For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY
State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure.
However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this
airport's obstacle departure procedure was required.

The procedure is very straight-forward and reads:

"Departing rwy 24, climb runway heading to 1,200 feet (about 500 ft AGL),
then climbing right turn direct to DKK VOR (VOR is on the field) before
proceeding on course."

Here is a small JPG of the relevant sectional chart showing the airport:

http://thericcs.net/aviation/misc/DKK.jpg

My question is this: I am departing runway 24 with a desired on course
heading of 080. Thus, I depart and climb to 1,200 msl, then climbing turn
to the right to go direct to the on-field VOR before proceeding at 090 on
course.

Climbing runway heading at about 800 fpm in a Bonanza, I reach 1,200 feet
MSL in about 38 seconds. 38 seconds of traveling at a ground speed of
about 95 kts does not place me far enough away from the airport to be able
to perform a standard rate turn to the right to go direct to the VOR.

The two times I have needed to use this departure procedure I ended up too
far west of the VOR (over the water and safe from obstacles). To get
around quickly enough to be able to go to the VOR would require a much
steeper turn, something not advisable in IMC.

In both cases, despite being west of the VOR by 3/4ths of a mile or so, I
concluded that I could proceed safely on course to the northeast and did
so, rather than spiral around over the VOR in an attempt to reach the
waypoint.

How would you adhere to this departure procedure?


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. > wrote:
>"Departing rwy 24, climb runway heading to 1,200 feet (about 500 ft AGL),
>then climbing right turn direct to DKK VOR (VOR is on the field) before
>proceeding on course."
>
>Here is a small JPG of the relevant sectional chart showing the airport:
>
>http://thericcs.net/aviation/misc/DKK.jpg
>
>My question is this: I am departing runway 24 with a desired on course
>heading of 080. Thus, I depart and climb to 1,200 msl, then climbing turn
>to the right to go direct to the on-field VOR before proceeding at 090 on
>course.
>
>Climbing runway heading at about 800 fpm in a Bonanza, I reach 1,200 feet
>MSL in about 38 seconds. 38 seconds of traveling at a ground speed of
>about 95 kts does not place me far enough away from the airport to be able
>to perform a standard rate turn to the right to go direct to the VOR.

I see your dilemma, but I think you're worried about stuff that
doesn't need worrying about. By the time you started your right turn
at 1200, you were already above anything along your departure path
(and still climbing, presumably). Make the initial right turn to 090
and off you go.

It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure
you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of
the airway). In that case, what I would do is set 166 on the OBS and
if I wasn't at the 2300 required by the DP when the flag flipped from
TO to FROM, I'd do one lap in a racetrack pattern (even easier with a
moving map GPS).

One you reach 1,200 feet and complete the turn right back towards the east, you've
complied. Just make sure you roll out to intercept the 090 course within a reasonable
distance of the VOR. You will have passed abeam, and near, the VOR, which is good
enough for this type of ODP instruction.

"Peter R." wrote:

> For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY
> State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure.
> However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this
> airport's obstacle departure procedure was required.
>
> The procedure is very straight-forward and reads:
>
> "Departing rwy 24, climb runway heading to 1,200 feet (about 500 ft AGL),
> then climbing right turn direct to DKK VOR (VOR is on the field) before
> proceeding on course."
>
> Here is a small JPG of the relevant sectional chart showing the airport:
>
> http://thericcs.net/aviation/misc/DKK.jpg
>
> My question is this: I am departing runway 24 with a desired on course
> heading of 080. Thus, I depart and climb to 1,200 msl, then climbing turn
> to the right to go direct to the on-field VOR before proceeding at 090 on
> course.
>
> Climbing runway heading at about 800 fpm in a Bonanza, I reach 1,200 feet
> MSL in about 38 seconds. 38 seconds of traveling at a ground speed of
> about 95 kts does not place me far enough away from the airport to be able
> to perform a standard rate turn to the right to go direct to the VOR.
>
> The two times I have needed to use this departure procedure I ended up too
> far west of the VOR (over the water and safe from obstacles). To get
> around quickly enough to be able to go to the VOR would require a much
> steeper turn, something not advisable in IMC.
>
> In both cases, despite being west of the VOR by 3/4ths of a mile or so, I
> concluded that I could proceed safely on course to the northeast and did
> so, rather than spiral around over the VOR in an attempt to reach the
> waypoint.
>
> How would you adhere to this departure procedure?
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Roy Smith > wrote:

> It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure
> you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of
> the airway). In that case, what I would do is set 166 on the OBS and
> if I wasn't at the 2300 required by the DP when the flag flipped from
> TO to FROM, I'd do one lap in a racetrack pattern (even easier with a
> moving map GPS).

I was wondering that, too. 2,300 at the VOR for a southbound course (I
omitted this section of the DP in my original post) only leaves about 6nm
or so to climb the additional 500 feet to clear that tower. Do-able,
assuming the pilot of the single-engine piston was really paying attention
to flying the aircraft. I agree with you that another safe lap around
would be prudent.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. > wrote:
>Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>> It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure
>> you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of
>> the airway). In that case, what I would do is set 166 on the OBS and
>> if I wasn't at the 2300 required by the DP when the flag flipped from
>> TO to FROM, I'd do one lap in a racetrack pattern (even easier with a
>> moving map GPS).
>
>I was wondering that, too. 2,300 at the VOR for a southbound course (I
>omitted this section of the DP in my original post) only leaves about 6nm
>or so to climb the additional 500 feet to clear that tower.

Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile.

> Do-able, assuming the pilot of the single-engine piston was really
> paying attention to flying the aircraft.

> I agree with you that another safe lap around would be prudent.

My comments about the shallow climb gradient notwithstanding, it's
more than prudent, it's required by the DP.

> DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 6, 15, climb runway
> heading to 1200, then climbing left turn direct DKK
> VORTAC before proceeding on course. Rwys 24, 33,
> climb runway heading to 1200, then climbing right turn
> direct DKK VORTAC before proceeding on course.
> Southbound aircraft cross DKK VORTAC at or above
> 2300.

BTW, I think it's a little confusing the way this DP is worded. At
first glance, it looks like the requirement to cross DKK at or above
2300 only applies to 24 and 33 departures, but I'm pretty sure it
applies to all departures.

Roy Smith > wrote:

> Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile.

OK, so that clears the tower by an inch or two, but I was thinking more of
the typical IFR obstacle clearance amount, which would be somewhere around
250 feet per mile.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> wrote:

> Make a climbing right turn. If you have not crossed your 090 course
> by the time you reach a 060 heading or so, stop the turn and hold
> that heading until you intercept. the 090 course from the south side
> of the course. Proceed on course.

Interesting. This was certainly not an item touched on during my
instrument training.

I suppose this is where receiving training from an experienced instrument
pilot and instructor would far surpass receiving training from a
time-building instructor.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> wrote:

> You will have passed abeam, and near, the VOR, which is good
> enough for this type of ODP instruction.

Thanks, Tim.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." > wrote:

> For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY
> State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure.
> However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this
> airport's obstacle departure procedure was required.

One other question about this departure: Being that it is an uncontrolled
field, I would announce my intention to depart the runway and circle to the
southwest to overfly the airport and depart to the east.

In true IFR weather all of this radio verbiage is probably overkill, no?
There are no VFR aircraft around and there are no IFR aircraft that close
to approaching, given that I was released by ATC. Would it be more concise
for me to simply say "departing rwy 24 to the east?"

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY
> > State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure.
> > However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this
> > airport's obstacle departure procedure was required.
>
> One other question about this departure: Being that it is an uncontrolled
> field, I would announce my intention to depart the runway and circle to the
> southwest to overfly the airport and depart to the east.
>
> In true IFR weather all of this radio verbiage is probably overkill, no?
> There are no VFR aircraft around and there are no IFR aircraft that close
> to approaching, given that I was released by ATC. Would it be more concise
> for me to simply say "departing rwy 24 to the east?"

This gets down to style ;-) I would say "Departure Runway 24 with a right turn to
proceed east.

wrote:
> Just keep in mind that in Class G, VFR is one mile visibility, and VFR
> aircraft (even radioless, by the way) could be rattling around the
> pattern.
>
> That's often what we call IFR weather, and we all tend to get a bit
> careless about this stuff, especially until the first time you see a
> VFR aircraft land that you did not expect to be out there.
>
> Better overkill than be killed. Not only announce, but keep an eye
> out if the visibility is a mile or more.

A few months ago in IFR magazine they had a story about this. I believe
the departing aircraft was a small jet who never announced anything
on a crossing runway to landing traffic.

Gerald

> wrote:

> Just keep in mind that in Class G, VFR is one mile visibility, and VFR
> aircraft (even radioless, by the way) could be rattling around the
> pattern.
>
> That's often what we call IFR weather, and we all tend to get a bit
> careless about this stuff, especially until the first time you see a
> VFR aircraft land that you did not expect to be out there.

Good point. Flying mostly in the northeast US, where the only class G
airspace is either 700 or 1,200 ft AGL (making VFR operations a real scud
running mission in IFR conditions), I often forget about the other parts of
the country where class G airspace is much more voluminous.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> > Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile.
>
> OK, so that clears the tower by an inch or two, but I was thinking more of
> the typical IFR obstacle clearance amount, which would be somewhere around
> 250 feet per mile.
>

If there is no climb gradient specified, a minimum of 200 feet is required. Anything
less than that and you are not protected. It's all in the AIM.

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> > DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 6, 15, climb runway
> > heading to 1200, then climbing left turn direct DKK
> > VORTAC before proceeding on course. Rwys 24, 33,
> > climb runway heading to 1200, then climbing right turn
> > direct DKK VORTAC before proceeding on course.
> > Southbound aircraft cross DKK VORTAC at or above
> > 2300.
>
> BTW, I think it's a little confusing the way this DP is worded. At
> first glance, it looks like the requirement to cross DKK at or above
> 2300 only applies to 24 and 33 departures, but I'm pretty sure it
> applies to all departures.

How do you read that, at first glance it applies only to 24 and 33 into it?
It says "Southbound aircraft cross DKK VORTAC at or abouve 2300." That
sentence doesn't say anything about which runway.

<<I suppose this is where receiving training from an experienced
instrument pilot and instructor would far surpass receiving training
from a time-building instructor.>>

Not really. What makes you think that an experienced pilot or
instructor necessarily has any higher level of knowledge regarding
obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but
knowledge?

Point two is that students only retain a small fraction of what
they're taught. Even if your instructor had understood the sublties
regarding ODP's, it's not likely that you would have digested them in
their entirety.

An interesting thing about DP's is that they tend to not be very
GPS-friendly. They're often full of stuff like intercepting bearings, and
determining when you've crossed a certain radial. Nothing you can't do
with a GPS, but people tend to be less familiar with these functions than
with just going direct to a waypoint.

Roy Smith wrote:

> An interesting thing about DP's is that they tend to not be very
> GPS-friendly. They're often full of stuff like intercepting bearings, and
> determining when you've crossed a certain radial. Nothing you can't do
> with a GPS, but people tend to be less familiar with these functions than
> with just going direct to a waypoint.

Then again, portables like the Garmin 295 and 296 have an RMI option, which
would make flying this particular ODP very easy.

Greg Esres > wrote:

> Not really. What makes you think that an experienced pilot or
> instructor necessarily has any higher level of knowledge regarding
> obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but
> knowledge?

I am making the assumption that one who flies often in the system is more
proficient and experienced. Proficiency and knowledge, when coupled with
a desire to instruct, carries a lot more weight than one who received their
ratings back-to-back with an ultimate goal of flying for the airlines.

A pilot who has logged many hours flying in the system for real, as in
commuting, traveling, etc., is going to encounter many more of the
procedural and weather subtleties of IFR flight than a time-building
instructor who logs 95 percent of his/her hours as an instructor.

Not only have I encountered this first hand, but I have spoken with others
at about my same level have also encountered this issue when seeking IFR
refresher training.

This is one reason why I subscribe to _IFR_ and _IFR Refresher_. I look to
the articles within these periodicals to learn from the experiences of
those who have been flying or controlling IFR aircraft for many
hours/years.

> Point two is that students only retain a small fraction of what
> they're taught.

Is that so? Have a study to back this up? I suggest that those who
routinely exercise their rating in actual IMC will reinforce all that they
have learned and then some. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for
it.

> Even if your instructor had understood the sublties
> regarding ODP's, it's not likely that you would have digested them in
> their entirety.

Perhaps. IMO this would depend on the student and what they actually do
with their IFR rating once they receive it. If it gets tucked away on a
shelf and rarely used to fly in actual IMC, then I would agree.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<<I am making the assumption that one who flies often in the system is
more proficient and experienced. Proficiency and knowledge, when
coupled with>>

You're confusing the concepts of "proficient", "experienced", and
"knowledge".

Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of
obstacle clearance requirements. Lots of experienced, proficient
pilots with lousy radio technique. Lots of experienced, proficient
pilots who don't understand how airplanes fly.

<<retention level is low...Is that so? Have a study to back this
up?>>

Six years instructing, and sampling knowledge levels after training is
over? But any learning theory book will supply you with the studies
you seek, if common sense doesn't.

<<IMO this would depend on the student and what they actually do
with their IFR rating once they receive it. >>

Not in this case. The only way you can reinforce your knowledge of
ODP's is to hit something every now and then. Until you do, this
knowledge is merely theoretical.

I don't disagree with the answers you received on this question, but
you bought into the idea that turning to the heading is "close enough"
without any idea of whether the posters knew what they were talking
about.

You can learn a lot from _IFR_ and _IFR Refresher_ but the knowledge
level of the authors is highly variable. I dumped "Refresher" after
some random CFI wrote a "Pitch vs. Power" article. When I want that
sort of analysis, I'll turn to aerodynamics texts. I stopped taking
"IFR" after I noticed that so many of their quizzes contained
incorrect answers. These guys are supposed to be experts?

Opinion from experienced pilots can be useful, but you need a way to
discern the good stuff from the bad stuff. Unless they rigorously
work to improve their own knowledge, they're as likely to be as full
of crap as the newbie -II, maybe more so.

<<The rules are explicit, and well-defined.>>

My statement said nothing about the ODP criteria, but only the typical
pilot's knowledge of them.

Greg Esres > wrote:

> Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of
> obstacle clearance requirements. Lots of experienced, proficient
> pilots with lousy radio technique. Lots of experienced, proficient
> pilots who don't understand how airplanes fly.

You comment how I bought into the responses I received to my original
question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the theory
about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept these ideas.

Sorry, but unless you can back the above comments up with an official
definition of "lots," "lousy," "experienced," and "proficient," I simply
read this as just another pilot's opinions.

> Six years instructing, and sampling knowledge levels after training is
> over?

Just out of curiosity, in the last six years were the majority of your
hours were accumulated through instructing? Did you have time before your
instructor rating to fly with a purpose to many destinations?

I ask this seriously because I don't want to underestimate your background.
However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for me since
I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time.


> But any learning theory book will supply you with the studies
> you seek, if common sense doesn't.

Common sense? How is it common sense that a student only retains a small
fraction of what they were taught? It seems to me that any instructor
hiding behind this "theory" may want to consider the manner in which he is
teaching the material, rather than concede that this as true.

> I don't disagree with the answers you received on this question, but
> you bought into the idea that turning to the heading is "close enough"
> without any idea of whether the posters knew what they were talking
> about.

Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in this
newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars? The 100%
agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty telling.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:

> My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the
> subject of obstacle departure procedures?

In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an
engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of
faith? ;-)

wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:18:56 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the
> >> subject of obstacle departure procedures?
> >
> >In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an
> >engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of
> >faith? ;-)
> >
>
> Where is opinion any more relevant concerning engine loss on an
> obstacle departure procedure than it might be in any other phase of
> flight?
>
> Approach, for example?

The context was opinions pertaining to ODPs. I suspect that would be the worst
place to have an engine failure in a light twin (Part 23) during IMC
operations. For a single engine aircraft the worst place would be during climb
out (ODP, SID, or vectors) en route, approach, and missed approach, if
applicable. ;-)

<<The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots
really had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely
opinions...I'm simply trying ot understand what this means.>>

And I'm trying to understand why you don't understand what that means.

Just because people say they know something doesn't mean that they
really do. I think that it was "Tim" that use the wonderful phrase
"View in a Vacuum".

<<Well, I would say that you reinforce your knowledge of ODP's every
time you fly one and DON'T hit something, and would be an indication,
at least, that your knowledge is more than just theoretical.>>

No. One narrow obstacle creates the need for an ODP. You can misfly
it and still miss that obstacle due to chance, or forunately having a
higher climb gradient than assumed in the procedure.

<<question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the
theory about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept
these ideas. >>

Not *should* but probably *would*. :-)

<<I simply read this as just another pilot's opinions. >>

Ah, very good. The question is, how to verify knowledge?

Obstacle clearance: read TERPS. Read Wally Roberts articles. Call
Flight procedures offices. Tim seems to be a "TERPS" guy, which I
infer because the information he dispenses conforms with information
to the above sources.

Radio Technique: read the AIM.

How airplanes fly: read aerodynamics textbooks.

<<However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for
me since I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time.
>>

No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge
your instructors.

You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so
that you will feel safe when you fly with him. But beyond that, what
benefit does it provide you?

We have a local guy with 25,000 hours who sometimes allow flight
instructors to ride right seat in his King Air to build turbine time.

This guy has been known to takeoff into IMC without a clearance. He
never uses approach plates or enroute charts, and will often descend
right through MDA until he sees the runway. He's rude and obnoxious
on the radio.

But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you.


<<Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in
this newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars?
The 100% agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty
telling.>>

Ah, truth by majority vote. The only terpster that replied is "Tim".

wrote:

>
> The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots really
> had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely opinions.
>
> I'm simply trying ot understand what this means.

I've worked with TERPs criteria for a long time and find that ODPs (formerly IFR
Departure Procedures) are not well understood.

Further, some of them are poorly designed by procedures specialists who sometimes
don't have a good understanding of what to provide.

<<you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of
knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well?>>

I did not mean to make that implication. Notice that I did not
comment on how the OP should comply with the ODP.

Before I accept any piece of technical information as "fact", I will
cross-check it to the best of my ability with authoritative sources.
Until I do, it's "opinion."

Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative
sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other
posters on this subject.

<<If the climb gradients you fly are a matter of trusting to luck, I'd
suggest you make all your departures visually.>>

Oh, please. <sigh> Your climb gradients depend on the quantity of
excess thrust in your airplane, the density altitude of your departure
location, and the wind direction and gradient on the particular day in
question.

What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance.

And we were talking about YOUR departures, not mine. Mine depend only
on skill and a positive attitude. :-)

<<So the "opinion" of which you speak is merely the self-inflated
opinion one has of his own knowledge, and he might not know as much as
he thinks and therefore implies he does?
>>

You got it!

Greg Esres > wrote:

> No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge
> your instructors.

What's to question? Being that I already have my instrument rating, I now
prefer an instructor who has actually flown in the system for real, not one
who sat right seat as an instructor all of his hours. I seek to learn more
of the "IFR subtleties" we touched on in this thread.

I noticed you conveniently skipped over the sincere question about your
background.

> You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so
> that you will feel safe when you fly with him.

It has nothing to do with "feeling" safe when I fly with the instructor.
Instead, it has everything to do with getting what I pay for, which is to
learn from someone much more experienced than I. An instructor who has
little actual IMC time and has placed a hood on a student's eyes more than
he has flown behind one himself is not one on which I wish to spend my
money.

> But beyond that, what benefit does it provide you?

See above.

<snip>
> But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you.

LOL! You are funny. This pilot sounds like a real a-hole and a two-minute
conversation with him would certainly reveal this.

Greg, it seems to me that you may have taken my comments about instructors
personally. My apologies if this is so and I do not desire to continue
down this ever-eroding path with you.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Greg Esres > wrote:

> Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative
> sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other
> posters on this subject.

Likewise. After three years of reading this group, it is apparent to me
who is credible and who is not.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<<it seems to me that you may have taken my comments about instructors
personally. >>

Hardly. Locally, I'm "high time" so you'd probably be flying with me.

<<I seek to learn more of the "IFR subtleties" we touched on in this
thread. >>

My original point is that you would not have learned them from
"experienced" instructors or pilots, any more than from a newbie. You
learned them here.

<<It has nothing to do with "feeling" safe when I fly with the
instructor. Instead, it has everything to do with getting what I pay
for, which is to learn from someone much more experienced than I. >>

While you're an instrument student, everybody is more experienced than
you are, even a time builder..

Again, my orignial point was that while learning, the time builder was
fine for you, as long as he was competent. A more knowledgable
teacher would have been wasted on you, until you learned the basics.

wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:05:36 GMT, Greg Esres >
> wrote:
>
> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance.
>
> Maybe in YOUR aviating world.
>
> Climb gradients, especially when flying an obstacle departure
> procedure in IMC, are WAY too important to leave to chance. Your
> life may very well depend on them.

Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a
crap shoot of sorts.

"Peter R." wrote:

> Greg Esres > wrote:
>
> > Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative
> > sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other
> > posters on this subject.
>
> Likewise. After three years of reading this group, it is apparent to me
> who is credible and who is not.

Alas, without a moderated group, who really knows who is on first? ;-)

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of
> knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well?>>
>
> I did not mean to make that implication. Notice that I did not
> comment on how the OP should comply with the ODP.
>
> Before I accept any piece of technical information as "fact", I will
> cross-check it to the best of my ability with authoritative sources.
> Until I do, it's "opinion."
>
> Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative
> sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other
> posters on this subject.

Thank you. I am for real, but there is no reason for anyone to accept
that in this medium. Plus, I am always worried about our controller
friend from Green Bay (Sunskit) finding any kink in the armour to launch
an attack. ;-)

wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:20:41 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:05:36 GMT, Greg Esres >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance.
> >>
> >> Maybe in YOUR aviating world.
> >>
> >> Climb gradients, especially when flying an obstacle departure
> >> procedure in IMC, are WAY too important to leave to chance. Your
> >> life may very well depend on them.
> >
> >Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a
> >crap shoot of sorts.
>
> Baloney.
>
> Especially these days when ground speed is readily available from GPS
> units, no climb gradient need be left to chance.
>
> If for some remote reason, one cannot be certain that his climb
> gradient exceeds the requirement of an IMC obstacle departure, he
> ought to stay on the ground until the weather lifts.

You say baloney, yet you essentially agree with me in your second
paragraph. If, for example, a ODP at an airport with a density altitude
at departure time of 4,000 feet, msl, and a required climb gradient of 280
feet per mile to 7,500, you determine with "certainty" that your bird can
do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind
direction and velocity with certainty in advance.

You depart with your great GPS, and leaving 6,000 find out that your
average gradient thus far has been 230 feet per mile and getting worse.
What is your certainty at that point? Beats me. The controlling obstacle
may be to the side of the containment area, or it may be a granite
ridge-line all the way across the containment area. If you try to do a
180 you are now between a rock and a hard place. ;-)

If, for example, a ODP at an airport with a density altitude
> at departure time of 4,000 feet, msl, and a required climb gradient of 280
> feet per mile to 7,500, you determine with "certainty" that your bird can
> do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind
> direction and velocity with certainty in advance.
>

I would not depart - not enough margin of safety for me.

wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:12:22 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:20:41 -0700, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:05:36 GMT, Greg Esres >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe in YOUR aviating world.
> >> >>
> >> >> Climb gradients, especially when flying an obstacle departure
> >> >> procedure in IMC, are WAY too important to leave to chance. Your
> >> >> life may very well depend on them.
> >> >
> >> >Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a
> >> >crap shoot of sorts.
> >>
> >> Baloney.
> >>
> >> Especially these days when ground speed is readily available from GPS
> >> units, no climb gradient need be left to chance.
> >>
> >> If for some remote reason, one cannot be certain that his climb
> >> gradient exceeds the requirement of an IMC obstacle departure, he
> >> ought to stay on the ground until the weather lifts.
> >
> >You say baloney, yet you essentially agree with me in your second
> >paragraph. If, for example, a ODP at an airport with a density altitude
> >at departure time of 4,000 feet, msl, and a required climb gradient of 280
> >feet per mile to 7,500, you determine with "certainty" that your bird can
> >do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind
> >direction and velocity with certainty in advance.
>
> Let me stop you right here.
>
> It's you who will be departing with a certain climb gradient of 300
> fpnm with a required gradient of 280 fpnm.
>
> I won't be there.

Oh, I wouldn't either, trust me. But, then again, I haven't done that stuff in
non-Part 25 birds for very many years.