Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
could carry out this climb.

My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
on this)?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:08 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
>Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
>TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
>of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
>planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
>could carry out this climb.
>
>My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
>runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
>details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
>procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
>way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
>I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
>Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
>something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
>on this)?
I don't have the plate in front of me. Sounds like there is no ifr
procedure off runway 26, so there is no way to be sure of obstacles
without using a vfr sectional as you say. Personally I don't know of
anyone who has used a vfr sectional in ifr conditions, and I don't
think I ever would. Of course, you could fly visually if weather
permitted. Stan

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
> planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> could carry out this climb.
>
> My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
> procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
> way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
> Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
> something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> on this)?

Why would you think the Instrument Procedures Handbook seems
surprisingly vague in this regard? It is about approved IFR procedures,
not "rolling your own" obstacle clearance procedures. When an IFR
airport has IFR takeoff minimums on one or more runways, but not on
other runways (or runway) the FAA has determined that IFR departure on
the runway "NA" is unsafe.

So, if you use that runway without adequate visual reference you are on
your own and in highly risky territory.

The wise course of action would be to depart Runway 8, performance
permitting.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
> planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> could carry out this climb.
>
> My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
> procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
> way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
> Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
> something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> on this)?

Oops! My bad. I didn't look carefull and thought I was responding to a
pilot.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
> planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> could carry out this climb.
>
> My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
> procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
> way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
> Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
> something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> on this)?
>
To get the extra altitude, carry your computer to the 2nd floor and plug
it in.

KC

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.

Viperdoc writes:

> Any pilot with an instrument rating should know the answer. Anyone else can
> look it up.

Any pilot knows all about aviation; anyone else can look it up. Therefore
this newsgroup serves no purpose.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>
>> Any pilot with an instrument rating should know the answer. Anyone else can
>> look it up.
>>
>
> Any pilot knows all about aviation; anyone else can look it up. Therefore
> this newsgroup serves no purpose.
>
take your toxicity back to r.a.p. I quit reading that one. I worked hard
for my IFR and personally don't need or want you or your inane bull****
fantasy world here. Just go away.

KC

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.

What part of "Not Authorized" doesn't your mousetrap brain understand?

Sam Spade writes:

> What part of "Not Authorized" doesn't your mousetrap brain understand?

Ah ... I thought NA meant not applicable. It makes more sense now.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>What part of "Not Authorized" doesn't your mousetrap brain understand?
>
>
> Ah ... I thought NA meant not applicable. It makes more sense now.

If you had ever read FAR Part 97 you wouldn't have thought that.

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...

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> Monica, in a Bonanza. The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> of 10500 on the chart. Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. I
> planned to depart from runway 26. My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> could carry out this climb.
>
> My question is: How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> runway and the first fix on my filed route? The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. The only departure
> procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. So what's the proper
> way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? Should I use a VFR sectional?
> Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? Did I overlook
> something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> on this)?

If no instrument departure gradients are published in a departure
procedure, then the default gradient requirement applies, which is 200
ft/NM.

John

Sam Spade writes:

> If you had ever read FAR Part 97 you wouldn't have thought that.

Well, I could have read it and forgotten it, but in this case I simply had not
read Part 97 in detail. After reading your post, I note that 97.3 does indeed
define NA as "not authorized." Thanks for the pointer.

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.

On Jan 13, 5:09*am, wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:08 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> >Monica, in a Bonanza. *The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> >TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. *DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> >of 10500 on the chart. *Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. *I
> >planned to depart from runway 26. *My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> >could carry out this climb.
>
> >My question is: *How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> >runway and the first fix on my filed route? *The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> >details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. *The only departure
> >procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. *So what's the proper
> >way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> >I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? *Should I use a VFR sectional?
> >Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? *Did I overlook
> >something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> >on this)?
>
> I don't have the plate in front of me. *Sounds like there is no ifr
> procedure off runway 26, so there is no way to be sure of obstacles
> without using a vfr sectional as you say. *Personally I don't know of
> anyone who has used a vfr sectional in ifr conditions, and I don't
> think I ever would. *Of course, you could fly visually if weather
> permitted. *Stan- Hide quoted text -

Your either joking or don't fly IFR in GA aircraft very often. There
are lots of airports where you have to define your own IFR departure
using the sectional charts. Some airports don't even show up on the
EnRoute charts.

-Robert

On Jan 14, 9:50*am, "J.Kahn" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
> > Monica, in a Bonanza. *The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
> > TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. *DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
> > of 10500 on the chart. *Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. *I
> > planned to depart from runway 26. *My calculations showed that the Bonanza
> > could carry out this climb.
>
> > My question is: *How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
> > runway and the first fix on my filed route? *The ODP for Big Bear only gives
> > details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. *The only departure
> > procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. *So what's the proper
> > way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
> > I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? *Should I use a VFR sectional?
> > Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? *Did I overlook
> > something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
> > on this)?
>
> If no instrument departure gradients are published in a departure
> procedure, then the default gradient requirement applies, which is 200
> ft/NM.

Huh? The FAA guarantees you won't hit anything when you are not flying
a procedure as long as you climb at 200 ft/nm? I think you are mixing
up two different things. When there is no procedure in place for
departure you grab your sectional and plan a route. Lots of airports
don't even appear in the approach manual.

-robert, CFII

On Jan 14, 11:04*am, 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.

No, the procedure is not authorized on runway 26.

-robert

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.


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

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

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 procedure:
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 PROCEDURE: 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

Viperdoc writes:

> 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.

It's too expensive.

Dane Spearing writes:

> The former. NA = "Not Authorized"

Then why are other people saying that I can devise my own instrument departure
if one is not published? Who's right?

Sam Spade writes:

> 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.

The big mountains might or might not be a problem, depending on the aircraft.

I believe the rule is that if there is a departure procedure
published, fly the departure procedure.

If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
and you will be clear of obstructions.

No approach plate, you are on your own.

Does this not cover everything?


On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:37:12 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Jan 14, 9:50*am, "J.Kahn" > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > Yesterday I tried to plan a flight from Big Bear City (California) to Santa
>> > Monica, in a Bonanza. *The routing I worked out was L35..DAWNA.V8.PDZ.V186
>> > TIFNI.ELMOO.DARTS..KSMO. *DAWNA is on a portion of the airway that shows a MEA
>> > of 10500 on the chart. *Since I was westbound, I figured to climb to 12000. *I
>> > planned to depart from runway 26. *My calculations showed that the Bonanza
>> > could carry out this climb.
>>
>> > My question is: *How do I make sure that I don't hit anything between the
>> > runway and the first fix on my filed route? *The ODP for Big Bear only gives
>> > details for runway 8, and says "N/A" for runway 26. *The only departure
>> > procedure is an obstacle departure, also for runway 8. *So what's the proper
>> > way for me to plan a flight so that I don't run into anything between the time
>> > I leave runway 26 and the time I reach DAWNA? *Should I use a VFR sectional?
>> > Is there something on en-route IFR charts that I'm missing? *Did I overlook
>> > something in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (it seems surprisingly vague
>> > on this)?
>>
>> If no instrument departure gradients are published in a departure
>> procedure, then the default gradient requirement applies, which is 200
>> ft/NM.
>
>Huh? The FAA guarantees you won't hit anything when you are not flying
>a procedure as long as you climb at 200 ft/nm? I think you are mixing
>up two different things. When there is no procedure in place for
>departure you grab your sectional and plan a route. Lots of airports
>don't even appear in the approach manual.
>
>-robert, CFII

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:33:25 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>
>Your either joking or don't fly IFR in GA aircraft very often. There
>are lots of airports where you have to define your own IFR departure
>using the sectional charts. Some airports don't even show up on the
>EnRoute charts.
>
You're partially right on the second one. I don't fly ifr GA in light
aircraft.

I didn't realize it was so prevalent, and considered a safe maneuvre.
Stan

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:20:10 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>
>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"?

That's a good question. It's not available from the FAA. You can
roll your own. Of course, if there was an FAA one, you'd have
obstacle clearance guaranteed by them. If it's NA, you have to
guarantee your own. Stan

On Jan 14, 9:57 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> 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.

No I didn't ;)

wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:20:10 +0100, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>
>>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"?
>
>
> That's a good question. It's not available from the FAA. You can
> roll your own. Of course, if there was an FAA one, you'd have
> obstacle clearance guaranteed by them. If it's NA, you have to
> guarantee your own. Stan

Another legal interp might very well be: at a VFR airport Part 91-only
can roll its own. But, at an IFR airport where the FAA has
affirmatively denied takeoff minimums you might find that rolling your
own at an IFR airport on a NA runway might cause some grief.

Weather permitting, the conservative way to depart Runway 26 at Big Bear
is to request a VFR climb to the minimum 91.177 altitude.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> 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
I didn't say anything about 200 feet per mile in this thread.

Roy Smith wrote:

> 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 PROCEDURE: 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.

That tells me that the regional Airports Division has not recognized
that runway for IFR operations. It's absense from the takeoff minimums
I would take to mean it is a VFR runway.
>
> 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?

They couldn't care less. ATC doesn't monitor pilot legalities for IFR
operations. As to IFR departure on the runway, that would be a FSDO
call if they became involved. As to sidestep, you can't roll your own
sidestep minimums, they have to be charted. Could you use
circle-to-land minimums to land on the turf runway. I would think you
could during the daytime, but again only the FSDO could answer that with
authority.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The big mountains might or might not be a problem, depending on the aircraft.

Your judgment differs from the FAA's. Why don't you go argue with them:

http://naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nfpo/west

wrote:

> I believe the rule is that if there is a departure procedure
> published, fly the departure procedure.
>
> If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
> procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
> and you will be clear of obstructions.

Known as a diverse departure area as per the AIM
>
> No approach plate, you are on your own.
>
> Does this not cover everything?

No. The runway has to have published IFR takeoff minimums AND no ODP
for you to make a diverse departure.

Sam Spade writes:

> Your judgment differs from the FAA's.

I haven't seen an opinion from the FAA.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>Your judgment differs from the FAA's.
>
>
> I haven't seen an opinion from the FAA.

I believe a judgment is different than an opinion. They denied an ODP
into those mountains; that is a fact. So go argue with them numbnuts.

On Jan 15, 6:34*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

>
> I didn't say anything about 200 feet per mile in this thread.- Hide quoted text -

Then I must have mixed the thread up with someone else.

-Robert

On Jan 15, 4:22*am, wrote:
> I believe the rule is that if there is a departure procedure
> published, fly the departure procedure.

The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
certain runway.

-Robert

On Jan 15, 4:33*am, wrote:

> You're partially right on the second one. *I don't fly ifr GA in light
> aircraft.
>
> I didn't realize it was so prevalent, and considered a safe maneuvre.

Its probably most common when pilots are leaving their home field. My
airport does not have any IFR procedures at all. When I depart IFR I
only have to consider if I believe I can be VMC before I enter class
E. If I don't think the clouds are that high I don't need any
clearance at all, just throttle up and launch.

-Robert

Contrary to the static you are getting, you asking exactly the right
question.
Those who don't investigate such things run into stuff.

A great reference to how the procedures are constructed is
Eckalbar "IFR A Structured Approach" chapter 9. It discuses
what "standard" is. How far is it assumed that you climb straight
ahead when departing? It's all covered.

For fun, look at the Sand Point ID approach plate. Can you depart
this
place safely with a 900' ceiling in your Bonanza? How would you do
it?

Bill Hale BPPP instructor

Viperdoc wrote:
> I can just see some guy at a FSDO listening to Anthony explain how he knows
> everything about flying, based upon all of his hours playing a computer
> game, and why there should be a DP for a specific runway based upon his
> gaming experience.
>
> Perhaps Anthony should complain to the NTSB about the lack of a DP that he
> understands?
>
Better yet, his Congressman.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
..
>
>
> The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
> case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
> using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
> there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
> certain runway.
>
> -Robert

Sure there are, but for Part 91 it is iffy. If I am operating Part 135
IFR out of Big Bear, I better damn well not use Runway 26 unless I get a
VFR climb clearance from center.

Bill writes:

> Contrary to the static you are getting, you asking exactly the right
> question. Those who don't investigate such things run into stuff.

Safety first.

> A great reference to how the procedures are constructed is
> Eckalbar "IFR A Structured Approach" chapter 9. It discuses
> what "standard" is. How far is it assumed that you climb straight
> ahead when departing? It's all covered.

I was hoping it would be in the books I can download for free from the FAA,
but I haven't found much, and I'm at least as confused now as I was when I
asked the question.

> For fun, look at the Sand Point ID approach plate. Can you depart
> this place safely with a 900' ceiling in your Bonanza? How would you do
> it?

I found the airport, but I'm not sure what you mean by ID approach plate.
There are a couple of approaches listed.

Viperdoc wrote:
> He doesn't have a congressman- he lost his job in the States, and now lives
> hand to mouth in Paris, where he (not surprisingly) also can't find or hold
> a regular job.
>
>
I knew that, but forgot. Maybe the U.S. Ambassador to France could help
him out. Big Bear, California Airport is a high-profile location for
U.S.-Franco relationships. ;-)

On Jan 15, 6:20*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> .
>
>
>
> > The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
> > case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
> > using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
> > there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
> > certain runway.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Sure there are, but for Part 91 it is iffy. *If I am operating Part 135
> IFR out of Big Bear, I better damn well not use Runway 26 unless I get a
> VFR climb clearance from center.

Part 135 is different. Are you aware of an non-towered airport that
prohibits IFR depatures from a given runway? Can you post the airport
identifier?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 15, 6:20 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
>>>case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
>>>using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
>>>there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
>>>certain runway.
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>Sure there are, but for Part 91 it is iffy. If I am operating Part 135
>>IFR out of Big Bear, I better damn well not use Runway 26 unless I get a
>>VFR climb clearance from center.
>
>
> Part 135 is different. Are you aware of an non-towered airport that
> prohibits IFR depatures from a given runway? Can you post the airport
> identifier?
>
> -Robert
The airport we are discussing is good enough. It doesn't have a tower,
it is an IFR airport, and takeoff minimums are NA for Runway 26.
Without takeoff minimums there cannot be a diverse departure area or
ODP. Now, can you roll your own ODP for Runway 26 as a 91-only
operator? I think that is something only FAA legal could answer with
certainty.

Bill wrote:
> Contrary to the static you are getting, you asking exactly the right
> question.
> Those who don't investigate such things run into stuff.
>
> A great reference to how the procedures are constructed is
> Eckalbar "IFR A Structured Approach" chapter 9. It discuses
> what "standard" is. How far is it assumed that you climb straight
> ahead when departing? It's all covered.
>
> For fun, look at the Sand Point ID approach plate. Can you depart
> this
> place safely with a 900' ceiling in your Bonanza? How would you do
> it?
>
> Bill Hale BPPP instructor

Most light aircraft don't have sufficent performance to use standard
takeoff minimums at Sandpoint.

This is not my understanding. According to old Wally Roberts, who
once published great IFR articles for the IFR Refresher, the TERPS
guys are required to evaluate departures for every runway for any
airport for which an IAP is published, and if obstacles penetrate the
200:1 plane, then an ODP is required.

Therefore if a pilot follows the 200:1 plane in all cases where there
is an IAP published, and no ODP, he is assured of obstacle clearance
(unless the runway is designated NA). There is no need for published
IFR Takeoff Minimums for this to apply, as I understand it.

This has always been my understanding. If there is a source that
proves this to be incorrect, I would appreciate being so enlightened.




On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:59:34 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> I believe the rule is that if there is a departure procedure
>> published, fly the departure procedure.
>>
>> If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
>> procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
>> and you will be clear of obstructions.
>
>Known as a diverse departure area as per the AIM
>>
>> No approach plate, you are on your own.
>>
>> Does this not cover everything?
>
>No. The runway has to have published IFR takeoff minimums AND no ODP
>for you to make a diverse departure.

wrote:
> This is not my understanding. According to old Wally Roberts, who
> once published great IFR articles for the IFR Refresher, the TERPS
> guys are required to evaluate departures for every runway for any
> airport for which an IAP is published, and if obstacles penetrate the
> 200:1 plane, then an ODP is required.
>
> Therefore if a pilot follows the 200:1 plane in all cases where there
> is an IAP published, and no ODP, he is assured of obstacle clearance
> (unless the runway is designated NA). There is no need for published
> IFR Takeoff Minimums for this to apply, as I understand it.
>
> This has always been my understanding. If there is a source that
> proves this to be incorrect, I would appreciate being so enlightened.
>
>
>
>The TERPS guys are indeed required to evaluate every qualified runway
for an IFR airport (an airport with one, or more IAPs).

In some unusual situations a runway, such as a secondary dirt or turf
runway may not be approved by the regional Airports Division. But, this
is unusual.

So, for every qualified runway the evaluation will be made. If the
TERPS folks decide it would require an excessive climb gradient for the
aircraft that typically use the airport they will NA it. If they do not
NA it, then they must provide Part 97 takeoff minimums in order to have
a diverse departure area or an ODP. They go hand in glove. If you find
an exception, let us know.

On Jan 16, 8:43*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 6:20 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>.
>
> >>>The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
> >>>case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
> >>>using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
> >>>there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
> >>>certain runway.
>
> >>>-Robert
>
> >>Sure there are, but for Part 91 it is iffy. *If I am operating Part 135
> >>IFR out of Big Bear, I better damn well not use Runway 26 unless I get a
> >>VFR climb clearance from center.
>
> > Part 135 is different. Are you aware of an non-towered airport that
> > prohibits IFR depatures from a given runway? Can you post the airport
> > identifier?
>
> > -Robert
>
> The airport we are discussing is good enough. *It doesn't have a tower,
> it is an IFR airport, and takeoff minimums are NA for Runway 26.
> Without takeoff minimums there cannot be a diverse departure area or
> ODP. *Now, can you roll your own ODP for Runway 26 as a 91-only
> operator? *I think that is something only FAA legal could answer with
> certainty.- Hide quoted text -

But there is no requirement for part 91 to have published takeoff
mins. Many of us depart IFR from airports that do not have terminal
procedures published of any kind. There is no restrictions on part 91
to have an ODP. Note that 91.175 (f) (depature mins) says "This
paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121,
125, 129, or 135 of this chapter.".

So the only requirement under part 91 is what you do not hit anything.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jan 16, 8:43 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 15, 6:20 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>.
>>
>>>>>The procedure has to be published for your runway. So in our sim guys
>>>>>case he could have made up his own departure because the runway he was
>>>>>using does not have a published departure procedure. To my knowledge
>>>>>there are no non-towered airports that prohibit IFR departures from a
>>>>>certain runway.
>>
>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>Sure there are, but for Part 91 it is iffy. If I am operating Part 135
>>>>IFR out of Big Bear, I better damn well not use Runway 26 unless I get a
>>>>VFR climb clearance from center.
>>
>>>Part 135 is different. Are you aware of an non-towered airport that
>>>prohibits IFR depatures from a given runway? Can you post the airport
>>>identifier?
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>The airport we are discussing is good enough. It doesn't have a tower,
>>it is an IFR airport, and takeoff minimums are NA for Runway 26.
>>Without takeoff minimums there cannot be a diverse departure area or
>>ODP. Now, can you roll your own ODP for Runway 26 as a 91-only
>>operator? I think that is something only FAA legal could answer with
>>certainty.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> But there is no requirement for part 91 to have published takeoff
> mins. Many of us depart IFR from airports that do not have terminal
> procedures published of any kind. There is no restrictions on part 91
> to have an ODP. Note that 91.175 (f) (depature mins) says "This
> paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121,
> 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter.".
>
> So the only requirement under part 91 is what you do not hit anything.
>
> -Robert
I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
circumstance.

It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
would become a factor.

On Jan 16, 3:45*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. *I also agree
> that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. *My question
> is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
> a particular runway. *I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
> circumstance.
>
> It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
> would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -

Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>>I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
>>that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
>>is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
>>a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
>>circumstance.
>>
>>It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
>>would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
> 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
> does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
> given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.
>
> -Robert
No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.

It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
of an ODP based on safety.

OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
"triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
followed.

Is this not so?




On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:46:58 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> This is not my understanding. According to old Wally Roberts, who
>> once published great IFR articles for the IFR Refresher, the TERPS
>> guys are required to evaluate departures for every runway for any
>> airport for which an IAP is published, and if obstacles penetrate the
>> 200:1 plane, then an ODP is required.
>>
>> Therefore if a pilot follows the 200:1 plane in all cases where there
>> is an IAP published, and no ODP, he is assured of obstacle clearance
>> (unless the runway is designated NA). There is no need for published
>> IFR Takeoff Minimums for this to apply, as I understand it.
>>
>> This has always been my understanding. If there is a source that
>> proves this to be incorrect, I would appreciate being so enlightened.
>>
>>
>>
>>The TERPS guys are indeed required to evaluate every qualified runway
>for an IFR airport (an airport with one, or more IAPs).
>
>In some unusual situations a runway, such as a secondary dirt or turf
>runway may not be approved by the regional Airports Division. But, this
>is unusual.
>
>So, for every qualified runway the evaluation will be made. If the
>TERPS folks decide it would require an excessive climb gradient for the
>aircraft that typically use the airport they will NA it. If they do not
>NA it, then they must provide Part 97 takeoff minimums in order to have
>a diverse departure area or an ODP. They go hand in glove. If you find
>an exception, let us know.

wrote:
> OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
> from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
> "triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
> followed.
>
> Is this not so?
>
>
It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.

On Jan 17, 4:38*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. *I also agree
> >>that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. *My question
> >>is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
> >>a particular runway. *I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
> >>circumstance.
>
> >>It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
> >>would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
> > 135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
> > does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
> > given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.
>
> > -Robert
>
> No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
> are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.
>
> It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. *It is about "NA" means
> an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
> unsafe. *That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
> airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
> of an ODP based on safety

It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
>>>>that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
>>>>is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
>>>>a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
>>>>circumstance.
>>
>>>>It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
>>>>would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
>>>135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
>>>does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
>>>given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
>>are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.
>>
>>It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
>>an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
>>unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
>>airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
>>of an ODP based on safety
>
>
> It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
> could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.
>
> -Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>>I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
> >>>>that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
> >>>>is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
> >>>>a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
> >>>>circumstance.
>
> >>>>It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
> >>>>would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
> >>>135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
> >>>does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
> >>>given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.
>
> >>>-Robert
>
> >>No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
> >>are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.
>
> >>It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
> >>an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
> >>unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
> >>airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
> >>of an ODP based on safety
>
> > It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
> > could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
> door is open for a 91.13 violation.

MSFS should be patched, so that when someone attempts to fly it
anyways, it should just call "FDISK C:"

:P

On Jan 17, 8:28*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:

> > -Robert
>
> Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
> door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -

I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
> prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
> argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
> you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
> considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>
> -Robert

Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
No NOTAM is required.

If you disagree that they have made an OPD safety assessment that has
determined IIR (IMC actually) departures from that runway are unsage,
then lets agree to disagree. ;-)

As to whether anyone would get violated, that is like asking when the
local cops will be around to enforce that local stop sign that is ran
quite often.

Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
have published takeoff minimums.

So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".

In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".

This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:03:55 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
>> from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
>> "triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
>> followed.
>>
>> Is this not so?
>>
>>
>It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.

I made an omission here.

Should read "any airport without published takeoff minimums OR an
ODP"...




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:42:29 GMT, wrote:

>
>Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
>have published takeoff minimums.
>
>So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".
>
>In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
>published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
>sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
>on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".
>
>This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
>certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:03:55 -0800, Sam Spade >
>wrote:
>
wrote:
>>> OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
>>> from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
>>> "triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
>>> followed.
>>>
>>> Is this not so?
>>>
>>>
>>It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.

wrote:
> Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
> have published takeoff minimums.
>
> So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".
>
> In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
> published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
> sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
> on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".
>
> This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
> certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.
>
>
Your belief is incorrect.

Check the NACO chart legends for the Triangle T. The definition is,
"Take-off Minimums not standard and/or Departure Procedures are
published. Refer to tabulation."

If no Triange T appears on the approach charts for an airport with one
or more IAPs (i.e., and IFR airport) (use KDDC as an example) then all
runways have standard takeoff minimums and all runways have diverse
departure areas.

Perhaps you consider a diverse departure area as a "roll your own."
But, that isn't the way the system views it. It means you don't have to
follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no
turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever. But, even a
diverse departure area has its limits, and the next revision of the AIM
will address this. If you are making a diverse departure out of a
qualified IFR airport you need to be established on an airway or
otherwise at a 91.177 altitude within 25 miles of the airport in non-DMA
areas, and 46 miles in DMAs.

Back to Big Bear: The airport has a Triangle T of course. The
tabulation states NA for Runway 26, higher than standard for 8 (or
standard with a climb gradient) and to use the RNAV DP.

Jeppesen does a better job in that they list the takeoff minimums for
every runway at an IFR airport even when they are standard and there is
a diverse departure area.

To expand on my KDDC example a bit, every runway had an amendment to
Part 97 issued via the federal register at one time establishing only
standard takeoff minimums for all those runways.

If both standard and higher-than-standard are required than the
regualtory form will have more information on it, and that triggers the "T"

And, if an ODP is issued, that will be done as a separate, but related
action into the IFR database.

OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully
satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two
more.

(1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can
depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46
miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and
I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would
confirm this.

(2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure
that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain
characteristics, is there not?




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:59:13 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
>> have published takeoff minimums.
>>
>> So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".
>>
>> In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
>> published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
>> sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
>> on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".
>>
>> This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
>> certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.
>>
>>
>Your belief is incorrect.
>
>Check the NACO chart legends for the Triangle T. The definition is,
>"Take-off Minimums not standard and/or Departure Procedures are
>published. Refer to tabulation."
>
>If no Triange T appears on the approach charts for an airport with one
>or more IAPs (i.e., and IFR airport) (use KDDC as an example) then all
>runways have standard takeoff minimums and all runways have diverse
>departure areas.
>
>Perhaps you consider a diverse departure area as a "roll your own."
>But, that isn't the way the system views it. It means you don't have to
>follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no
>turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever. But, even a
>diverse departure area has its limits, and the next revision of the AIM
>will address this. If you are making a diverse departure out of a
>qualified IFR airport you need to be established on an airway or
>otherwise at a 91.177 altitude within 25 miles of the airport in non-DMA
>areas, and 46 miles in DMAs.
>
>Back to Big Bear: The airport has a Triangle T of course. The
>tabulation states NA for Runway 26, higher than standard for 8 (or
>standard with a climb gradient) and to use the RNAV DP.
>
>Jeppesen does a better job in that they list the takeoff minimums for
>every runway at an IFR airport even when they are standard and there is
>a diverse departure area.

wrote:
> OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully
> satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two
> more.
>
> (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can
> depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46
> miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and
> I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would
> confirm this.

How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is
quite explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not
less than 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.

It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.

>
> (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure
> that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain
> characteristics, is there not?
>
I'm not teaching a TERPS course. It is all covered in Volume 4 of
TERPS, 8260.3B.

Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
original statement is correct:

"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
and you will be clear of obstructions."





On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:06:31 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully
>> satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two
>> more.
>>
>> (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can
>> depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46
>> miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and
>> I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would
>> confirm this.
>
>How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is
>quite explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not
>less than 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.
>
>It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.
>
>>
>> (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure
>> that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain
>> characteristics, is there not?
>>
>I'm not teaching a TERPS course. It is all covered in Volume 4 of
>TERPS, 8260.3B.

I inferred it from your statement:

" It means you don't have to
follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no
turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever"


There is a restriction - 200FPNM.

Which is what I said in the first place :).


On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:06:31 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> OK thanks, and I don't want to beat this to death, but I am not fully
>> satisfied and I hope you don't mind indulging me a question or two
>> more.
>>
>> (1) Your answer implies that if there is no "Triangle-T", I can
>> depart, climb to 400 feet, level off, fly 25 miles at 400 feet, (46
>> miles in a DMA area) and then climb straight up to 91.77 altitude, and
>> I have no obstruction worries. I would appreciate if you would
>> confirm this.
>
>How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is
>quite explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not
>less than 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.
>
>It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.
>
>>
>> (2)What, exactly, are the criteria for creating an ODP? I am sure
>> that this is not subjective. There must be a rule involving terrain
>> characteristics, is there not?
>>
>I'm not teaching a TERPS course. It is all covered in Volume 4 of
>TERPS, 8260.3B.

wrote:
> Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
> original statement is correct:
>
> "If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
> procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
> and you will be clear of obstructions."
>

Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
clear previously, I missed it.

wrote:

> I inferred it from your statement:
>
> " It means you don't have to
> follow any restriction for obstacle clearance purposes (other than no
> turns below 400 feet) before proceding direct to wherever"
>
>
> There is a restriction - 200FPNM.
>
> Which is what I said in the first place :).
>
Yes you did. But, you also put words in my mouth to the contrary. ;-)

Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.

I will leave you with a challenge, however.

Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
>> original statement is correct:
>>
>> "If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
>> procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
>> and you will be clear of obstructions."
>>
>
>Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
>clear previously, I missed it.

wrote:
> Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.

What point?
>
> I will leave you with a challenge, however.
>
> Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
> penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
> area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).

There aren't any such airports.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
>>>original statement is correct:
>>>
>>>"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
>>>procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
>>>and you will be clear of obstructions."
>>>
>>
>>Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
>>clear previously, I missed it.

On Jan 17, 7:05*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>-Robert
>
> >>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
> >>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
> > prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
> > argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
> > you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
> > considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>
> > -Robert
>
> Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? *The FAA has not
> authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
> No NOTAM is required.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
>>>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
>>>prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
>>>argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
>>>you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
>>>considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
>>authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
>>No NOTAM is required.
>
>
> Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
> field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
> you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
> 91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
> 91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
> asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
> is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
> relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
> doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
> ODP is not authorized.
>
> -Robert
No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

Is anyone watching? Unlikely. But, if an FAA safety inspector were
sharp at happen to be at Big Bear when it is decidedly IMC, he would be
justified in exploring why N1234A departed on Runway 26.

On Jan 18, 12:55*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>>>-Robert
>
> >>>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
> >>>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
> >>>prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
> >>>argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
> >>>you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
> >>>considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>
> >>>-Robert
>
> >>Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? *The FAA has not
> >>authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
> >>No NOTAM is required.
>
> > Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
> > field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
> > you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
> > 91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
> > 91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
> > asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
> > is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
> > relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
> > doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
> > ODP is not authorized.
>
> > -Robert
>
> No, not 135 standards all all. *I have stated my view and disagree with
> your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
> runway. *You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
> well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
> operations.

So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.

-Robert

> How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite
> explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than
> 200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.
>
> It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.

And just to make sure I understand this:

The 40:1 sloping surface (152 ft/nm) is for actual obstacle penetration, and
the 200 ft/nm incorporates a small buffer of 48 ft/nm.

Is that correct?

Thanks.

Barry

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
>>>>>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
>>>>>prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
>>>>>argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
>>>>>you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
>>>>>considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>>
>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
>>>>authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
>>>>No NOTAM is required.
>>
>>>Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
>>>field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
>>>you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
>>>91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
>>>91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
>>>asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
>>>is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
>>>relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
>>>doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
>>>ODP is not authorized.
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
>>your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
>>runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
>>well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
>>operations.
>
>
> So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
> to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
> depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
> a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.
>
> -Robert
Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
minimums.

My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. Then, if
he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
by the FAA for IMC departures.

So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)

I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
especially at an airport like this one.

Barry wrote:

>>How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite
>>explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than
>>200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.
>>
>>It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.
>
>
> And just to make sure I understand this:
>
> The 40:1 sloping surface (152 ft/nm) is for actual obstacle penetration, and
> the 200 ft/nm incorporates a small buffer of 48 ft/nm.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Barry
>
>
Yes.

And, when the slope is steeper than 40:1 then the buffer becomes greater.

On Jan 18, 5:59*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>-Robert
>
> >>>>>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
> >>>>>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
> >>>>>prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
> >>>>>argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
> >>>>>you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
> >>>>>considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>
> >>>>>-Robert
>
> >>>>Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? *The FAA has not
> >>>>authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
> >>>>No NOTAM is required.
>
> >>>Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
> >>>field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
> >>>you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
> >>>91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
> >>>91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
> >>>asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
> >>>is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
> >>>relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
> >>>doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
> >>>ODP is not authorized.
>
> >>>-Robert
>
> >>No, not 135 standards all all. *I have stated my view and disagree with
> >>your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
> >>runway. *You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
> >>well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
> >>operations.
>
> > So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
> > to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
> > depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
> > a lot of things *but that seems way to wild to me.
>
> > -Robert
>
> Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
> minimums.
>
> My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
> determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. *Then, if
> he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
> takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
> by the FAA for IMC departures.

By that argument you could argue that shooting the approach "just to
see what it looks like " when wx is reported below mins under part 91
would be a violation.

> So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)

That's fine.

> I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
> especially at an airport like this one.- Hide quoted text -

We are fortunate the FAA regs for part 91 are not, at this point,
restrictive enough to take decision making out of the cockpit. Part
121 is close and will continue to get closer to putting all PIC
decisions in regs.

-Robert

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:51 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.
>
>What point?
>>
>> I will leave you with a challenge, however.
>>
>> Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
>> penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
>> area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).
>
>There aren't any such airports.
>>
>>

Well, hell, my friend. If that is true, then I can depart any airport
with an IAP, and no ODP, make no turns before 400 AGL, climb at 200
FPNM, and remain clear of obstructions.

This was my original statement, which for some reason, quite
unfathomable to me, you keep saying is not universally true for some
nuanced reason about published minimums.


>>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
>>>>original statement is correct:
>>>>
>>>>"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
>>>>procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
>>>>and you will be clear of obstructions."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
>>>clear previously, I missed it.

wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:51 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.
>>
>>What point?
>>
>>>I will leave you with a challenge, however.
>>>
>>>Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
>>>penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
>>>area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).
>>
>>There aren't any such airports.
>>
>>>
>
> Well, hell, my friend. If that is true, then I can depart any airport
> with an IAP, and no ODP, make no turns before 400 AGL, climb at 200
> FPNM, and remain clear of obstructions.
>
> This was my original statement, which for some reason, quite
> unfathomable to me, you keep saying is not universally true for some
> nuanced reason about published minimums.
>
You've lost me. Have a nice day.
>
>
>>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
>>>>>original statement is correct:
>>>>>
>>>>>"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
>>>>>procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
>>>>>and you will be clear of obstructions."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
>>>>clear previously, I missed it.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jan 18, 5:59 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>>>>>Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
>>>>>>>>door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>>>I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
>>>>>>>prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
>>>>>>>argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
>>>>>>>you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
>>>>>>>considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13
>>
>>>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>>>Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
>>>>>>authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
>>>>>>No NOTAM is required.
>>
>>>>>Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
>>>>>field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
>>>>>you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
>>>>>91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
>>>>>91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
>>>>>asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
>>>>>is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
>>>>>relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
>>>>>doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
>>>>>ODP is not authorized.
>>
>>>>>-Robert
>>
>>>>No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
>>>>your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
>>>>runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
>>>>well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
>>>>operations.
>>
>>>So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
>>>to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
>>>depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
>>>a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.
>>
>>>-Robert
>>
>>Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
>>minimums.
>>
>>My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
>>determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. Then, if
>>he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
>>takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
>>by the FAA for IMC departures.
>
>
> By that argument you could argue that shooting the approach "just to
> see what it looks like " when wx is reported below mins under part 91
> would be a violation.
>
>
>>So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)
>
>
> That's fine.
>
>
>>I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
>>especially at an airport like this one.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> We are fortunate the FAA regs for part 91 are not, at this point,
> restrictive enough to take decision making out of the cockpit. Part
> 121 is close and will continue to get closer to putting all PIC
> decisions in regs.
>
> -Robert
ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last
amendment to 91.175 issued last year.

They should be in my view. At a VFR airport the pilot should be free to
roll his own and hopefully with a brain and some technical expertise.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:53:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>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.
>
>


Indeed.

I wonder how would anyone plan an IFR departure from an airport with
no approach plate WITHOUT a VFR chart?