No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

I try to record all communications so I can go back, if I want, and hear
what was actually said. Sometimes it's as I remember, sometimes not.

And if you call the tower and explain that you think you may have
misheard a clearance or maybe the controller didn't issue it right and
would like to listen to the tapes they should let you.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02...
In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the radar
facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into
anything.


Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?

Robert Henry wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02...

In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the radar
facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into
anything.



Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?

No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to fly.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:0Ydpb.87662$Tr4.226083@attbi_s03...


Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?

No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to
fly.


And if that course takes you right into a layer of granite, oh well.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Snowbird) wrote:

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

Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?


Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
could give you an answer. :-)

Chip, ZTL

"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. It is my point that the ODP *is* included in an IFR departure
clearance unless ATC issues explicit alternate departure instructions as
part of the launch. Should ATC fail to protect for the ODP, the official
statement on the controller's operational error recert package will likely
include the sentance: "Primary cause: Controller A procedurally failed to
maintain vertical separation prior to losing lateral separation."


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 agree with you. I believe that it can be clearly prudent for the pilot to
keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, but within reason. I don't know
that it is always reasonable for you to tell ATC that you are going to be
flying the ODP though. The controller responsible for formulating your IFR
clearance is supposed to be a specialist in his/her airspace. He/she should
know if an ODP is an option when you depart. If that procedure is a threat
to another IFR aircraft, then ATC needs to eliminate the traffic threat via
alternate instructions or not clear you. Otherwise, your IFR clearance is
flawed (and ATC's fault).

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

Yes. It is my point that the ODP *is* included in an IFR departure
clearance unless ATC issues explicit alternate departure instructions as
part of the launch. Should ATC fail to protect for the ODP, the official
statement on the controller's operational error recert package will likely
include the sentance: "Primary cause: Controller A procedurally failed to
maintain vertical separation prior to losing lateral separation."


I agree with you. I believe that it can be clearly prudent for the pilot
to
keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, but within reason. I don't
know
that it is always reasonable for you to tell ATC that you are going to be
flying the ODP though. The controller responsible for formulating your
IFR
clearance is supposed to be a specialist in his/her airspace. He/she
should
know if an ODP is an option when you depart. If that procedure is a
threat
to another IFR aircraft, then ATC needs to eliminate the traffic threat
via
alternate instructions or not clear you. Otherwise, your IFR clearance
is
flawed (and ATC's fault).

Chip, ZTL

I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I
experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot if
not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I think
that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I.

fwiw.

Radar coverage and "radar contact" have nothing to do with terrain
clearance, except when above the MVA and a vector is issued. Even then
there can be errors, so it's wisest to always know position relative
to terrain.

Vectors can be issued below MVA in departures and missed approaches.

Otherwise, all ok. ;-)

As counter-intuitive as it sounds radar contact isn't required to
issue an initial vector.

The words "initial vector" do not appear in FAAO 7110.65, so the only
reason that you say radar isn't required for an initial vector is that
you're interpreting "heading" to mean vector. That is not supported
by the .65. The section you cited, 5-8-2 contains the following:

-----------snip-----------------
5-8-2 Initial Heading
Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.
-----------snip-----------------

Why isn't this section entitled "Initial Vector" ? My answer:
because it isn't a vector.

Please refer to the definition of a vector in the Pilot-Controller
Glossary.

The definition is ambiguous. It could just as easily be used to prove
my point as yours.

he is restricted in the specific headings he may issue or areas
where he may vector.

Where confusion can arise is when a tower issues a heading that he
intends to take effect once the pilot completes the DP. The pilot can
may confuse this heading for a vector, and circumvent the DP,
anticipating that radar vectors will keep him out of trouble.

I suspect this is why the .65 is *careful* to avoid the use of the
word "vector" with this initial heading. I thnk controllers are the
one who have become sloppy with the terminology.

Now, you may feel inclined to assert that a guy who does the same job
every day for 30 years is far better qualified to know what his job is
than an outsider. Unfortunately, I haven't found that to be true
*necessarily*. I've already struggled with our local class B over
what "established" means, and I won that one, by going to Oklahoma
City, where I found someone who had a better theoretical understanding
of what a controller was supposed to do than the men in the field did.

Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking about but
explain to us what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a
heading and a vector. And what do you think the difference is to the
controller?

Greg Esres wrote:
As counter-intuitive as it sounds radar contact isn't required to
issue an initial vector.

The words "initial vector" do not appear in FAAO 7110.65,

They don't need to. A heading is a vector.


so the only
reason that you say radar isn't required for an initial vector is that
you're interpreting "heading" to mean vector.

Because that's what it means to everybody except you.



That is not supported
by the .65. The section you cited, 5-8-2 contains the following:

-----------snip-----------------
5-8-2 Initial Heading
Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.

Yes, if you want the aircraft on a specific heading for separation
purposes for example, then you give that vector with the takeoff
clearance. As opposed to waiting until after he takes off or after you
ship him to the departure controller.


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

Why isn't this section entitled "Initial Vector" ? My answer:
because it isn't a vector.

All headings given are vectors.