No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Greg Esres wrote:

It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide?

Assuming no DP then as long as you climb in a normal fashion terrain
clearance is not a factor. If there is a DP, like the vector one we
have here at BIL, a minimum climb rate will be listed. I give you the
DP in the clearance and you will be issued a vector on departure.


The heading
they give you is presumed safe until departure can vector you. How
long can you fly the heading and be safe? Are there any criteria for
this?

Yes.



In his "Radar Services Terminated" article, Wally seems to indicate
that this is a gray area. He apparently only feels 100% comfortable
with a non-radar heading assignment when the area is 40:1 clear, as
indicated by the lack of an IFR departure procedure.

There are no nonradar headings. A nonradar tower or approach control
can not, by definition, vector.

Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?


I do.

If the ODP is something the pilot can do on a clearance given to him, then it
must be protected. That's the point of a clearance.


Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
cooperative spirit?


Maybe. Ideally everyone would be kept informed of everything, but there's only
so much bandwidth. Some airports have radio congestion, some controllers run
more than one radio frequency (so pilots can't hear controller congestion), and
even if ATC is informed that a pilot does NOT INTEND to use an ODP, it must
still be protected, no? Something goes wrong, pilot goes nordo, and then
decides that now, in this case, the ODP is a good idea. There should be no
aluminum in that space.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Greg Esres wrote:

No, it's a vector.

Then why does the .65 call it a heading?

---------snip--------------
Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.

Heading and vector are synonomous.


---------snip--------------

If the heading is something that you do until you can be vectored,
then it's not a vector.

Any heading issued by a tower controller is a vector. "N123, fly heading
250, cleared for takeoff." That aircraft just got a vector.

Greg Esres wrote:

Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
associated at all with any radar facility.

Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
they may have the tower give you a vector.

Heading and vector are synonomous.

There are no nonradar headings. A nonradar tower or approach
control can not, by definition, vector.

You're contradicting yourself, dude.

Non-radar facilities can, and, do, issue headings, but as you say,
they cannot vector, because they do not have radar.

Any heading issued by a tower controller is a vector.

As you stated above, a non-radar tower cannot vector, but they can
issue headings.

You're vastly outvoted by other experts in the subject, so I think you
are in error and are dangerously misleading readers, because the
heading assignment by tower is not capable of providing what a vector
provides, which is terrain clearance. Your example of the "No DP"
airport is pointless, because terrain is not an issue when the airport
is 40:1 clear.

They are either canned from the LOA with the IFR facility, relayed
verbatim from the IFR facility (4-2-4), or the tower controller is
trained, certified, and delegated the authority by the appropriate
level of management to use the tower radar display to issue them
(3-1-9c).


Exactly. In the first case, the tower is not capable of tracking the
aircraft with respect to obstacles, and therefore cannot provide any
terrain clearance, which is why they can't vector.

However, in the latter instance, where you have a radar tower, they
CAN vector aircraft, if certified to do so.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:41:22 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide? The heading
they give you is presumed safe until departure can vector you. How
long can you fly the heading and be safe? Are there any criteria for
this?

Others are answering this question for you better than I.


In his "Radar Services Terminated" article, Wally seems to indicate
that this is a gray area. He apparently only feels 100% comfortable
with a non-radar heading assignment when the area is 40:1 clear, as
indicated by the lack of an IFR departure procedure.

And I would agree with feeling "uncomfortable" because of the poor
application of this area by ATC in certain locations. That's why I've
repeatedly written about being especially alert to vectors that conflict
with ODP's. However, the first of your points to which I take issue was
any requirement to notify ATC that you are flying a published ODP, assuming
it was not given in your clearance and you were not given alternate
routing/altitude restrictions/etc.

The 7110.65 says both that if an ODP is required for separation, it should
be issued by ATC; and also that flying the ODP is at the pilot's
prerogative. There is no requirement to "notify" ATC and they had better
protect the appropriate airspace if they are doing their job correctly.


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

Greg Esres wrote in message . ..
He/she created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting
traffic unless they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance.

Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?

Yes. Whether every ATCS understands this responsibility is another
question, and gets one into the old doggerel "here lies the body
of Ernest Grey, he died defending his right-of-way, he was Right,
Dead Right, as he sped along. But he's just as dead now as if
he'd been wrong."

Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
cooperative spirit?

Yes. Especially for the above reason.

Cheers,
Sydney

Newps wrote in message news:mI_ob.83301$e01.270611@attbi_s02...

Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

At least they'd better not.

Cheers,
Sydney

Greg Esres wrote:
Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
cooperative spirit?

I've been reading this thread with somewhat growing alarm at the rate
it's turning into a ****ing contest, but I think Greg hit the nail on
the head here.

Whether or not the controller goofed in reading me my clearance or
listening to my readback, I'm now convinced I goofed too. Since I'm
used to getting the SID and was surprised that I didn't, what I really
should have done was tell the controller, "I'd like a left turnout
direct Carmel". Either he would have come back with "approved as
requested", or "Unable, fly the SID". Either way, we would have all
been on the same page which is always a good thing.

I now return you to the ****ing contest already in progress :-)