On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.

Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.

Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?


Morris

In a previous article, Journeyman > said:
>Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?

There never has been a requirement that you can depart when the conditions
are at minimums. There are lots of airports where you can get in but you
can't get out until the weather lifts.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on
Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch).
-- Andy Tannenbaum

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Journeyman > said:
>>Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>>The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>>proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>>from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
> There never has been a requirement that you can depart when the conditions
> are at minimums. There are lots of airports where you can get in but you
> can't get out until the weather lifts.

Morris is speaking of the takeoff minimums, not the landing minimums.
Takeoff minimums should permit a safe takeoff.

There's no requirement to reach the MSA, though. That's only applicable if
you get lost. If you fly the DP and keep climbing while you intercept your
airway, you should be safe (though of course it's a good idea to verify that
with the Detroit sectional chart).

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> There's no requirement to reach the MSA, though. That's only applicable if
> you get lost. If you fly the DP and keep climbing while you intercept your
> airway, you should be safe (though of course it's a good idea to verify
> that with the Detroit sectional chart).

Oh, and if you'll be intercepting the airway below MEA, it's also a good
idea to verify VOR reception, taking account of standard service volume and
any notes in the A/FD.

--Gary

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>
> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
> but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
> it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>
> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>

Departing runway 28 I'd make sure I crossed the departure end of the runway
at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway elevation, that should be
easy as the runway slopes downward to the west some 45 feet. I'd climb to
400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making my
initial turn and I'd maintain a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per
nautical mile until above the minimum IFR altitude.

In article >, Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Journeyman > said:
>>Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>>The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>>proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>>from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
> There never has been a requirement that you can depart when the conditions
> are at minimums. There are lots of airports where you can get in but you
> can't get out until the weather lifts.

Sure, but the book lists departure minima for 10/28. I can't
figure out how to go from those minima to enroute safely. If
the minima are there, I'd assume there was a way.


Morris

In article et>, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
> Departing runway 28 I'd make sure I crossed the departure end of the runway
> at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway elevation, that should be
> easy as the runway slopes downward to the west some 45 feet. I'd climb to
> 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making my
> initial turn and I'd maintain a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per
> nautical mile until above the minimum IFR altitude.

Thanks, Steven. That was the missing piece of information.


Morris (heading back to the books for a refresher)

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.
Is that smart??

PK


"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>
> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
> but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
> it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>
> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
>
> Morris

You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.

If you are really concerned, climb over the departure airport until you feel
comfortable in proceeding.

Bob Gardner

"Journeyman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>
> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
> but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
> it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>
> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
>
> Morris

Journeyman wrote:
> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>
> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
> but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
> it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>
> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>
>
> Morris

Whenever an IFR approach procedure is created for an airport, the
procedure specialist has to also review the airport for diverse
departures and ensure there are no penetrations to a standard 200' per
NM climb gradient in any direction, assuming a climb to 400' above the
Departure end of runway (DER) before any turns are commenced. If there
are penetrations, then he/she has to create a departure procedure to
avoid those obstacles. If the only departure penetrations are close to
the airport (within 3 miles) and can be avoided visually, then the
specialist only has to provide a ceiling that is higher than the
obstacle, and a visibility value that allows the obstacle to be seen
from the runway end. If the penetration is farther out than 3 statute
miles, then the specialist either has to provide a climb gradient that
will clear the obstacle if a pilot happens to turn directly toward it
(or if the obstacle is straight ahead), or if it's more than 15 degrees
off to either side of straight ahead, then they can provide an altitude
to climb to before allowing a turn that will ensure a 200' climb
gradient clears the obstacle after the turn.
From the example you gave, departures from Rwy 28 only have low,
close-in obstacles within 1 mile of the DER that can be avoided visually
and no other obstacle penetrations beyond that. Departing Rwy 10, it
would appear that you have both low close-in obstacles within 1 mile
that can be cleared visually, and also other obstacles further than 3
miles from DER and to the right or left of a plus/minus 15 degree splay
from the DER that can't be cleared visually, but will be cleared as long
as you climb to 2300 before beginning any turns.

To answer your question, if it's 300/1, you would have to depart runway
28 and can turn toward the airway once reaching 400' above DER. (You had
the minima reversed, Rwy 10 is 600/1, and Rwy 28 is 300/1.)

You can view a table that gives the TERPS specialist instructions on
what needs to be published on a departure procedure at this website
(page 4 of 74);
http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directives_files/8260.46B.pdf

Newer departure procedures would also list the obstacles that are close
in and also the ones that cause creation of a departure route to avoid
the obstacles, older procedures don't have the obstacle notes.

JPH

On Fri, 27 May 2005 17:30:21 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote:


>Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>

One way:

Depart Rwy 28; cross the end at least 35'AGL; climb at least at 200 ft/nm
until the MEA.

It seems like a straight forward DP to me. What is it that is confusing to
you?

(And I won't get into the lack of a legal requirement for most Part 91
flights).


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

On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:

>Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
>91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another matter).


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

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?





"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It
> has no operational significance and is not part of an instrument
> approach procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff
> minimums.
>
> If you are really concerned, climb over the departure airport until
> you feel comfortable in proceeding.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Journeyman" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
>> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
>> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>>
>> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the
>> night, but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken
>> up and it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>>
>> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>>
>>
>> Morris
>
>

On 27 May 2005 22:49:31 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
>poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
>intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
>there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
>can you remain clear of these obstacles?
>
>

I don't have the charts in front of me right now, but, as I recall, there
is no instruction to "proceed at 2300'". And the manner of flying a DP is
to continue climb at 200 ft/nm until at the MEA.

The airway you are supposed to intercept is the one to which you have been
cleared.

"On Course" for the rwy10 DP (if that's the one with the climb to 2300'
instruction) means the direct route from the point at which you attain
2300' to the closest point on the airway to which you have been cleared.

For the other runway, it would be after attaining 400' AGL.

And you should not hit obstacles because these routes with the restrictions
cited in the DP's have been checked for obstacle clearance.


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

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>
>>Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
>>91 does not have any departure weather requirements,
>
> At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
> requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.
>
> (Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
> matter).
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Paul Lynch wrote:
> Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
> 91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
> destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
> play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.
> Is that smart??

Maybe. All depends on the circumstances. :-)


Matt

Bob Gardner wrote:

> You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
> operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
> procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.

I thought published takeoff minimums applied to Part 91 operations. No??


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It
>> has no operational significance and is not part of an instrument
>> approach procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.
>
>
> I thought published takeoff minimums applied to Part 91 operations. No??

I just reviewed 91.175 and a Part 91 operation isn't included in the
takeoff minimums section.

Matt

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.




> On 27 May 2005 22:49:31 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> > wrote:
>
>>I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
>>poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
>>intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
>>there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
>>can you remain clear of these obstacles?
>>
>>
>
> I don't have the charts in front of me right now, but, as I recall,
> there is no instruction to "proceed at 2300'". And the manner of
> flying a DP is to continue climb at 200 ft/nm until at the MEA.
>
> The airway you are supposed to intercept is the one to which you have
> been cleared.
>
> "On Course" for the rwy10 DP (if that's the one with the climb to
> 2300' instruction) means the direct route from the point at which you
> attain 2300' to the closest point on the airway to which you have been
> cleared.
>
> For the other runway, it would be after attaining 400' AGL.
>
> And you should not hit obstacles because these routes with the
> restrictions cited in the DP's have been checked for obstacle
> clearance.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
> poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
> intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
> there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
> can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles. Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach, California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse, through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
> > operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
> > procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.
>
> I thought published takeoff minimums applied to Part 91 operations. No??
>
> Matt

No.

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
> departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.

Or, contained on a SID, in which case they become part of your ATC clearance.

"Paul Lynch" > wrote in message
news:GnPle.4510$%Z2.1986@lakeread08...
> Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
> 91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
> destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
> play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.

Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the centerline.
My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
real, of course.)

--Gary

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" > said:
>Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the centerline.
>My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
>zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
>real, of course.)

I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
me do it?

The closest I had was leaving Muskegeon after being weathered in there
leaving Oshkosh. Off the approach end of the runway there was a wall of
fog and low visibility weather, but I could see both ends of the runway
and scattered clouds at a few thousand feet. The ATIS was reporting RVR
instead of visibility, and when I called for my clearance the controller
asked if I was sure I wanted to depart in this. I told him the visibility
situation, and he explained that the tower and the RVR sensors were in
that wall of fog.

If I'd had problems I could have landed downwind through VFR conditions,
or done a tricky approach to the upwind runway. I know which one I would
have taken.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I assume HR did send out the ad I wanted, not "apply for a cool job if
you're a clueless ****".
-- The Flying Hamster, on the receiving end of too many CVs

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Journeyman" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
>> Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
>> a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.
>>
>> Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
>> but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
>> it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.
>>
>> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
>> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
>> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
>> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?
>>
>
> Departing runway 28 I'd make sure I crossed the departure end of the
> runway at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway elevation, that
> should be easy as the runway slopes downward to the west some 45 feet.
> I'd climb to 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before
> making my initial turn and I'd maintain a minimum climb gradient of 200
> feet per nautical mile until above the minimum IFR altitude.
>

If there are no specific instructions on the DP it is considered a "diverse
departure". Like Steven says, you only have to cross the departure end of
the runway at 35' (or greater) and climb 200'/nm to 400' at which point you
can turn any direction and continue to climb 200'/nm to a published altitude
(MEA, MOCA, OROCA). The actual obstacle plane is 152'/nm so you are gaining
48' of additional clearance each mile if you are climbing the minimium
(200'/nm).

In the IDI case there are obstacles that penatrate the obstacle plane, that
is the reason for listing TO minimiums. Once you are above the 300' or 600'
you won't hit anything if you climb 200'/nm. Below those altitudes you must
avoid obstacles visually

The "gotyas" on a departure of this kind are cross winds and tail winds.
Crosswinds can put you off centerline and into the obstacles, You really
should be flying a runway track as opposed to a heading. A tail wind will
reduce your climb gradient because of your increased groundspeed. In really
strong winds you might want to climb higher than 400' before turning and
make your turns into the wind even if it means turing 300 deg instead of 60
deg.

There was an article in IFR about diverse departures recently.

Mike
MU-2

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" > said:
>>Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the
>>centerline.
>>My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
>>zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
>>real, of course.)
>
> I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
> and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
> me do it?

Possibly just because it's fun and harmless (under the hood with an
instructor, that is).

Or if you really stretch your imagination, you might come up with a rare
scenario in which a zero-visibility departure is warranted (say you're in a
remote area with someone who's having a medical emergency). In that case,
you're probably better off having at least tried it once before.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" > said:
>>
>>>Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the
>>>centerline.
>>>My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
>>>zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
>>>real, of course.)
>>
>>I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
>>and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
>>me do it?
>
>
> Possibly just because it's fun and harmless (under the hood with an
> instructor, that is).
>
> Or if you really stretch your imagination, you might come up with a rare
> scenario in which a zero-visibility departure is warranted (say you're in a
> remote area with someone who's having a medical emergency). In that case,
> you're probably better off having at least tried it once before.

That is one of the few situations where I would consider a zero-zero
takeoff. I agree that it is good practice and good to know that it can
be done in an extreme situation.

Matt

> That is one of the few situations where I would consider a zero-zero takeoff. I agree that it is good practice and good to know that it can be done in an extreme situation.

Did one at IAD. Could barely see the jets in front of me while
taxiiing. Fifty feet up, blue sky.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

>> That is one of the few situations where I would consider a zero-zero
>> takeoff. I agree that it is good practice and good to know that it
>> can be done in an extreme situation.
>
>
> Did one at IAD. Could barely see the jets in front of me while
> taxiiing. Fifty feet up, blue sky.

Would have been dicey had your engine failed at sixty feet...


Matt

>
> Would have been dicey had your engine failed at sixty feet...

So is VFR on top of fog. Nothing is risk free, and the runway is very
long and very wide.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:

>Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
>departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>>
>>>Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
>>>91 does not have any departure weather requirements,
>>
>> At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
>> requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.
>>
>> (Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
>> matter).
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>


You are missing my point so let me restate it:

There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
(at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.

See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.

I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.


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

On 28 May 2005 07:27:01 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
>to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
>to the minimum IFR altitude.

No, not "to any heading" but rather to the heading that will take you to
the airway to which you have been cleared.


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

Journeyman > wrote in
:

> Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
> The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
> from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?

I'm not sure I understand your question. You just fly the published DP.
If you climb on runway heading until above 2300, then you will have
sufficient obstacle clearance *in that direction*. The MSA is based on
any obstacle in any direction, unless otherwise specified, so you don't
need to use it for everything. A DP takes into consideration the
obstacles, and if you follow it, you will have sufficient clearance.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Journeyman > wrote in
:

> Sure, but the book lists departure minima for 10/28. I can't
> figure out how to go from those minima to enroute safely. If
> the minima are there, I'd assume there was a way.

That's a non sequitur. You can safely be in IMC entirely above the
departure minima. I'm still not sure what you mean about getting from
departure minima to MEA.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

In article >, Stan Gosnell wrote:
>
>> Sure, but the book lists departure minima for 10/28. I can't
>> figure out how to go from those minima to enroute safely. If
>> the minima are there, I'd assume there was a way.
>
> That's a non sequitur. You can safely be in IMC entirely above the
> departure minima. I'm still not sure what you mean about getting from
> departure minima to MEA.

Thanks for all the replies. Got it straight now. The missing piece
was pretty simple and basic. I'm familiar with approach procedures,
but it's been a while since I've departed IFR anywhere but my home
airport.

I forgot that departure procedures assume a minimum climb gradient,
and the airports are surveyed to keep you clear of obstacles if you
meet the performance requirement.

Missing that piece of information, it just seemed odd that you could
go up a few hundred feet, turn in any direction and be safe even if
you're below the MSA.


Morris

This has been valuable for me.

I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure for
any airport with an IAP.

It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
not know this.

So, thanks to all the contributors for this.


> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
> > poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
> > intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
> > there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
> > can you remain clear of these obstacles?
>
> How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
> restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
> altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude is
> either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
> correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.
>
> It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or clearance
> route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles. Apparently
> the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
hazardous
> to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
> minimums.
>
> Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums anyone
> who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to standard
> takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
> airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
> close-in obstacle hazards.
>
> A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
California).
> At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
> because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
Runway
> 16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
> minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use Runway
> 30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
> lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
> markings and lights).
>
> The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
> airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
> then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
through
> the roof onto the concrete floor.
>
> I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
> tragedy.
>
> The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
> tank and associated steel structure.
>

I should have stated "any airport with an IAP and no ODP"


" > wrote in message
...
> This has been valuable for me.
>
> I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
> turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure
for
> any airport with an IAP.
>
> It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
> not know this.
>
> So, thanks to all the contributors for this.
>
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> >
> > > I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
> > > poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
> > > intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
> > > there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
> > > can you remain clear of these obstacles?
> >
> > How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
> > restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
> > altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude
is
> > either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
> > correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.
> >
> > It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or
clearance
> > route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles.
Apparently
> > the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
> hazardous
> > to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
> > minimums.
> >
> > Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums
anyone
> > who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to
standard
> > takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
> > airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
> > close-in obstacle hazards.
> >
> > A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
> California).
> > At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
> > because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
> Runway
> > 16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
> > minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use
Runway
> > 30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
> > lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
> > markings and lights).
> >
> > The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
> > airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
> > then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
> through
> > the roof onto the concrete floor.
> >
> > I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
> > tragedy.
> >
> > The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
> > tank and associated steel structure.
> >
>
>

You are correct about no takeoff minima, but that applies to all 91
operations no matter the size of aircraft. Subparts F & G do not apply to
takeoff minima.


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>
>>Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
>>departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
>>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under
>>>>Part
>>>>91 does not have any departure weather requirements,
>>>
>>> At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
>>> requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.
>>>
>>> (Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
>>> matter).
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>>
>
>
> You are missing my point so let me restate it:
>
> There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
> (at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.
>
> See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.
>
> I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
> F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

In article >, Bob Gardner wrote:
> You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
> operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
> procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.

Actually, I did my IFR in the U.S. I finished up with Spence.

It's just a case of forgetting an aspect of The System that I hadn't
used before. This thread has been very valuable in setting me straight.
Usenet near its best :-)


Morris

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
> :
>
> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
> to the minimum IFR altitude.
>
>
>

No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:

1) cross the runway end at 35'
2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
would choose your on course or clearance heading.


Mike
MU-2

What is the difference between 'runway heading' and 'straight-ahead'?

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in news:DXEme.3670$MI4.1787
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
>> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
>> to the minimum IFR altitude.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:
>
> 1) cross the runway end at 35'
> 2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
> 3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
> would choose your on course or clearance heading.
>
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>

On 30 May 2005 10:59:56 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>What is the difference between 'runway heading' and 'straight-ahead'?

Rwy Heading: The same compass heading as the runway orientation (i.e. no
wind correction).

Straight Ahead: Flying the same course as the runway orientation.

Interesting that in the US we are taught that an instruction to fly runway
heading means just that -- no wind correction.

But in the setting of an ODP, given the manner in which the obstacles are
surveyed, it would make more sense to me to fly "straight-ahead".


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

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
> What is the difference between 'runway heading' and 'straight-ahead'?
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in news:DXEme.3670$MI4.1787
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>>
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> 1...
>>> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
>>> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
>>> to the minimum IFR altitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:
>>
>> 1) cross the runway end at 35'
>> 2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
>> 3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
>> would choose your on course or clearance heading.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>

None. I was respoinding to the notion that you have to climb on runway
heading or straight ahead to 2300'. You only need to maintain runway
heading to 400'.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> 1...
>> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
>> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
>> to the minimum IFR altitude.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:
>
> 1) cross the runway end at 35'
> 2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
> 3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you would choose your on course or
> clearance heading.
>

Are'nt we still talking about KIDI runway 10 departure? The one that says: "DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 10, climb
runway heading to 2300 before proceeding on course." ?

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> 1...
>>> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
>>> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
>>> to the minimum IFR altitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:
>>
>> 1) cross the runway end at 35'
>> 2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
>> 3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
>> would choose your on course or clearance heading.
>>
>
> Are'nt we still talking about KIDI runway 10 departure? The one that
> says: "DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 10, climb runway heading to 2300 before
> proceeding on course." ?
>
Argh! You're right! For some reason I thought that we were talking about
diverse departures in general.

Mike

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> >> 1...
> >>> Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
> >>> to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
> >>> to the minimum IFR altitude.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:
> >>
> >> 1) cross the runway end at 35'
> >> 2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
> >> 3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
> >> would choose your on course or clearance heading.
> >>
> >
> > Are'nt we still talking about KIDI runway 10 departure? The one that
> > says: "DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 10, climb runway heading to 2300 before
> > proceeding on course." ?
> >
> Argh! You're right! For some reason I thought that we were talking about
> diverse departures in general.
>
> Mike

That runway is a modified or restricted diverse departure because it has an
instruction as opposed to a full departure route.