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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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