Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
approach and then depart IFR from there.

My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
the ground?

Alan, PP-AMEL-IA

wrote:
> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> the ground?
>
> Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
>

If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
But, the rub comes in them providing you a clearance into (presumably
1200-foot floor Class E airspace without some procedure that assures
obstacle clearance until reaching the minimum IFR altitude.

If you were out west in an area that is Class G below 14,500 they would
leave you to your own devices and tell you to maintain your assigned
altitude when entering controlled airspace. In that case that minimum
IFR altitude would usually be below 14,000 so you would enter an airway
laterally from Class G airspace.

Sam Spade wrote:
> If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.

Not true. The NTSB law judge said: "In that decision the law judge found
that respondent's takeoff from an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a
clearance or release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of
14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a). She
ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in
lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial
decision."

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF

BTW: If anyone has an 'overuling' of this, please let me/us know.

Hilton

wrote:

> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> the ground?
>
> Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
>

Yes, I used to do it all the time from 7N1. It is called a void time
clearance. Who told you that this couldn't be done?

You have are on your own, however, until you enter controlled airspace
so you have to realize that. The good thing is that they know you are
coming, have cleared a hole for you and will pick you up immediately
when you call.

Matt

Hilton wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
>
>
> Not true. The NTSB law judge said: "In that decision the law judge found
> that respondent's takeoff from an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a
> clearance or release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of
> 14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a). She
> ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in
> lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the
> reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial
> decision."
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF
>
> BTW: If anyone has an 'overuling' of this, please let me/us know.
>
> Hilton
>
>

Just shows how dumb the bureaucrats are in matters related to flying.

Matt

On Mar 1, 11:51 pm, wrote:
>
> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> the ground?
>

What's VIFNO? Did they say why they couldn't issue a clearance while
you were on the ground? It's not prohibited by FAAO 7110.65.

On Mar 2, 3:56 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
> But, the rub comes in them providing you a clearance into (presumably
> 1200-foot floor Class E airspace without some procedure that assures
> obstacle clearance until reaching the minimum IFR altitude.
>

Why is that a rub?

On Mar 2, 4:37 am, "Hilton" > wrote:
>
> Not true. The NTSB law judge said: "In that decision the law judge found
> that respondent's takeoff from an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a
> clearance or release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of
> 14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a). She
> ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in
> lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the
> reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial
> decision."
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF
>
> BTW: If anyone has an 'overuling' of this, please let me/us know.
>

That case was handled poorly.

The pilot claimed, "his operation was not careless because he took
several precautions: e.g., he broadcast his departure intentions on
the Unicom frequency; he monitored the ATC frequency for other
traffic; and he departed immediately after another aircraft which had
received an ATC release and clearance, thus claiming to have assured
himself that there would be no other IFR aircraft in the controlled
airspace above the airport." How does departing immediately after
another IFR aircraft ensure there will be no other IFR aircraft in the
controlled airspace above the airport?

The violation of 91.155 was dropped but probably should not have
been. The pilot says there were clouds at 200 feet, and based on the
other pilot's description of the weather it sounds like a solid layer,
but he was VFR when he reached Class E airspace at 700 AGL. VFR cloud
clearance in Class E airspace is 1000' above.

wrote:
> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> the ground?
>
> Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
>
What was your point of departure on your Flight plan. The Non-IFR
airport or a IFR fix?
Michelle

Hilton wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
>
>
> Not true. The NTSB law judge said: "In that decision the law judge found
> that respondent's takeoff from an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a
> clearance or release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of
> 14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a). She
> ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in
> lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the
> reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial
> decision."
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF
>
> BTW: If anyone has an 'overuling' of this, please let me/us know.
>
> Hilton
>
>
When I said "do as you want" I did not mean without an air traffic
clearance. I meant you could roll your own ODP but have a "when
entering controlled airspace maintain X altitude, etc."

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 3:56 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
>>But, the rub comes in them providing you a clearance into (presumably
>>1200-foot floor Class E airspace without some procedure that assures
>>obstacle clearance until reaching the minimum IFR altitude.
>>
>
>
> Why is that a rub?
>
The issue of no FAA procedure to provide obstacle clearance below the
MIA once entering the Class E 1200-foot floor area.

On 03/02/07 05:11, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:51 pm, wrote:
>>
>> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
>> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
>> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
>> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
>> up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
>> local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
>> VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
>> approach and then depart IFR from there.
>>
>> My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
>> rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
>> minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
>> the ground?
>>
>
> What's VIFNO?

Google says: "Void IF Not Off by".

> Did they say why they couldn't issue a clearance while
> you were on the ground? It's not prohibited by FAAO 7110.65.
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

On Mar 2, 5:11 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 11:51 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> > instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> > was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> > VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> > up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> > local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> > VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> > approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> > My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> > rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> > minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> > the ground?
>
> What's VIFNO? Did they say why they couldn't issue a clearance while
> you were on the ground? It's not prohibited by FAAO 7110.65.


VIFNO = Void if not off by [sorry- old habits...]

Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
on "first come, first, served"?

BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
That was the end of that conversation.

On Mar 2, 8:23 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> The issue of no FAA procedure to provide obstacle clearance below the
> MIA once entering the Class E 1200-foot floor area.
>

But why is that a rub? Obstacle clearance is the pilot's
responsibility, it's not a concern to ATC.

On Mar 2, 5:41 am, Michelle P
> wrote:
> wrote:
> > Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> > instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> > was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> > VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> > up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
> > local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
> > VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
> > approach and then depart IFR from there.
>
> > My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
> > rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
> > minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
> > the ground?
>
> > Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
>
> What was your point of departure on your Flight plan. The Non-IFR
> airport or a IFR fix?
> Michelle


The non-IFR airport- KRIR.

On Mar 2, 9:15 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> >
> > What's VIFNO?
> >
>
> Google says: "Void IF Not Off by".
>

FAAH 7340.1 says CVINO

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:23 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>The issue of no FAA procedure to provide obstacle clearance below the
>>MIA once entering the Class E 1200-foot floor area.
>>
>
>
> But why is that a rub? Obstacle clearance is the pilot's
> responsibility, it's not a concern to ATC.
>

You would have to ask the TARCON and FSDO the original poster dealt with.

On 03/02/07 08:04, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:15 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> >
>> > What's VIFNO?
>> >
>>
>> Google says: "Void IF Not Off by".
>>
>
> FAAH 7340.1 says CVINO
>

You asked what he meant and I told you.

Sheeesh.

wrote:

>
> Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
> elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
> have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
> sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
> 3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
> there are taller rocks to the North].

Runway 24 takes you into the KRAL Class D almost immediately. I am sure
no one likes that when they can't see you.

Runway 6 is pointed towards terrain that causes the MVA to rise to 4000
quite close-in. The airport is in a terrible location both airspace and
terrain-wise for IFR procedures. If you takeoff on 6 not only do you
have a terrain problem there is an issue of the Ontario Class C with a
floor of 2700 in that area, below any MVA.

On Mar 2, 8:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
> > elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
> > have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
> > sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
> > 3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
> > there are taller rocks to the North].
>
> Runway 24 takes you into the KRAL Class D almost immediately. I am sure
> no one likes that when they can't see you.
>
> Runway 6 is pointed towards terrain that causes the MVA to rise to 4000
> quite close-in. The airport is in a terrible location both airspace and
> terrain-wise for IFR procedures. If you takeoff on 6 not only do you
> have a terrain problem there is an issue of the Ontario Class C with a
> floor of 2700 in that area, below any MVA.

The issue witih KRAL is a non-issue as far as my question is
concerned. There are many cases in which multiple towered airports
are near each other and you can still get an IFR departure; both
Northern and Southern California have many examples: SFO and SQL, HWD
and OAK, SJC and RHV, HHR and LAX. The TRACON works it out; that is
part of their job.

Regarding terrain: I'm talking about a departure off 24 with a
ceiling high enough to see and avoid all obstacles which, in any
event, is not or should not be ATC's issue. I don't think either of
these concerns is the cause of the issue here.

wrote:


>
> The issue witih KRAL is a non-issue as far as my question is
> concerned. There are many cases in which multiple towered airports
> are near each other and you can still get an IFR departure; both
> Northern and Southern California have many examples: SFO and SQL, HWD
> and OAK, SJC and RHV, HHR and LAX. The TRACON works it out; that is
> part of their job.

Apples and Oranges. All those close-by airports have OPDs and in some
cases, radar coverage to the ground.
>
> Regarding terrain: I'm talking about a departure off 24 with a
> ceiling high enough to see and avoid all obstacles which, in any
> event, is not or should not be ATC's issue. I don't think either of
> these concerns is the cause of the issue here.
>
ATC does not know what ceiling you may elect on your hip-pocket ODP, nor
would they care. Their concern is airspace. They cannot coordinate a
procedure that is neither established nor flight inspected.

On Mar 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
>
> Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
> elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
> have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
> sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
> 3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
> there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
> controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
> permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
> the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
> Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
> impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
> or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
> not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
> been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
> permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
> on "first come, first, served"?
>

The current SOCAL SOP specifies a procedure for clearances for two
airports without published departure procedures, Flabob and Perris
Valley. The RIR procedure is, "Cleared to (destination), enter
controlled airspace southwest of
Fla-Bob. When entering controlled airspace, proceed direct RAL VOR,
direct PDZ (remainder of route), maintain 4000' MSL, expect (filed or
TEC altitude) 10 minutes after departure." I can find nothing else
which mentions IFR departures from Flabob.


>
> BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
> clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
> error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
> That was the end of that conversation.
>

Your experience with FSDO is not unusual.

On Mar 2, 10:35 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
> On 03/02/07 08:04, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> You asked what he meant and I told you.
>
> Sheeesh.
>

I didn't ask YOU what he meant. What qualifies you to speak for
someone else?

Sheeeeeesh.

On Mar 2, 10:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> Runway 24 takes you into the KRAL Class D almost immediately. I am sure
> no one likes that when they can't see you.
>
> Runway 6 is pointed towards terrain that causes the MVA to rise to 4000
> quite close-in. The airport is in a terrible location both airspace and
> terrain-wise for IFR procedures. If you takeoff on 6 not only do you
> have a terrain problem there is an issue of the Ontario Class C with a
> floor of 2700 in that area, below any MVA.
>

None of which precludes the issuance of an IFR clearance from RIR.

On Mar 2, 11:39 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> ATC does not know what ceiling you may elect on your hip-pocket ODP, nor
> would they care. Their concern is airspace. They cannot coordinate a
> procedure that is neither established nor flight inspected.
>

Nor do they have to.

On Mar 2, 9:49 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
> > elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
> > have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
> > sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
> > 3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
> > there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
> > controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
> > permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
> > the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
> > Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
> > impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
> > or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
> > not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
> > been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
> > permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
> > on "first come, first, served"?
>
> The current SOCAL SOP specifies a procedure for clearances for two
> airports without published departure procedures, Flabob and Perris
> Valley. The RIR procedure is, "Cleared to (destination), enter
> controlled airspace southwest of
> Fla-Bob. When entering controlled airspace, proceed direct RAL VOR,
> direct PDZ (remainder of route), maintain 4000' MSL, expect (filed or
> TEC altitude) 10 minutes after departure." I can find nothing else
> which mentions IFR departures from Flabob.
>
>
>
> > BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
> > clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
> > error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
> > That was the end of that conversation.
>
> Your experience with FSDO is not unusual.

Steven:

Thanks. That makes sense and is what I would have expected. Is this
SOP publicly available? I guess now I just have to find out why they
won't issue it...

Alan

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 11:39 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>ATC does not know what ceiling you may elect on your hip-pocket ODP, nor
>>would they care. Their concern is airspace. They cannot coordinate a
>>procedure that is neither established nor flight inspected.
>>
>
>
> Nor do they have to.
>
>
You should look at the airport and airspace at issue.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 10:41 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Runway 24 takes you into the KRAL Class D almost immediately. I am sure
>>no one likes that when they can't see you.
>>
>>Runway 6 is pointed towards terrain that causes the MVA to rise to 4000
>>quite close-in. The airport is in a terrible location both airspace and
>>terrain-wise for IFR procedures. If you takeoff on 6 not only do you
>>have a terrain problem there is an issue of the Ontario Class C with a
>>floor of 2700 in that area, below any MVA.
>>
>
>
> None of which precludes the issuance of an IFR clearance from RIR.
>
I didn't say that it necessarily does. I can also understand why SoCal
and KRAL tower don't want to do it.

wrote:

> On Mar 2, 9:49 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
>>>elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
>>>have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
>>>sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
>>>3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
>>>there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
>>>controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
>>>permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
>>>the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
>>>Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
>>>impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
>>>or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
>>>not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
>>>been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
>>>permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
>>>on "first come, first, served"?
>>
>>The current SOCAL SOP specifies a procedure for clearances for two
>>airports without published departure procedures, Flabob and Perris
>>Valley. The RIR procedure is, "Cleared to (destination), enter
>>controlled airspace southwest of
>>Fla-Bob. When entering controlled airspace, proceed direct RAL VOR,
>>direct PDZ (remainder of route), maintain 4000' MSL, expect (filed or
>>TEC altitude) 10 minutes after departure." I can find nothing else
>>which mentions IFR departures from Flabob.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
>>>clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
>>>error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
>>>That was the end of that conversation.
>>
>>Your experience with FSDO is not unusual.
>
>
> Steven:
>
> Thanks. That makes sense and is what I would have expected. Is this
> SOP publicly available? I guess now I just have to find out why they
> won't issue it...
>
> Alan
>
We used to have airports with ODPs that didn't have an IAP. Policy on
that changed several years ago. This could be related to that policy
change. You should call SoCal and ask to speak with an airspace
specialist for the Ontario area. I believe they call it Empire.

On Mar 2, 10:45 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 9:49 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
>
> >>>Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
> >>>elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
> >>>have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
> >>>sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
> >>>3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
> >>>there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
> >>>controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
> >>>permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
> >>>the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
> >>>Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
> >>>impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
> >>>or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
> >>>not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
> >>>been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
> >>>permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
> >>>on "first come, first, served"?
>
> >>The current SOCAL SOP specifies a procedure for clearances for two
> >>airports without published departure procedures, Flabob and Perris
> >>Valley. The RIR procedure is, "Cleared to (destination), enter
> >>controlled airspace southwest of
> >>Fla-Bob. When entering controlled airspace, proceed direct RAL VOR,
> >>direct PDZ (remainder of route), maintain 4000' MSL, expect (filed or
> >>TEC altitude) 10 minutes after departure." I can find nothing else
> >>which mentions IFR departures from Flabob.
>
> >>>BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
> >>>clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
> >>>error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
> >>>That was the end of that conversation.
>
> >>Your experience with FSDO is not unusual.
>
> > Steven:
>
> > Thanks. That makes sense and is what I would have expected. Is this
> > SOP publicly available? I guess now I just have to find out why they
> > won't issue it...
>
> > Alan
>
> We used to have airports with ODPs that didn't have an IAP. Policy on
> that changed several years ago. This could be related to that policy
> change. You should call SoCal and ask to speak with an airspace
> specialist for the Ontario area. I believe they call it Empire.


I just got off the phone with a supe for that sector. She was very
"firm" that there is no SOP and no clearances will be provided. I
gently pressed as much as I could about why, short of forcing her to
hang up on me, and she acknowledged that terrain is my issue not ATCs,
and implied that bad behavior in the on the part of local pilots in
the past had caused them to suspend the procedure. She would not say
what happened, but mentioned "What if you you go NORDO, what if we
can't tag you, then we are holding up everything for ONT and other
airports. " Of course, the same is true in many areas, so I think
there is more to the story they are just not forthcoming about. Very
frustrating.

Meanwhile the KRAL controllers have been very helpful. It looks like,
practically speaking, the only way I'm going to be able to depart KRIR
with a low ceiling is by going SVFR to KRAL first, then proceeding IFR
from there. Receiving ATIS and TWR on the ground at KRIR is not an
issue and, traffic and wx permitting they will provide a SVFR
clearance for KRAL while I'm still on the ground at KRIR. Not great,
but will have to do it appears.

On Mar 2, 11:57 am, wrote:
>
> Is this SOP publicly available?
>

No.

On Mar 2, 12:40 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> You should look at the airport and airspace at issue.
>

I did.

On Mar 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> I didn't say that it necessarily does. I can also understand why SoCal
> and KRAL tower don't want to do it.-
>

Why do you believe they don't want to do it?

An IFR clearance can certainly be given to a departure in
Class G that is under or abuts. You can often contact ATC
and get a void time, either over the telephone or by radio
if there is a near-by facility.
The clearance would be something like ...
ATC clears N6662U to enter controlled airspace on heading
270 at 3000 feet. Cleared to the XYZ airport, via . Contact
128.975. Clearance void if not airborne by 1730, time now
1715.


> wrote in message
s.com...
| Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that
has no
| instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument
departure. I
| was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground,
even with
| VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick
my clearance
| up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both
TRACON and
| local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get
a special
| VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which
has an
| approach and then depart IFR from there.
|
| My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away
from the
| rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small
hills, but below
| minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a
clearance on
| the ground?
|
| Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
|

On Mar 2, 1:04 pm, wrote:
>
> I just got off the phone with a supe for that sector. She was very
> "firm" that there is no SOP and no clearances will be provided.
>

That's odd, Southern California TRACON Order 7232.2B STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURES, dated 2/26/04, is still available through the
FAA Facility Directives Repository.

On Mar 2, 1:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>
> That's odd, Southern California TRACON Order 7232.2B STANDARD
> OPERATING PROCEDURES, dated 2/26/04, is still available through the
> FAA Facility Directives Repository.
>

And it shows the last update was on 1/2/07.

On Mar 2, 1:19 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
>
> That's odd, Southern California TRACON Order 7232.2B STANDARD
> OPERATING PROCEDURES, dated 2/26/04, is still available through the
> FAA Facility Directives Repository.
>

And it shows the last update was on 2/1/07.

On 03/02/07 09:51, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:35 am, Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> On 03/02/07 08:04, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> You asked what he meant and I told you.
>>
>> Sheeesh.
>>
>
> I didn't ask YOU what he meant. What qualifies you to speak for
> someone else?
>
> Sheeeeeesh.
>
>

This is a news group. You asked what it meant - I told you.

Get a clue.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a news group. You asked what it meant - I told you.
>
> Get a clue.
>

And I gave you some news, so get a clue yourself.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You would have to ask the TARCON and FSDO the original poster dealt with.
>

I can only ask you to clarify what you wrote.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> It looks like,
> practically speaking, the only way I'm going to be able to depart KRIR
> with a low ceiling is by going SVFR to KRAL first, then proceeding IFR
> from there. Receiving ATIS and TWR on the ground at KRIR is not an
> issue and, traffic and wx permitting they will provide a SVFR
> clearance for KRAL while I'm still on the ground at KRIR.

Works if you can fly below 700 AGL into KRAL CDAS. And not at night.

Steve where did you find the SOCAL SOP?
Al


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 2, 9:53 am, wrote:
>>
>> Some specfics will be helpful now: the airport is Flabob, KRIR, field
>> elevation 764 MSL. I spoke with several folks and each seemed to
>> have a different take. The TRACON controller was the most helpful/
>> sympathetic; he told me his Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that area is
>> 3200 [in addition to a small hill off the departure end of RWY 24
>> there are taller rocks to the North]. I heard from both the
>> controller and local pilots that zero-zero departures used to be
>> permitted until about 2 years ago and since then clearances while on
>> the ground have been unavilable. Now the airport is only 10 NM SE of
>> Ontario...so I'm guessing that my IFR departure off Flabob negatively
>> impacts their inbounds into ONT until they have identifed me on radar
>> or I'm through the MVA. I have suspected this is the funcamental I'm
>> not permitted a clearance and that until 2 years ago there may have
>> been a Letter of Agreement between ONT tower and SoCal departure that
>> permitted Flabob IFR departures. If so, am I not getting a raw deal
>> on "first come, first, served"?
>>
>
> The current SOCAL SOP specifies a procedure for clearances for two
> airports without published departure procedures, Flabob and Perris
> Valley. The RIR procedure is, "Cleared to (destination), enter
> controlled airspace southwest of
> Fla-Bob. When entering controlled airspace, proceed direct RAL VOR,
> direct PDZ (remainder of route), maintain 4000' MSL, expect (filed or
> TEC altitude) 10 minutes after departure." I can find nothing else
> which mentions IFR departures from Flabob.
>
>
>>
>> BTW, the FSDO guy was the least helpful: "No instrument departure, no
>> clearances on the ground." When I protested that this was clearly in
>> error he just repeated what he said, adding some impatient attitude.
>> That was the end of that conversation.
>>
>
> Your experience with FSDO is not unusual.
>

On Mar 2, 1:43 pm, "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > It looks like,
> > practically speaking, the only way I'm going to be able to depart KRIR
> > with a low ceiling is by going SVFR to KRAL first, then proceeding IFR
> > from there. Receiving ATIS and TWR on the ground at KRIR is not an
> > issue and, traffic and wx permitting they will provide a SVFR
> > clearance for KRAL while I'm still on the ground at KRIR.
>
> Works if you can fly below 700 AGL into KRAL CDAS. And not at night.


CDAS?

The airports are only about 3 miles apart. Given a low ceiling rather
than reduced vis, the topography and obstacles are not a problem.
Departing KRIR from rwy 24 on a left 45 in seconds you are over the
center of KRAL if that is your intent.

But it is a pain-in-the-butt if time is an issue, if the vis is worse
in that direction, if there is very low stratus to the South, as is
sometimes the case. I'm still holding out hope that I can, under the
right circumstances, get an IFR clearance on the ground, from KRIR.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You would have to ask the TARCON and FSDO the original poster dealt with.
>>
>
>
> I can only ask you to clarify what you wrote.
>
>
What I wrote was perfectly clear.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 12:40 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>You should look at the airport and airspace at issue.
>>
>
>
> I did.
>
>
Do you know where the closest SCT ASR antenna is to the OP's airport?

wrote:
> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
> up while airborne.


100% wrong. An IFR clearance can be given from any place. You are
responsible for terrain and obstructions until reaching the altitude
given by the controller. If no altitude is given then the start of
controlled airspace.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 12:42 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>I didn't say that it necessarily does. I can also understand why SoCal
>>and KRAL tower don't want to do it.-
>>
>
>
> Why do you believe they don't want to do it?
>
I said I can understand why they would not want to do it. It is more
than a belief.

I don't believe you understand the airspace issues in that area. It is
different than Wisconsin.

Sam Spade wrote:

>
> If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want. But,
> the rub comes in them providing you a clearance into (presumably
> 1200-foot floor Class E airspace without some procedure that assures
> obstacle clearance until reaching the minimum IFR altitude.

Not ATC's problem. That's 100% on the pilot.

wrote:

>
> I just got off the phone with a supe for that sector. She was very
> "firm" that there is no SOP and no clearances will be provided. I
> gently pressed as much as I could about why, short of forcing her to
> hang up on me, and she acknowledged that terrain is my issue not ATCs,
> and implied that bad behavior in the on the part of local pilots in
> the past had caused them to suspend the procedure. She would not say
> what happened, but mentioned "What if you you go NORDO, what if we
> can't tag you, then we are holding up everything for ONT and other
> airports. " Of course, the same is true in many areas, so I think
> there is more to the story they are just not forthcoming about. Very
> frustrating.

You should call her back and tell her that Steve McNicoll says she is
wrong and doesn't know what she is doing. ;-)

Seriously, that 1,400+ hill to the west of the airport blocks the radar
site at KONT. I doubt they can see you until your well into KRAL's Class D.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> On Mar 2, 11:57 am, wrote:
>
>>Is this SOP publicly available?
>>
>
>
> No.
>

It would be with a FOIA request.

"Allan9" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve where did you find the SOCAL SOP?
>

I got it through the FAA Facility Directives Repository while at work. I
don't believe you'll be able to access the site, I can't get it through my
home computer.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> An IFR clearance can certainly be given to a departure in
> Class G that is under or abuts. You can often contact ATC
> and get a void time, either over the telephone or by radio
> if there is a near-by facility.
> The clearance would be something like ...
> ATC clears N6662U to enter controlled airspace on heading
> 270 at 3000 feet. Cleared to the XYZ airport, via . Contact
> 128.975. Clearance void if not airborne by 1730, time now
> 1715.
>

Happens all the time.

But, check the airspace issues at the OP's airport.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Works if you can fly below 700 AGL into KRAL CDAS. And not at night.
>

Shouldn't be too hard, if they hadn't notched the RAL Class D to exclude RIR
he'd be in it at liftoff.

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=APT&txt=rir

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> What I wrote was perfectly clear.
>

If that was true clarification wouldn't be needed.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you know where the closest SCT ASR antenna is to the OP's airport?
>

I could easily find out if I needed to. But I don't need to.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I said I can understand why they would not want to do it. It is more than
> a belief.
>

Doubtful.


>
> I don't believe you understand the airspace issues in that area. It is
> different than Wisconsin.
>

I understand airspace issues everywhere, this is not an airspace issue.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You should call her back and tell her that Steve McNicoll says she is
> wrong and doesn't know what she is doing. ;-)
>

Since an SOP does exist she is definitely wrong when she says there isn't
one. Whether or not she knows what she is doing can not be determined from
available information.


>
> Seriously, that 1,400+ hill to the west of the airport blocks the radar
> site at KONT. I doubt they can see you until your well into KRAL's Class
> D.
>

So what?

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> But, check the airspace issues at the OP's airport.
>

What do you believe the airspace issues are?

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>> If controlled airspace was not involved you could do what you want.
>> But, the rub comes in them providing you a clearance into (presumably
>> 1200-foot floor Class E airspace without some procedure that assures
>> obstacle clearance until reaching the minimum IFR altitude.
>
>
> Not ATC's problem. That's 100% on the pilot.
>

I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.

In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want their
airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace situation.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Do you know where the closest SCT ASR antenna is to the OP's airport?
>>
>
>
> I could easily find out if I needed to. But I don't need to.
>
>
Well, if you did you would find it is blocked by terrain between it and RIL.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I said I can understand why they would not want to do it. It is more than
>>a belief.
>>
>
>
> Doubtful.
>
>
>
>>I don't believe you understand the airspace issues in that area. It is
>>different than Wisconsin.
>>
>
>
> I understand airspace issues everywhere, this is not an airspace issue.
>
>
The lady sup who the OP contacted doesn't seem to agree with you.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You should call her back and tell her that Steve McNicoll says she is
>>wrong and doesn't know what she is doing. ;-)
>>
>
>
> Since an SOP does exist she is definitely wrong when she says there isn't
> one. Whether or not she knows what she is doing can not be determined from
> available information.
>
>
>
>>Seriously, that 1,400+ hill to the west of the airport blocks the radar
>>site at KONT. I doubt they can see you until your well into KRAL's Class
>>D.
>>
>
>
> So what?
>
>
Ask the sup at SCT that question.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>But, check the airspace issues at the OP's airport.
>>
>
>
> What do you believe the airspace issues are?
>
>
What the SCT sup told the OP.

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
>> instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
>> was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
>> VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
>> up while airborne.
>
>
>
> 100% wrong. An IFR clearance can be given from any place. You are
> responsible for terrain and obstructions until reaching the altitude
> given by the controller. If no altitude is given then the start of
> controlled airspace.

Doesn't an altitude have to be given if I am filed into controlled
airspace? If I wasn't filed into controlled airspace I wouldn't need to
file at all.

I have flown IFR a few times out of Furnace Creek Airport (L06 in Death
Valley, California.) The valley is beneath the old Continental Control
Area; 14,500 floor.

We file requesting direct to an intersection on the nearest airway to
the east. Requested altitude is always 13,000. (We can't actually go
direct until we have climbed about 9,000 feet.)

There is a FSS RCO on the airport so the clearances are relayed.

The clearance is quite specific as to where we are to be when we enter
controlled airspace headed for that intersection.

It is a non-radar operation until joining the airway.

Sometimes, they give us 13,000, sometimes 12,000 and sometimes 14,000
even though we have always requested 13,000. They always give us some
altitude though for entry into controlled airspace. The controlled
airspace is only along the airway in this area.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by, "If no altitude is given
then the start of controlled airspace."

Sam Spade wrote:

>>
>> 100% wrong. An IFR clearance can be given from any place. You are
>> responsible for terrain and obstructions until reaching the altitude
>> given by the controller. If no altitude is given then the start of
>> controlled airspace.
>
> Doesn't an altitude have to be given if I am filed into controlled
> airspace?


I didn't mean a cruising altitude but a minimum altitude. Such as
"Leaving 4000, cleared to....."

Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
> I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
> with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.
>
> In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want their
> airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace situation.

That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.

wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:41 am, Michelle P
> > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
>>>instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
>>>was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
>>>VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
>>>up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
>>>local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
>>>VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
>>>approach and then depart IFR from there.
>>
>>>My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
>>>rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
>>>minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
>>>the ground?
>>
>>>Alan, PP-AMEL-IA
>>
>>What was your point of departure on your Flight plan. The Non-IFR
>>airport or a IFR fix?
>>Michelle
>
>
>
> The non-IFR airport- KRIR.
>
There is your problem in getting the clearance. The computer will not do
that. It needs to be and IFR fix.

Michelle P

On Mar 2, 4:13 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
> > I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
> > with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.
>
> > In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want their
> > airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace situation.
>
> That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
> busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
> they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.

But does SCT have the authority to refuse service to an airport
because of inconvenience? They can certainly delay a departure, but
outright refuse? What if its the middle of the night and there is
very little traffic?

And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
trouble?

Is it not possible to get a clearance void time from ATC to depart an uncontrolled airfield in IMC? I thought that used to be pretty common; if it changed, what tool replaced the "clearance void if no airborne by..."?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
> wrote in message s.com...
Recently I tried to depart from an non-tower airport that has no
instrument approach procedure, and hence no instrument departure. I
was told that I could not get a clearance on the ground, even with
VIFNO etc., and that I would have to depart VFR and pick my clearance
up while airborne. The recommendation made to me by both TRACON and
local FSDO for departing IFR with a low ceiling was to get a special
VFR clearance into the towered airport 6 miles away [which has an
approach and then depart IFR from there.

My question is, if I take responsibility for staying away from the
rocks [assume a low ceiling, above the tops of small hills, but below
minimum vectoring altitude], shouln't I be able to get a clearance on
the ground?

Alan, PP-AMEL-IA

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ask the sup at SCT that question.
>

Why would I ask her to explain what you post? Why can't you do that?

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
>> with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.
>>
>> In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want
>> their airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace
>> situation.
>
>
> That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
> busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
> they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.

I also have serious heartburn with some "SOP" obstacle departure
procedure that probably was not "Terpsed" by AVN. Once ATC issues that
puppy they put the FAA on the hook for departure obstacle clearance.

wrote:


>
> And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
> IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
> trouble?
>
Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> But does SCT have the authority to refuse service to an airport
> because of inconvenience? They can certainly delay a departure, but
> outright refuse? What if its the middle of the night and there is
> very little traffic?
>
> And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
> IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
> trouble?
>

FAAO 7110.65 still requires controllers to "provide air traffic control
service to aircraft on a 'first come, first served' basis as circumstances
permit". Denying a departure clearance due to conflicting traffic is
entirely proper, but that's not the situation here. "No instrument
departure, no clearances on the ground.", as expressed by the FSDO, is
simply wrong.

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> There is your problem in getting the clearance. The computer will not do
> that. It needs to be and IFR fix.
>

That has nothing to do with it. RIR is most likely adapted, but non-adapted
departure points can be entered in flight plans.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ask the sup at SCT that question.
>>
>
>
> Why would I ask her to explain what you post? Why can't you do that?
>
>
The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.
>

Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.
>>
>
>
> Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
No doubt I don't claim to know more than FAA ATO management, ATC
supervisors, and most (if not all controllers) like you do.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.
>>
>
>
> Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
I am so far ahead of you on most topics discussed in this forum it just
drives your fragile ego nuts. So, when the issue gets into ATC
procedures it gives you the opportunity to claim a modicum of arrogrant
expertise.

In the case of Flabob you obviously don't know squat about the terrain,
radar coverage, or TERPs issues.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I also have serious heartburn with some "SOP" obstacle departure procedure
> that probably was not "Terpsed" by AVN. Once ATC issues that puppy they
> put the FAA on the hook for departure obstacle clearance.
>

Oh? I thought your heartburn was over radar coverage?

The procedure in the SCT SOP is not an obstacle departure procedure and does
not pretend to be. I don't like it either, but it is consistent with FAAO
7110.65 which tells controllers, at airports without a control tower or a
surface area, not to specify the direction of takeoff or a turn after
takeoff and if an initial heading is needed to be flown after takeoff, issue
it so as to apply only within controlled airspace. If it's in the book it's
legal, but not everything that is legal is also a good idea. In situations
like this I specify any needed heading to apply upon climbing through the
MVA, the pilot is free to do whatever he deems necessary to avoid any
terrain or obstructions between the surface and that altitude. The
procedure in the SCT SOP specifies a general area in which to enter
controlled airspace, which begins at 700' AGL, well below the MVA, and also
a direction to fly upon reaching controlled airspace.


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0403.html#4-3-2

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am so far ahead of you on most topics discussed in this forum it just
> drives your fragile ego nuts.
>

Much of what you post is contrary to current procedures. Is that because
you're so far ahead of them as well?


>
> So, when the issue gets into ATC procedures
> it gives you the opportunity to claim a modicum of arrogrant expertise.
>

I don't recall claiming expertise. Typically, I don't even mention being a
controller when I post something here. I usually just explain why things
are the way they are and provide verifiable documentation which supports
what I've written.


>
> In the case of Flabob you obviously don't know squat about the terrain,
> radar coverage, or TERPs issues.
>

If terrain, radar coverage, and TERPS are issues that prevent the issuance
of an IFR clearance to an aircraft on the ground at Flabob at any time, in
any weather condition, and in any traffic situation, it should be a simple
matter for you to identify them, since you are so far ahead on these topics.
Please do so, be sure to include verifiable documentation which supports
your position.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am so far ahead of you on most topics discussed in this forum it just
>>drives your fragile ego nuts.
>>
>
>
> Much of what you post is contrary to current procedures. Is that because
> you're so far ahead of them as well?
>
>
>
>>So, when the issue gets into ATC procedures
>>it gives you the opportunity to claim a modicum of arrogrant expertise.
>>
>
>
> I don't recall claiming expertise. Typically, I don't even mention being a
> controller when I post something here. I usually just explain why things
> are the way they are and provide verifiable documentation which supports
> what I've written.
>
>
>
>>In the case of Flabob you obviously don't know squat about the terrain,
>>radar coverage, or TERPs issues.
>>
>
>
> If terrain, radar coverage, and TERPS are issues that prevent the issuance
> of an IFR clearance to an aircraft on the ground at Flabob at any time, in
> any weather condition, and in any traffic situation, it should be a simple
> matter for you to identify them, since you are so far ahead on these topics.
> Please do so, be sure to include verifiable documentation which supports
> your position.
>
>
I understand the TERPs and radar coverage issues at that airport. I
understand its proximity to a Class D airport. I understand that a
TERPs compliant ODP would require a climb gradient of well over 400 feet
per mile to clear higher terrain located in the KRAL Class D airspace.

I can only speculate that a savvy manager at SCT would find the SOP
departure procedure carrying too much liability baggage for the FAA.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I understand the TERPs and radar coverage issues at that airport.
>

Understand them? Hell, you can't even identify them!


>
> I can only speculate that a savvy manager at SCT would find the SOP
> departure procedure carrying too much liability baggage for the FAA.
>

I'd expect a savvy manager to follow up on that and have the SOP modified
appropriately.

On Mar 2, 4:13 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
> > I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
> > with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.
>
> > In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want their
> > airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace situation.
>
> That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
> busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
> they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.


It is possible that, given a situation in which the departure becomes
a problem [ goes NORDO or does not "tag"] that KRAL is sufficiently
far from the ONT final approach course so as to not interfere with
arrivals, but KRIR is not far enough? That could be one logic that,
from the SoCal perspective, makes a difference between the two
airports.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> The lady sup who the OP contacted doesn't seem to agree with you.
>

She also says Southern California TRACON Order 7232.2B STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURES, last updated on February 1st 2007 and still available through
the FAA Facility Directives Repository, does not exist. Should I believe
her or what I can see with my own eyes?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I understand the TERPs and radar coverage issues at that airport.
>>
>
>
> Understand them? Hell, you can't even identify them!
>
>
>
>>I can only speculate that a savvy manager at SCT would find the SOP
>>departure procedure carrying too much liability baggage for the FAA.
>>
>
>
> I'd expect a savvy manager to follow up on that and have the SOP modified
> appropriately.
>
>
That would require it to be TERPsed, hence someone would then want it to
be an ODP. ODPs at non-IFR airports are contrary to current Flight
Standards policy.

I suspect a savvy manager would understand that.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The lady sup who the OP contacted doesn't seem to agree with you.
>>
>
>
> She also says Southern California TRACON Order 7232.2B STANDARD OPERATING
> PROCEDURES, last updated on February 1st 2007 and still available through
> the FAA Facility Directives Repository, does not exist. Should I believe
> her or what I can see with my own eyes?
>
>
Where did you find out that she says that document does not exist? Did
you correspond or speak with her?

wrote:

> On Mar 2, 4:13 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
>>Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
>>>with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.
>>
>>>In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want their
>>>airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace situation.
>>
>>That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
>>busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
>>they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.
>
>
>
> It is possible that, given a situation in which the departure becomes
> a problem [ goes NORDO or does not "tag"] that KRAL is sufficiently
> far from the ONT final approach course so as to not interfere with
> arrivals, but KRIR is not far enough? That could be one logic that,
> from the SoCal perspective, makes a difference between the two
> airports.
>

Going to 4,000 feet along that "SOP departure" would not create a
problem for the ONT final approach course.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> That would require it to be TERPsed,

Wrong again.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where did you find out that she says that document does not exist?

The same place you learned the lady sup who the OP contacted doesn't seem to
agree with me.

On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
> > IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
> > trouble?
>
> Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.

Victim is taking it a bit far. I was thinking more along the lines of
a denied IFR clearance being identified as contributing to an accident
specifically because the OP was told to get a special VFR clearance to
Riverside. And if you're worried about terrain, usually an IFR
clearance will allow you to climb higher than a special VFR clearance
in Class D airspace.

> I was thinking more along the lines of
> a denied IFR clearance being identified as contributing to an accident
> specifically because the OP was told to get a special VFR clearance to
> Riverside.

As far as I know SVFR cannot be suggested by the controller. It has to
be requested by the pilot.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That would require it to be TERPsed,
>
>
> Wrong again.
>
>
Please explain why a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is
issued by ATC does not have to be terpsed.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please explain why a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued
> by ATC does not have to be terpsed.
>

Because there is no requirement that it be terpsed.

wrote:

> On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
>>>IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
>>>trouble?
>>
>>Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.
>
>
> Victim is taking it a bit far. I was thinking more along the lines of
> a denied IFR clearance being identified as contributing to an accident
> specifically because the OP was told to get a special VFR clearance to
> Riverside. And if you're worried about terrain, usually an IFR
> clearance will allow you to climb higher than a special VFR clearance
> in Class D airspace.
>

I can't imagine ATC denying an IFR clearance then issuing a special VFR
clearance unless the pilot requested it.

I think the OP was advised of his options during a discussion about the
issues at Flabob.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Please explain why a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued
>>by ATC does not have to be terpsed.
>>
>
>
> Because there is no requirement that it be terpsed.
>
>
Sure there is. But, it has to be an IFR airport.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure there is.

If there is, it should be a simple matter for you to cite it. Whay don't
you take a shot at establishing a little credibility in this forum and do
so?


>
> But, it has to be an IFR airport.
>

Well, then there must be a prohibition on issuing IFR clearances at non-IFR
airports. Cite that as well.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure there is.
>
>
> If there is, it should be a simple matter for you to cite it. Whay don't
> you take a shot at establishing a little credibility in this forum and do
> so?
>
>
>
>>But, it has to be an IFR airport.
>>
>
>
> Well, then there must be a prohibition on issuing IFR clearances at non-IFR
> airports. Cite that as well.
>
>
There isn't any as you well know. But, they aren't airports that are
less than a mile from a Class D area and instructions are not issued
that have the appearance of an ODP that leads you to high terrain off
the end of the runway.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> There isn't any as you well know. But, they aren't airports that are less
> than a mile from a Class D area and instructions are not issued that have
> the appearance of an ODP that leads you to high terrain off the end of the
> runway.
>

So a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued by ATC does not
have to be terpsed?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There isn't any as you well know. But, they aren't airports that are less
>>than a mile from a Class D area and instructions are not issued that have
>>the appearance of an ODP that leads you to high terrain off the end of the
>>runway.
>>
>
>
> So a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued by ATC does not
> have to be terpsed?
>
>
Now, you are asking a question that you previously answered.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now, you are asking a question that you previously answered.
>

Does your answer now agree with mine?

Sam,

> > So a non-vectored departure with obstacles that is issued by ATC does not
> > have to be terpsed?
> >
> >
> Now, you are asking a question that you previously answered.
>

Still digging, eh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mar 4, 6:15 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
> >>>IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
> >>>trouble?
>
> >>Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.
>
> > Victim is taking it a bit far. I was thinking more along the lines of
> > a denied IFR clearance being identified as contributing to an accident
> > specifically because the OP was told to get a special VFR clearance to
> > Riverside. And if you're worried about terrain, usually an IFR
> > clearance will allow you to climb higher than a special VFR clearance
> > in Class D airspace.
>
> I can't imagine ATC denying an IFR clearance then issuing a special VFR
> clearance unless the pilot requested it.
>
> I think the OP was advised of his options during a discussion about the
> issues at Flabob.


Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.

wrote:

>
> Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
> departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.
>

Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
and probably be circling only.

But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
perhaps, Runway 6.

On Mar 5, 1:41 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
> > departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.
>
> Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
> owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
> A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
> and probably be circling only.
>
> But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
> perhaps, Runway 6.


Yes, I am based there now. I do not know whether an approach has been
requested. Having an ODP, while nice, doesn't change the fact that an
ODP is not required to depart IFR from an airport without an
approach. Based on all I know, except for the inconvenient fact that
the RAL VOR is OTS indefinitely, the SOP referred to earlier should be
all that is necessary. In lieu of an SOP, so far as I can tell, a
clearance with a void time should be issued, traffic permitting.

akucheck wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:41 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Correct. The context was a telephone call about available options for
>>>departing Flabob and [eventually] getting on an IFR flight plan.
>>
>>Is your aircraft based there? If so, do you know whether the airport
>>owners/management have ever requested an IFR approach for the airport?
>>A GPS approach would work there, but it would have fairly high minimums
>>and probably be circling only.
>>
>>But, that would result in an ODP being published for Runway 24 and,
>>perhaps, Runway 6.
>
>
>
> Yes, I am based there now. I do not know whether an approach has been
> requested. Having an ODP, while nice, doesn't change the fact that an
> ODP is not required to depart IFR from an airport without an
> approach. Based on all I know, except for the inconvenient fact that
> the RAL VOR is OTS indefinitely, the SOP referred to earlier should be
> all that is necessary. In lieu of an SOP, so far as I can tell, a
> clearance with a void time should be issued, traffic permitting.
>

It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
concern. This is not a typical Class G airport departure. The area
terps require a climb gradient in excess of 400 feet per mile because of
terrain. The controlling terrain is in the RAL Class D area so, other
views notwithstanding, that creates a fair amount of liability on the
part of the FAA.

If you had an RNAV IAP, you would have an RNAV ODP, with would be navaid
independent.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
> someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
> concern.

How is it that you can work with "this stuff" all the time and still have
such a poor understanding of it?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It is apparent that today's SoCal management does not like the SOP. As
>>someone who works with this stuff all the time, I understand their
>>concern.
>
>
> How is it that you can work with "this stuff" all the time and still have
> such a poor understanding of it?
>
>
Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for
Runway 24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for Runway
> 24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.
>

That comparison has already been made.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why don't you lay out the required TERPs ODP initial climb area for Runway
>>24 at RIR, then we can compare who has the understanding.
>>
>
>
> That comparison has already been made.
>
>
>
You are not only wrong, as usual, you are obtuse, argumentative, and
basically full of ****.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are not only wrong, as usual, you are obtuse, argumentative, and
> basically full of ****.
>

Three of those are purely matters of opinion. It is a fact that you cannot
and have not proved me wrong.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You are not only wrong, as usual, you are obtuse, argumentative, and
>>basically full of ****.
>>
>
>
> Three of those are purely matters of opinion. It is a fact that you cannot
> and have not proved me wrong.
>
>
Yes, like you saying the comparison has already been made for the ICA
for an ODP off Runway 24 at RIR into the Class D area for RAL.

I can't find that comparison anywhere in this thread Since you claim it
has been made, please help me find it.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, like you saying the comparison has already been made for the ICA for
> an ODP off Runway 24 at RIR into the Class D area for RAL.
>
> I can't find that comparison anywhere in this thread Since you claim it
> has been made, please help me find it.
>

I didn't say that. Follow the thread. The comparison was to which of us
has knowledge of "this stuff".

Sam & Steven,

Go to your separate rooms and take a deep breath. This bickering is
getting old and tiresome. You're making mxsmanic look civil....

Regards,
Roy

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, like you saying the comparison has already been made for the ICA for
>> an ODP off Runway 24 at RIR into the Class D area for RAL.
>>
>> I can't find that comparison anywhere in this thread Since you claim it
>> has been made, please help me find it.
>>
>
> I didn't say that. Follow the thread. The comparison was to which of us
> has knowledge of "this stuff".
>
>

Sometimes I feel it is not worth participating in this unmoderated forum

I try to offer positive inputs to this group, yet no one does anything
when this jerk goes off on his usual rants.

The only thing I see is others telling Steve to get lost when he becomes
his usual very difficult, obnoxious self.

Pilots as a group are just takers, not givers.

Roy Epperson wrote:
> Sam & Steven,
>
> Go to your separate rooms and take a deep breath. This bickering is
> getting old and tiresome. You're making mxsmanic look civil....
>
> Regards,
> Roy
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Yes, like you saying the comparison has already been made for the ICA
>>> for an ODP off Runway 24 at RIR into the Class D area for RAL.
>>>
>>> I can't find that comparison anywhere in this thread Since you claim
>>> it has been made, please help me find it.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say that. Follow the thread. The comparison was to which of
>> us has knowledge of "this stuff".
>>

Sam Spade wrote
> The only thing I see is others telling Steve to get lost when
> he becomes his usual very difficult, obnoxious self.

Yes Sam, we gave up mud wrestling long before you joined
the group. :-)

Bob Moore

On 03/07/07 05:46, Sam Spade wrote:
> Sometimes I feel it is not worth participating in this unmoderated forum
>
> I try to offer positive inputs to this group, yet no one does anything
> when this jerk goes off on his usual rants.

Actually, I do. I stop responding to him. You should try it. Consider
bickering with a small child - do you feel you must have the last word
else you've lost the argument?

>
> The only thing I see is others telling Steve to get lost when he becomes
> his usual very difficult, obnoxious self.
>
> Pilots as a group are just takers, not givers.
>
> Roy Epperson wrote:
>> Sam & Steven,
>>
>> Go to your separate rooms and take a deep breath. This bickering is
>> getting old and tiresome. You're making mxsmanic look civil....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roy
>>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Yes, like you saying the comparison has already been made for the ICA
>>>> for an ODP off Runway 24 at RIR into the Class D area for RAL.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find that comparison anywhere in this thread Since you claim
>>>> it has been made, please help me find it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say that. Follow the thread. The comparison was to which of
>>> us has knowledge of "this stuff".
>>>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Sam Spade wrote:
> Sometimes I feel it is not worth participating in this unmoderated forum

Participation is optional.

> I try to offer positive inputs to this group, yet no one does anything
> when this jerk goes off on his usual rants.

Replying to jerks is optional.

> The only thing I see is others telling Steve to get lost when he becomes
> his usual very difficult, obnoxious self.
>
> Pilots as a group are just takers, not givers.

Participation is optional.

"Roy Epperson" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Go to your separate rooms and take a deep breath. This bickering is
> getting old and tiresome. You're making mxsmanic look civil....
>

All users benefit when a pretender is exposed.