).

What is on the increase are RNAV IAPs at Class G (and, in some cases surface
Class E) airports with no tower and with Center providing terminal services
without radar below the mountain peaks. As a matter of policy, ATC pretty well
walks away from terrain clearance at these airports. It's up to the pilot to
ferret out the Obstacle DP, which in some cases will be in apparent conflict with
the initial ATC clearance.

To make it safe and consistent from JFK Airport to BIH Airport, the aviation
community would be far better served if the initial ATC clearance at the BIH-type
airport included the obstacle DP, then onto routing at the terminus of the ODP,
that would tie to the en route phase of the clearance.

Then, let the burden fall on the pilot to say on a clear day or night, "I don't
want the obstacle DP, I request a VFR climb to XYZ VOR."

The system would be safer as a result. And, with the pending rule change that
may come out mandating obstcle DPs unless ATC assigns a vector or SID, then
perhaps we will get there.

BTW, Billings has an easy vector environment compared to many mountain area
airports. You are basically flat landers to the north and east. MSO should have
it so good.

wrote:


That higher-than-standard climb graident applies to three runways, and only for
about 1,000 feet. Once I reach 4,500 (onl about 1,000 agl) presumably I can climb
at only 200 feet per mile after that. Are you required to keep me within the MVA
sector that overlies the airport until I achieve the altitude of a higher MVA
sector into which you plan to take me?

No, if you accept the SID then for all intents and purposes the obstacle
disappears. We vector you normally if you have the SID. Our MVA at the
airport is 5300, however this really doesn't apply to departures because
as long as we don't restrict your climb you are responsible for whatever
minimum climb rates are required.

There are times where the reason does not have to be stated because it
is obvious, that is one of them. Just like when you are told to hold
short of the runway, if it's obvious that there is an aircraft on final
then I don't have to tell you why you are holding short.

wrote:


Newps wrote:


Greg Esres wrote:


That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.

When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.

No. A heading issued with a takeoff clearance is a vector.


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

Newps wrote:

There are times where the reason does not have to be stated because it
is obvious, that is one of them. Just like when you are told to hold
short of the runway, if it's obvious that there is an aircraft on final
then I don't have to tell you why you are holding short.

No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the runway
is because an aircraft is on final. It could be that, it could be a hold by
the departure controller, or it could be a hold for flow control. It's
unimportant to me, because holding short of the runway cannot place me in
harm's way.

If LAX tower tells me to maintain runway heading, I agree that it is to be a
vector. Plus, there is nothing for me to run into for many miles at that
airport.

OTOH, if KMRY tells me to maintain runway heading I have heartburn. It
depends entirely on the location and the circumstances. It is simply not
black and white.

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.

Then you are blind because the aircraft is right there on final. As
opposed to being on base behind you where you can't see, then I have to
tell you why. Or maybe there is an aircraft landing opposite direction.


It could be that, it could be a hold by
the departure controller, or it could be a hold for flow control.

Then you would have to be told because it isn't obvious.

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.

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?

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?

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?