How to adhere to this obstacle departure procedure?

Greg Esres wrote:

Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of
obstacle clearance requirements. Lots of experienced, proficient
pilots with lousy radio technique. Lots of experienced, proficient
pilots who don't understand how airplanes fly.

You comment how I bought into the responses I received to my original
question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the theory
about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept these ideas.

Sorry, but unless you can back the above comments up with an official
definition of "lots," "lousy," "experienced," and "proficient," I simply
read this as just another pilot's opinions.

Six years instructing, and sampling knowledge levels after training is
over?

Just out of curiosity, in the last six years were the majority of your
hours were accumulated through instructing? Did you have time before your
instructor rating to fly with a purpose to many destinations?

I ask this seriously because I don't want to underestimate your background.
However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for me since
I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time.


But any learning theory book will supply you with the studies
you seek, if common sense doesn't.

Common sense? How is it common sense that a student only retains a small
fraction of what they were taught? It seems to me that any instructor
hiding behind this "theory" may want to consider the manner in which he is
teaching the material, rather than concede that this as true.

I don't disagree with the answers you received on this question, but
you bought into the idea that turning to the heading is "close enough"
without any idea of whether the posters knew what they were talking
about.

Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in this
newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars? The 100%
agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty telling.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:

My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the
subject of obstacle departure procedures?

In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an
engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of
faith? ;-)

wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:18:56 -0700, wrote:



wrote:

My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the
subject of obstacle departure procedures?

In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an
engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of
faith? ;-)


Where is opinion any more relevant concerning engine loss on an
obstacle departure procedure than it might be in any other phase of
flight?

Approach, for example?

The context was opinions pertaining to ODPs. I suspect that would be the worst
place to have an engine failure in a light twin (Part 23) during IMC
operations. For a single engine aircraft the worst place would be during climb
out (ODP, SID, or vectors) en route, approach, and missed approach, if
applicable. ;-)

The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots
really had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely
opinions...I'm simply trying ot understand what this means.

And I'm trying to understand why you don't understand what that means.

Just because people say they know something doesn't mean that they
really do. I think that it was "Tim" that use the wonderful phrase
"View in a Vacuum".

Well, I would say that you reinforce your knowledge of ODP's every
time you fly one and DON'T hit something, and would be an indication,
at least, that your knowledge is more than just theoretical.

No. One narrow obstacle creates the need for an ODP. You can misfly
it and still miss that obstacle due to chance, or forunately having a
higher climb gradient than assumed in the procedure.

question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the
theory about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept
these ideas.

Not *should* but probably *would*. :-)

I simply read this as just another pilot's opinions.

Ah, very good. The question is, how to verify knowledge?

Obstacle clearance: read TERPS. Read Wally Roberts articles. Call
Flight procedures offices. Tim seems to be a "TERPS" guy, which I
infer because the information he dispenses conforms with information
to the above sources.

Radio Technique: read the AIM.

How airplanes fly: read aerodynamics textbooks.

However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for
me since I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time.


No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge
your instructors.

You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so
that you will feel safe when you fly with him. But beyond that, what
benefit does it provide you?

We have a local guy with 25,000 hours who sometimes allow flight
instructors to ride right seat in his King Air to build turbine time.

This guy has been known to takeoff into IMC without a clearance. He
never uses approach plates or enroute charts, and will often descend
right through MDA until he sees the runway. He's rude and obnoxious
on the radio.

But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you.


Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in
this newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars?
The 100% agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty
telling.

Ah, truth by majority vote. The only terpster that replied is "Tim".

wrote:


The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots really
had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely opinions.

I'm simply trying ot understand what this means.

I've worked with TERPs criteria for a long time and find that ODPs (formerly IFR
Departure Procedures) are not well understood.

Further, some of them are poorly designed by procedures specialists who sometimes
don't have a good understanding of what to provide.

you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of
knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well?

I did not mean to make that implication. Notice that I did not
comment on how the OP should comply with the ODP.

Before I accept any piece of technical information as "fact", I will
cross-check it to the best of my ability with authoritative sources.
Until I do, it's "opinion."

Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative
sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other
posters on this subject.

If the climb gradients you fly are a matter of trusting to luck, I'd
suggest you make all your departures visually.

Oh, please. sigh Your climb gradients depend on the quantity of
excess thrust in your airplane, the density altitude of your departure
location, and the wind direction and gradient on the particular day in
question.

What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance.

And we were talking about YOUR departures, not mine. Mine depend only
on skill and a positive attitude. :-)

So the "opinion" of which you speak is merely the self-inflated
opinion one has of his own knowledge, and he might not know as much as
he thinks and therefore implies he does?


You got it!