An odd clearance...can anyone explain?

Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-)

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your
clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it
"direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"?

If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway
terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot
point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy.

From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn
direct ETX.

Roy Smith wrote:

That's only good enough if it's a "fly by" waypoint :-)

Hmm. I doubt I could have had enough altitude to "fly over". Is there such
a thing as a "fly through" waypoint?

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
then
proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

I've gotten clearances like that before. What exactly what your
clearanance? Was it "direct Lancaster, direct East Texas", or was it
"direct Lancaster, Victor-something, East Texas"?

I'm not sure of the exact wording; sorry. I don't believe airways were
specified, though.

If the latter, they need to stick Lancaster in there because the airway
terminates at the VOR, not at the airport. It's somewhat of a moot
point, but it keeps the flight plan computers happy.

Hmm. That does make sense, I suppose. Silly programmers.

From a practical point of view, you take off, obey any DP's, then turn
direct ETX.

Good.

- Andrew

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:58:04 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused me.
The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and then
proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

- Andrew

Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
airport. As luck would have it you don't get any closer to an airport
than ON the airport. Where I fly out of there is a VOR on the filed.
What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
station passage continue on your normal route.

When you turn to go to the first station, you may actually back track
for a mile or so, but its the proper way to execute the clearance.

HTH.
z

zatatime wrote:

What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
station passage continue on your normal route.

That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very
interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not
what I ultimately chose.

As far as I know, there's no requirement that a clearance start with "the
closest fix to the airport". When I depart CDW to the west, for example,
the clearance starts with LANNA. If using a closer fix were necessary,
we'd use the closer fix of SBJ...esp. given that LANNA is defined by a
radial from SBJ, and there's no other way a /U can reasonably locate LANNA
w/o passing by SBJ.

More, there's nothing wrong with intercepting an airway at some point not a
defined waypoint. I've been told in clearances to fly some heading or
radial to intercept an airway plenty of times. So intercepting the airway
between the Lancaster VOR and ETX is no great feat.

Finally, turning and flying back toward the VOR on the field puts me into
potential conflict with the VFR pattern. I don't know that there were any
of those on the day of my visit, but I don't know that there weren't.

So I decided to not do what you think is correct. So I might have been
wrong. As I wrote, I'd be very interested in something which shows this to
be the case (or not to be the case, of course {8^).

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as a
trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
then proceeded to ETX. But was that right?


What had you filed and what was the actual clearance?

"zatatime" wrote in message
...

Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
airport.


Says who?

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
zatatime wrote:

What I've been taught to be correct is to maintain runway heading
until at an altitude that maneuvering won't be a problem (just like
any other take off) and then turn and fly direct to the VOR. After
station passage continue on your normal route.

That was the possibility that I'd considered and rejected. I'd be very
interested to know on what you're basing that this is correct, as it's not
what I ultimately chose.

To me it seems the logical thing to do. Take off, establish the departure
then fly to the fix in the clearance. If you have a worry about pattern
traffic climb at a rate that allows you to get above the pattern as you turn
back towards the VOR on the field but stay with the clearance altitude.
It strikes me as a similar situation flying a missed approach when the
holding fix is a VOR on the field.

I think it needs working out but ignoring the clearance as you seem to have
done from what you have written seems wrong.

Mind you I stand to be corrected and flamed by the anti authority, pistol
packing " I do what I like" brigade.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:11:20 GMT, zatatime
wrote:

Your clearance is supposed to start with the closest fix to the
airport.

Where is that information stated?

I've never heard of that requirement before. And it's never been applied
leaving EPM (non-radar) unless they specifically wanted me to climb to a
particular altitude before leaving the fix. (The latter has happened
perhaps twice in the past five years).


--ron

Andrew Gideon wrote in
online.com:

Departing Lancaster the other day, I received an odd clearance. I was
cleared from the airport to the Lancaster VOR, then East Texas VOR...

It was that first leg (Lancaster Airport to Lancaster VOR) that confused
me. The VOR is on the field. I have little choice but to go past it as
a trundle down the runway awaiting rotation speed.

So...why that clearance? What is expected of me?

What I did was go to the VOR (as I accelerated down the runway {8^) and
then proceeded to ETX. But was that right?

I think it's a moot point. You got close enough. I fly from a field that
has a VOR on the field, and when I depart, I never try to come back and fly
directly over the VOR. ATC radar isn't precise enough to tell whether you
fly directly over it or not, and victor airways are wide enough to cover
your turns anyway. ATC doesn't seem to expect me to turn around and do the
circling anyway; they want me to get on with the trip. I fly the published
departure procedure, which requires flying runway heading until above 500',
and then turn to intercept my course.

The clearance I regularly get which makes no sense to me is 'enter
controlled airspace heading xxx', when I'm already in controlled airspace.
The airport is centered in a Class E surface area. I just read back the
clearance and fly as if the Class E started at 700' or so. I don't try to
lift off directly across the runway.

--
Regards,

Stan