If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last amendment to 91.175 issued last year. That would require ATC to learn to issue clearances that are consistent with the ODPs. Often one will get a clearance that includes something like "...enter controlled airspace on heading 270..." when the ODP calls for climbing above the floor of controlled airspace on a very different heading. Recently I responded by saying that I would turn to 270 upon completion of the Obstacle Departure Procedure. The controller said "What's that?". All the back and forth involved in trying to get a clearance that is consistent with pilot intent is difficult if one has to go through AFSS Clearance Delivery. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:13:37 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last amendment to 91.175 issued last year. That would require ATC to learn to issue clearances that are consistent with the ODPs. Often one will get a clearance that includes something like "...enter controlled airspace on heading 270..." when the ODP calls for climbing above the floor of controlled airspace on a very different heading. Recently I responded by saying that I would turn to 270 upon completion of the Obstacle Departure Procedure. The controller said "What's that?". All the back and forth involved in trying to get a clearance that is consistent with pilot intent is difficult if one has to go through AFSS Clearance Delivery. Those more familiar with the system and TERPS etc would have to answer this, but if you are departing an uncontrolled field off a runway with an ODP but no published SID, and the clearance carries a "Enter controlled airspace heading blah" does the entry altitude have to be above the controllers MVA? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Sam Spade wrote:
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. At Canadian airports in the mountains where the required gradient is too much they have a cat called "Spec Vis" which may involve a vfr initial climb over the airport, then to a fix, then a shuttle climb to mea. See the dep procedure for Prince George BC below. Do any US airports in the hills do that? DEPARTURE PROCEDURE Rwy 09 - SPEC VIS - CLB visual over APRT to 1200. Continue CLB on TRK 271 from "YPW" NDB to 2400. Left turn direct "YPW" NDB to cross at 3900. Shuttle (max 200 kt) to MEA BPOC. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last amendment to 91.175 issued last year. That would require ATC to learn to issue clearances that are consistent with the ODPs. Often one will get a clearance that includes something like "...enter controlled airspace on heading 270..." when the ODP calls for climbing above the floor of controlled airspace on a very different heading. Recently I responded by saying that I would turn to 270 upon completion of the Obstacle Departure Procedure. The controller said "What's that?". All the back and forth involved in trying to get a clearance that is consistent with pilot intent is difficult if one has to go through AFSS Clearance Delivery. Well, ODPs have been mandatory for Part 121 and 135 since last June and ATC still doesn't have a clue at many locations. But, at some mountain airports with a tower (EGE comes to mind) ATC is very aware of the procedures. If the controller says "huh?" then the pilot needs to say "I will by flying the FAA obstacle departure procedure" or words to that effect. That has, alas, always been the case. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
Peter Clark wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:13:37 -0600, "Stan Prevost" wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last amendment to 91.175 issued last year. That would require ATC to learn to issue clearances that are consistent with the ODPs. Often one will get a clearance that includes something like "...enter controlled airspace on heading 270..." when the ODP calls for climbing above the floor of controlled airspace on a very different heading. Recently I responded by saying that I would turn to 270 upon completion of the Obstacle Departure Procedure. The controller said "What's that?". All the back and forth involved in trying to get a clearance that is consistent with pilot intent is difficult if one has to go through AFSS Clearance Delivery. Those more familiar with the system and TERPS etc would have to answer this, but if you are departing an uncontrolled field off a runway with an ODP but no published SID, and the clearance carries a "Enter controlled airspace heading blah" does the entry altitude have to be above the controllers MVA? Normally, there wouldn't be an MVA, rather a center MIA. The pilot has the right and duty to challenge a heading that is inconsistent with the ODP. Where terrain is known to be a problem, the controller is supposed to qualify the heading assignment with words to the effect "terrain permitting." Some do, but some don't. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
On Jan 13, 6:09*am, wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:08 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: [...]Personally I don't know of anyone who has used a vfr sectional in ifr conditions, and I don't think I ever would. I use sectionals all the time in IFR flight, especially when planning departures from mountainous airports. I used to fly a King Air (part 135), and carried WAC charts so I would know where the low terrain was. Looking at the sectional, a runway 26 departure from Big Bear seems pretty hairy in a Bonanza. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Final Glide Calculation over Obstacle | [email protected] | Soaring | 3 | February 7th 07 04:49 PM |
How to adhere to this obstacle departure procedure? | Peter R. | Instrument Flight Rules | 38 | April 25th 05 09:00 PM |
Garmin 196 & obstacle database. | max | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | March 16th 05 08:51 AM |
Obstacle Clearance Altitude / Height | Tim | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | November 21st 04 10:33 AM |
Notes on NACO Obstacle Departure Procedures | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | July 15th 04 10:20 PM |