No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

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

Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
are inherently bad.

I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the
overall safety of the system we fly in.

My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that
are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to
cumologranite.

If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:



Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
are inherently bad.

I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published
procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both
the AIM and the 7110.65

I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the
overall safety of the system we fly in.

We share that goal. I have no interest in flaming anyone, but I would like
to improve safety by having someone educate that facility so that they do
things the way it's done in the rest of the country.

To have a few facilities implementing IFR departure procedures differently
from the rest of the country is inherently bad. Whether the procedure
needs to be changed or not.

I do not equate education with flaming; and as I mentioned before, I'll be
happy to give you some ATC contacts who can take the ball further in a
proper method.


My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that
are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to
cumologranite.

I would agree. But educating ATC in your area that pilots (even if they
are non-military) may, at their prerogative, fly a published ODP is a
different issue. And if a conflict results from that, it will be with
traffic, and not with terrain.


If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider.


I was hoping to convince you by logic rather than a Usenet opinion poll.
It seems I have failed at that. But please think about it and, as I said,
I'd be happy to give you some ATC contacts whose goals are professional,
and not "flaming".


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

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -0800, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


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

Nor would there be an ODP to fly!

True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.

Well, then, they wouldn't be able to fly an ODP if there wasn't one there.


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:



Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
are inherently bad.

I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published
procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both
the AIM and the 7110.65

Agreed, of course. That is not at issue.

The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I
consider that inherently bad.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:B2dqb.114069$Tr4.318941@attbi_s03...


wrote:


Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of
pilots getting
heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands.

Doesn't matter if the airport is in the mountains or not you should not
ever get a heading at a nontowered airport.


What about at a non-towered airport within a Class E surface area?

Chip, ZTL

"Tom S." wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.


Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken.

Chip, ZTL

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -0800, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:


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

Nor would there be an ODP to fly!

True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.

Well, then, they wouldn't be able to fly an ODP if there wasn't one there.


I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR
takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching
400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or
takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction
since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:22:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
wrote:

Agreed, of course. That is not at issue.

The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I
consider that inherently bad.

And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been trying
to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction.


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

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:19:39 -0800, wrote:

I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR
takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching
400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or
takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction
since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them.

That's a different point than what you wrote in response to my comment
about flying ODP's.


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

Tom S. wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote:

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business,


Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).


just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).


And those companies tired to run the business like a government.



Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and
outright deception and fraud.

Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the
shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of
management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as
large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of
budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent
figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what
do you expect?


The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company
you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad
one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which
is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a
private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until
it's too late.

It is easy to continue cutting an agency's budget, because we all "don't
want to pay taxes" and then complain that it is not producing. Then we
invested our "savings" in ENRON. Good deal. It would be an interesting
excercise to see how good an ATC system we might have now if all the
outright stock market fraud losses of the last 10 years had been
re-directed to government agencies instead of invested in the "private
sector".

If the general culture is that people are good, then a government agency
can produce good results just as well as a private one, given the
resources, especially in a monopoly industry such as ATC. If the
general culture is that people are bad, then I would rather have the
accountable, scrutinized agency doing the work, as opposed to a
self-serving, private one.

People are people whether in "private industry" or "government service"
and I can't quite see this idea that the people of one are somehow
"different" or "worse" than the other.