No SID in clearance, fly it anyway?

[Roy Smith]

Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
"radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".

Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
with a shorter routing.

We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.

So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

[Ben Jackson]

In article >, Roy Smith > wrote:
>Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
>Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
>"radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".

Aim 5-2-3(d)

ATC procedures now require the controller to state the DP name, the
current number and the DP transition name after the phrase "Cleared to
(destination) airport" and prior to the phrase, "then as filed," for ALL
departure clearances when the DP or DP transition is to be flown. The
procedures apply whether or not the DP is filed in the flight plan.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Greg Esres]

<<Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a DP) even though it's not in the
clearance? >>

From the 7110.65, Air Traffic Controllers Handbook:

----------<snip>----------------
If a published IFR departure procedure is not included in an ATC
clearance, compliance with such a procedure is the pilot's
prerogative.
----------<snip>----------------

Sounds like the controller goofed.

[Ryan Ferguson]

(Roy Smith) wrote in message >...

> So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
> DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
> was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
> didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

It sounds like there was a good on the controller's part, not yours.
Just curious - why do you say "fly the SID (not a DP)?"

[Roy Smith]

(Ryan Ferguson) wrote:
> It sounds like there was a good on the controller's part, not yours.

I assume you meant "goof" instead of "good"?

> Just curious - why do you say "fly the SID (not a DP)?"

Probably bad use of terminology on my part. I still think of a SID as
the thing which has its own page in the book and a name like
"Westchester One Departure", and a DP as the little note down at the
bottom of the airport diagram page, even though I realize the
distinction is somewhat erroneous since they changed the way the naming
scheme works a few years back.

[Bob Gardner]

SIDs are back, Roy...check out the latest AIM.

Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> (Ryan Ferguson) wrote:
> > It sounds like there was a good on the controller's part, not yours.
>
> I assume you meant "goof" instead of "good"?
>
> > Just curious - why do you say "fly the SID (not a DP)?"
>
> Probably bad use of terminology on my part. I still think of a SID as
> the thing which has its own page in the book and a name like
> "Westchester One Departure", and a DP as the little note down at the
> bottom of the airport diagram page, even though I realize the
> distinction is somewhat erroneous since they changed the way the naming
> scheme works a few years back.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 31 Oct 2003 15:34:33 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
>DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
>was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
>didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

According to my Jepp charts, the Westchester-1 departure *is* an Obstacle
departure procedure. If you were flying under Part 91, there is no
obligation to fly either an obstacle DP or a SID if they are not given to
you in the clearance.

However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to you in
your clearance.

If you don't fly the ODP, you are responsible for your own obstacle
clearance until you are receiving radar vectors from the controller.

At an unfamiliar airport, I will fly any published ODP's. But at a
familiar airport, I might take some shortcuts if I know I can maintain
obstacle clearance.


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

[Roy Smith]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> According to my Jepp charts, the Westchester-1 departure *is* an Obstacle
> departure procedure.

Hmmm. I guess that's what the word "OBSTACLE" printed above the title
name means, huh? :-)

> If you were flying under Part 91, there is no
> obligation to fly either an obstacle DP or a SID if they are not given to
> you in the clearance.
>
> However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to you in
> your clearance.
>
> If you don't fly the ODP, you are responsible for your own obstacle
> clearance until you are receiving radar vectors from the controller.
>
> At an unfamiliar airport, I will fly any published ODP's. But at a
> familiar airport, I might take some shortcuts if I know I can maintain
> obstacle clearance.

Well, in this case, it was my home airport, daytime, severe clear, and
no significant terrain beyond the trees at the airport boundary. We
were taking off on runway 16, the SID said right turn to 320, and my
first waypoint was on a heading of about 040 (i.e. a left turn). So, in
theory, until the time I was actually given a vector, I would have been
within my rights to turn left to 040 as soon as I felt it was safe?

[No Spam]

> Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
> Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
> "radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".
>
> Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
> but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
> without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
> went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
> sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
> fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
> with a shorter routing.
>
> We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
> almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
> me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
> asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.
>
> So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
> DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
> was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
> didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

Since you were to be given radar vectors, and tower normally gives that
first vector (or fly runway heading) you should have asked for the vector
when cleared for takeoff. However, doing so was to help them (CD/Tower) fix
their goof as one of them dropped the ball.

Not your goof; but then the PIC is always the one that runs into the
mountain - not "Them"...

No Spam

[Greg Esres]

<<However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to
you in your clearance.>>

Yeah, but you'd better coordinate that with ATC. The AIM doesn't make
that clear.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:47:43 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to you in
>your clearance.

I sure didn't know that. What if the tower says "after takeoff maintain
runway heading, climb to 5000" etc. etc. and the ODP has some other sort
of departure (e.g. a turn of some kind)?

I'm relatively new to this but I thought I had to follow what the tower
says in the clearance, until handed off to Departure...

Dave Blevins

[Greg Esres]

<<I thought I had to follow what the tower says in the clearance,
until handed off to Departure...>>

You should be skeptical about following instructions from a non-radar
tower in poor visibility conditions. Tower guys have told me that
they're not going to issue instructions contrary to the DP unless good
visibility conditions prevail or the pilot assures them that he can
maintain his own obstacle clearance.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:14:53 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> So, in
>theory, until the time I was actually given a vector, I would have been
>within my rights to turn left to 040 as soon as I felt it was safe?

That's how I interpret the rules. Although there may be some local
procedures to follow, such as not turning until at the airport boundary, or
at a certain altitude, etc.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:39:01 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><<However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to
>you in your clearance.>>
>
>Yeah, but you'd better coordinate that with ATC. The AIM doesn't make
>that clear.

It seems clear to me:

5-2-6... "ODP's are recommended for obstruction clearance and may be flown
*without ATC clearance* unless an alternate departure procedure (SID or
radar vector) has been specifically assigned by ATC." (emphasis mine)




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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:04:52 -0800, wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:47:43 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:
>
>>However, it is your right to fly any ODP, even if it is not given to you in
>>your clearance.
>
>I sure didn't know that. What if the tower says "after takeoff maintain
>runway heading, climb to 5000" etc. etc. and the ODP has some other sort
>of departure (e.g. a turn of some kind)?
>
>I'm relatively new to this but I thought I had to follow what the tower
>says in the clearance, until handed off to Departure...
>
>Dave Blevins

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:04:52 -0800, wrote:

>I sure didn't know that. What if the tower says "after takeoff maintain
>runway heading, climb to 5000" etc. etc. and the ODP has some other sort
>of departure (e.g. a turn of some kind)?
>
>I'm relatively new to this but I thought I had to follow what the tower
>says in the clearance, until handed off to Departure...

That's different from the situation Roy cited. And yes, if you receive a
vector from ATC, you are obligated to follow it (or question it if you feel
it is unsafe).

If there is an ODP, and based on your review of the situation at that
airport and your aircraft performance, you feel that the vector might not
afford adequate obstacle clearance, it is your obligation to question it,
or even refuse it.

Furthermore, if the tower instructions include a turn, you are not expected
to make that turn until 400' AGL.

Of course, the tower should not issue an unsafe instruction. However, the
AIM does state that "...obstacle clearance is not provided by ATC until the
controller begins to provide navigational guidance in the form of *radar
vectors*." (emphasis mine).

See AIM 5-2-6. And there have been a number of accidents that could have
been avoided had pilots complied with ODP's at various locations.





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

[[email protected]]

Well, only a reading of the ATC tapes would tell you whether the departure
a issue was in your clearance. If it was not, and it is the "100% drill"
to get that departure, you should have sought clarification because you
sensed a crack that you were possibly going to fall through.

As to your distinction between SIDs and DPs, there isn't any in this
country, at least not until they sign out a policy reinstating SIDs.
There are Obstacle DPs and there are ATC DPs. Of course, some of the
charts are old so they state "SID" on them.

No one said it would be easy. ;-)

Roy Smith wrote:

> Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
> Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
> "radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".
>
> Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
> but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
> without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
> went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
> sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
> fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
> with a shorter routing.
>
> We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
> almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
> me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
> asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.
>
> So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
> DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
> was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
> didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

[Bob Gardner]

Check the latest AIM...SIDs are back.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> Well, only a reading of the ATC tapes would tell you whether the departure
> a issue was in your clearance. If it was not, and it is the "100% drill"
> to get that departure, you should have sought clarification because you
> sensed a crack that you were possibly going to fall through.
>
> As to your distinction between SIDs and DPs, there isn't any in this
> country, at least not until they sign out a policy reinstating SIDs.
> There are Obstacle DPs and there are ATC DPs. Of course, some of the
> charts are old so they state "SID" on them.
>
> No one said it would be easy. ;-)
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
> > Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
> > "radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".
> >
> > Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
> > but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
> > without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
> > went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
> > sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
> > fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
> > with a shorter routing.
> >
> > We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
> > almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
> > me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
> > asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.
> >
> > So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
> > DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
> > was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
> > didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?
>

[Greg Esres]

<<may be flown *without ATC clearance* >>

I said coordination, not clearance.

If the ODP says go to a fix, and climb in a holding pattern, and
Center already has someone holding there, then you've created a
problem.

[Greg Esres]

<< you receive a vector from ATC, you are obligated to follow it (or
question it if you feel it is unsafe>>

What tower would give you is not a vector; it's a heading.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Greg Esres > wrote:

> << you receive a vector from ATC, you are obligated to follow it (or
> question it if you feel it is unsafe>>
>
> What tower would give you is not a vector; it's a heading.
>

Is there any practical difference?

[Greg Esres]

<<Is there any practical difference?>>

Yes...only radar vectors put the burden of obstacle clearance on the
controller. And radar vectors require radar contact.

So a tower guy giving me a heading isn't able to provide me with any
promise of obstacle clearance.

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Check the latest AIM...SIDs are back.
>
> Bob Gardner

I believe you. I know they were getting close the last time I heard about it.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Is there any practical difference?>>
>
> Yes...only radar vectors put the burden of obstacle clearance on the
> controller. And radar vectors require radar contact.
>

And, at a mountain airport, until you reach MVA on departure, even the
radar controller and you are in a obstacle-clearance haze.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:28:45 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

>If the ODP says go to a fix, and climb in a holding pattern, and
>Center already has someone holding there, then you've created a
>problem.

Where might that happen?


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:30:12 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><< you receive a vector from ATC, you are obligated to follow it (or
>question it if you feel it is unsafe>>
>
>What tower would give you is not a vector; it's a heading.

That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot has no
way of knowing without direct knowledge. However, I have been told that
any tower-issued pre-takeoff headings (which really are Departure Control
generated) should comply with either an applicable ODP, or established
radar diverse vector area criteria.

Unfortunately, there have been plenty of holes in that system, so it
behooves the pilot to be alert if a tower-issued pre-takeoff heading is at
variance with a published ODP.






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

[Greg Esres]

<<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>

When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.

[Greg Esres]

<<Where might that happen?>>

Lots of places, probably, but one that I picked at random and called
the tower was Sante Fe, NM.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:57:17 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><<Where might that happen?>>
>
>Lots of places, probably, but one that I picked at random and called
>the tower was Sante Fe, NM.
>
>

I'm trying to understand how this problem develops.

It seems to me that in order for that problem to develop, ATC would have to
clear a departure from SAF while they have an aircraft holding at the SAF
VORTAC that is at or below the altitude to which the departing a/c was
cleared.

Is that what the tower said could happen? Or is there some other scenario?

If the tower says they issue clearances of this nature, I'd like to check
with some ATC safety folk that I know to verify that this sort of thing is
in accord with proper procedure.

Thanks.





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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:55:54 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
>has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>
>
>When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
>must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
>followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.

Well it should be the case whenever you receive heading instructions from
the tower that they either do not conflict with an ODP, or that they have
been assessed for a DVA. These vectors are below the MVA and a 200 f/nm
climb rate is assumed unless ATC obtains your concurrence with a higher
minimum rate of climb.

It has not always been the case in the past. MRY as recently as 1999 was
one facility where, at that time, they were issuing instructions in
conflict with an ODP. Specifically they were vectoring folk to the east
(towards some high mountains). I think this was changed when it was
pointed out to them.

What you say about hearing the magic words followed by a vector is
certainly what is commonly taught. And is certainly the case when
departing from a non-radar facility. However, it is my understanding that
in the case of radar departures (and this assumes you are at a radar
facility), the initial heading (the one given you by the tower prior to
departure) will not be preceded by those words, and yet ATC will still be
on the hook for obstacle clearance. Of course, you as the PIC have a
responsibility here, too.

I would expect that any pre-departure heading instruction (e.g. "fly runway
heading"; "turn left heading 020 after departure") would be in accord with
either the ODP or an established DVA. But since I have no information in
my cockpit regarding DVA's, I would be real careful at a strange airport.


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

[Greg Esres]

<< or below the altitude to which the departing a/c was cleared...Is
that what the tower said could happen? >>

That's what I remember of the conversation. It's been a couple of
months.

I suspect they see enough pilots not flying ODPs that they don't take
it into consideration.

Still, I'm sure similar situations occur almost everywhere. Even when
there's no climb in hold, there are DP dings that could take you into
the flight path of other aircraft if ATC didn't expect you to fly it.

<<d like to check wih some ATC safety folk that I know to verify that
this sort of thing is n accord with proper procedure.>>

I'd be interested to know as well, given the implication that the ODP
is always protected.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:
> << you receive a vector from ATC, you are obligated to follow it (or
> question it if you feel it is unsafe>>
>
> What tower would give you is not a vector; it's a heading.

No, it's a vector.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Is there any practical difference?>>
>
> Yes...only radar vectors put the burden of obstacle clearance on the
> controller. And radar vectors require radar contact.
>
> So a tower guy giving me a heading isn't able to provide me with any
> promise of obstacle clearance.

Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> And, at a mountain airport, until you reach MVA on departure, even the
> radar controller and you are in a obstacle-clearance haze.

Mountain airport, non mountain airport it doesn't matter. There is no haze.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
> has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>
>
> When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
> must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
> followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.

No. A heading issued with a takeoff clearance is a vector.

[Greg Esres]

<< assessed for a DVA. These vectors are below the MVA >>

But these vectors are authorized only for radar facilities.

From the .65:
-------<snip>-------------
At those locations where diverse vector areas (DVA) have been
established, terminal RADAR [emphasis mine] facilities may vector
aircraft below the MVA/MIA within those areas and along those routes
described in facility directives.
-------<snip>-------------

<<in the case of radar departures (and this assumes you are at a radar
facility), the initial heading (the one given you by the tower prior
to departure) will not be preceded by those words, and yet ATC will
still be on the hook for obstacle clearance. >>

It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide? The heading
they give you is presumed safe until departure can vector you. How
long can you fly the heading and be safe? Are there any criteria for
this?

In his "Radar Services Terminated" article, Wally seems to indicate
that this is a gray area. He apparently only feels 100% comfortable
with a non-radar heading assignment when the area is 40:1 clear, as
indicated by the lack of an IFR departure procedure.

[Greg Esres]

<<No, it's a vector.>>

Then why does the .65 call it a heading?

---------<snip>--------------
Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.
---------<snip>--------------

If the heading is something that you do until you can be vectored,
then it's not a vector.

[Chip Jones]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<may be flown *without ATC clearance* >>
>
> I said coordination, not clearance.
>
> If the ODP says go to a fix, and climb in a holding pattern, and
> Center already has someone holding there, then you've created a
> problem.
>

I disagree. If ATC launches you IFR and you get with an aircraft holding at
a conflicting IFR altitude, then ATC has had an operational error. The
controller is responsible for deconflicting you from traffic. He/she
created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting traffic unless
they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance.

Chip, ZTL

[Greg Esres]

<<Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors>>

Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
associated at all with any radar facility.

[Greg Esres]

<<He/she created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting
traffic unless they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance.>>

Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?

Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
cooperative spirit?

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
> How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide?

Assuming no DP then as long as you climb in a normal fashion terrain
clearance is not a factor. If there is a DP, like the vector one we
have here at BIL, a minimum climb rate will be listed. I give you the
DP in the clearance and you will be issued a vector on departure.


The heading
> they give you is presumed safe until departure can vector you. How
> long can you fly the heading and be safe? Are there any criteria for
> this?

Yes.


>
> In his "Radar Services Terminated" article, Wally seems to indicate
> that this is a gray area. He apparently only feels 100% comfortable
> with a non-radar heading assignment when the area is 40:1 clear, as
> indicated by the lack of an IFR departure procedure.

There are no nonradar headings. A nonradar tower or approach control
can not, by definition, vector.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?
<<

I do.

If the ODP is something the pilot can do on a clearance given to him, then it
must be protected. That's the point of a clearance.

>>
Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
cooperative spirit?
<<

Maybe. Ideally everyone would be kept informed of everything, but there's only
so much bandwidth. Some airports have radio congestion, some controllers run
more than one radio frequency (so pilots can't hear controller congestion), and
even if ATC is informed that a pilot does NOT INTEND to use an ODP, it must
still be protected, no? Something goes wrong, pilot goes nordo, and then
decides that now, in this case, the ODP is a good idea. There should be no
aluminum in that space.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<No, it's a vector.>>
>
> Then why does the .65 call it a heading?
>
> ---------<snip>--------------
> Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
> departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.

Heading and vector are synonomous.


> ---------<snip>--------------
>
> If the heading is something that you do until you can be vectored,
> then it's not a vector.

Any heading issued by a tower controller is a vector. "N123, fly heading
250, cleared for takeoff." That aircraft just got a vector.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors>>
>
> Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
> associated at all with any radar facility.

Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
they may have the tower give you a vector.

[Greg Esres]

<<Heading and vector are synonomous.>>

<<There are no nonradar headings. A nonradar tower or approach
control can not, by definition, vector.>>

You're contradicting yourself, dude.

Non-radar facilities can, and, do, issue headings, but as you say,
they cannot vector, because they do not have radar.

<<Any heading issued by a tower controller is a vector. >>

As you stated above, a non-radar tower cannot vector, but they can
issue headings.

You're vastly outvoted by other experts in the subject, so I think you
are in error and are dangerously misleading readers, because the
heading assignment by tower is not capable of providing what a vector
provides, which is terrain clearance. Your example of the "No DP"
airport is pointless, because terrain is not an issue when the airport
is 40:1 clear.

[Greg Esres]

<<They are either canned from the LOA with the IFR facility, relayed
verbatim from the IFR facility (4-2-4), or the tower controller is
trained, certified, and delegated the authority by the appropriate
level of management to use the tower radar display to issue them
(3-1-9c).
>>

Exactly. In the first case, the tower is not capable of tracking the
aircraft with respect to obstacles, and therefore cannot provide any
terrain clearance, which is why they can't vector.

However, in the latter instance, where you have a radar tower, they
CAN vector aircraft, if certified to do so.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:41:22 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

>It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
>How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide? The heading
>they give you is presumed safe until departure can vector you. How
>long can you fly the heading and be safe? Are there any criteria for
>this?

Others are answering this question for you better than I.

>
>In his "Radar Services Terminated" article, Wally seems to indicate
>that this is a gray area. He apparently only feels 100% comfortable
>with a non-radar heading assignment when the area is 40:1 clear, as
>indicated by the lack of an IFR departure procedure.

And I would agree with feeling "uncomfortable" because of the poor
application of this area by ATC in certain locations. That's why I've
repeatedly written about being especially alert to vectors that conflict
with ODP's. However, the first of your points to which I take issue was
any requirement to notify ATC that you are flying a published ODP, assuming
it was not given in your clearance and you were not given alternate
routing/altitude restrictions/etc.

The 7110.65 says both that if an ODP is required for separation, it should
be issued by ATC; and also that flying the ODP is at the pilot's
prerogative. There is no requirement to "notify" ATC and they had better
protect the appropriate airspace if they are doing their job correctly.


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

[Snowbird]

Greg Esres > wrote in message >...
> <<He/she created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting
> traffic unless they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance.>>

> Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
> obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
> pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?

Yes. Whether every ATCS understands this responsibility is another
question, and gets one into the old doggerel "here lies the body
of Ernest Grey, he died defending his right-of-way, he was Right,
Dead Right, as he sped along. But he's just as dead now as if
he'd been wrong."

> Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
> pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
> cooperative spirit?

Yes. Especially for the above reason.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Newps > wrote in message news:<mI_ob.83301$e01.270611@attbi_s02>...

> Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors

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

At least they'd better not.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Roy Smith]

Greg Esres > wrote:
> Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
> pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
> cooperative spirit?

I've been reading this thread with somewhat growing alarm at the rate
it's turning into a ****ing contest, but I think Greg hit the nail on
the head here.

Whether or not the controller goofed in reading me my clearance or
listening to my readback, I'm now convinced I goofed too. Since I'm
used to getting the SID and was surprised that I didn't, what I really
should have done was tell the controller, "I'd like a left turnout
direct Carmel". Either he would have come back with "approved as
requested", or "Unable, fly the SID". Either way, we would have all
been on the same page which is always a good thing.

I now return you to the ****ing contest already in progress :-)

[Snowbird]

Greg Esres > wrote in message >...
> <<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
> has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>

> When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
> must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
> followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.

Greg,

Now that I think about it some more, I think the issue is
that some VFR towers (which won't tell you "radar contact")
can relay radar vectors from the radar approach control
which serves them. But sitting on the ground, I have no
way of knowing whether Whatzits Approach meets the criteria
(whatever they are) to provide radar vectors to Podunk Tower.
If I hear "fly heading XXX, intercept the ABC 188 degree
radial" is that a vector or a heading?

Beats me. We've sure gotten headings like that from VFR
towers which I'm pretty durn sure were way too far from
a radar facility to have coverage close to the ground, and
in fact we didn't hear "radar contact" until we were above
3,000 ft. So I don't think they were vectors. They were
headings. OTOH "fly heading XXX" from our local VFR tower
which sits under the STL class B might be vectors. Dunno.

I think the rule has to be, if there's something to hit
and departure instructions don't include the obstacle
DP, Ask.

Cheers,
Sydney

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > And, at a mountain airport, until you reach MVA on departure, even the
> > radar controller and you are in a obstacle-clearance haze.
>
> Mountain airport, non mountain airport it doesn't matter. There is no haze.

Well, how do you determine where the obstacles are below the MVA. Dig out a
sectional chart?

There is a whole lot of haze.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> Greg Esres wrote:
>
> > <<Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors>>
> >
> > Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
> > associated at all with any radar facility.
>
> Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
> clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
> must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
> The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
> the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
> they may have the tower give you a vector.

That is a contradiction in terms. If the tower controller can't see you on
radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
>
> Well it should be the case whenever you receive heading instructions from
> the tower that they either do not conflict with an ODP, or that they have
> been assessed for a DVA. These vectors are below the MVA and a 200 f/nm
> climb rate is assumed unless ATC obtains your concurrence with a higher
> minimum rate of climb.

"Should" is the operative word. DVAs simply do not fit at most mountain area
airports. There wasn't even any DVA criteria until recently in TERPs. But,
those criteria simply don't fit at places like Reno, Salt Lake, and Las Vegas.
200 feet per mile is a fiction unless you are in Omaha. ;-)

>
>
> It has not always been the case in the past. MRY as recently as 1999 was
> one facility where, at that time, they were issuing instructions in
> conflict with an ODP. Specifically they were vectoring folk to the east
> (towards some high mountains). I think this was changed when it was
> pointed out to them.

Would be interesting to know whether it's really changed. They still don't
have the most promint close-in obstacles on their MVA video map and, although,
this has been brought to their attention at Industry/FAA meetings, Air Traffic
Service simply goes into the bunker mode.

>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Snowbird) wrote:

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

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

The tower where I got the clearance that started this all was HPN (White
Plains, NY). It's got a scope in the tower cab and a rotating antenna
on the field, even though the tracon is in a remote location (somewhere
out in Long Island). From a hardware point of view, it's better
equipped than LaGuardia (which has no rotating antenna on the field),
even though HPN is Class D and LGA is Class B.

[Greg Esres]

<<also that flying the ODP is at the pilot's prerogative. There is no
requirement to "notify" ATC and they had better protect the
appropriate airspace if they are doing their job correctly.>>

But it's an open question of what "pilot's prerogative" means. That
doesn't necessarily mean that the route is automatically protected.

The whole reason I called the Sante Fe tower was to get an answer to
this particular question, but as soon as I mentioned the words
"pilot's prerogative", the controller blurted out "yes, but...." and
proceed to tell me about the hypothetical situation I described to
you. But anyway, I assure you that I remember his opinion on the
matter very clearly; the only thing vaguely remembered is the scenario
he set up.

Still, you'd better wait for Bill English or Scott Dunham to respond
to your AVSIG question before you become too confident about what
ATC's responsibility is. I'm interested in their responses too.

[Greg Esres]

<<VFR towers (which won't tell you "radar contact") can relay radar
vectors from the radar approach control which serves them. >>

I can buy the idea of a relayed vector, but the person who provided
the vector still must see you on radar. When the aircraft is sitting
on the ground, approach control can't see it and therefore can't
vector it.


Consider that if you take off with the heading and start to wander
into some obstacle, tower won't be able to do anything about it
(because they won't know) and neither will the approach control until
they get you on radar, which will happen at various altitudes,
depending on where you're departing from.

[Greg Esres]

<<Hmmm, just be make things clear (I hope)...>>

Can you explain what your background is on this subject? I haven't
seen your name before.

<<The vector...originates in...the IFR facility (radar approach
control or center) and is *relayed* to the aircraft by the tower.>>

Nah, that doesn't work for me. The radar facility doesn't have you on
radar either, because you haven't left the ground, so they can't
vector you either.

Again, the most significant way in which this heading differs from a
vector is the lack of obstacle protection. If I have to climb 10,000
feet before radar can see me, who is providing obstacle protection?

[Greg Esres]

<<it's turning into a ****ing contest>>

Maybe, but that's assuming you think it's a distinction without a
difference.

Just as misunderstanding what the term "established" means has killed
some people, so too has the confusion between vectors and no-vectors,
according to many articles I've read.

Sloppy use of the term "vector" can lead to a sloppy understanding of
who is providing terrain separation. The first step is proper use of
the term, IMO.

[Jon Woellhaf]

Roy Smith wrote, "... Whether or not the controller goofed in reading me my
clearance or listening to my readback, I'm now convinced I goofed too. ..."

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

Jon

[Robert Henry]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...


> Consider that if you take off with the heading and start to wander
> into some obstacle, tower won't be able to do anything about it
> (because they won't know) and neither will the approach control

That's where the period goes. Approach may know, but may not be able to do
anything about it.

> until
> they get you on radar, which will happen at various altitudes,
> depending on where you're departing from.
>

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

I believe that there is a HUGE pilot misconception about the level of
assistance for terrain avoidance when departing a towered field.

I have learned to always request and fly ODPs when they exist, no matter
what kind of airport, or weather. It's good practice. I believe that the
same applies for SIDs as a way to reduce the risk of metal to metal contact.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<Heading and vector are synonomous.>>
>
> <<There are no nonradar headings. A nonradar tower or approach
> control can not, by definition, vector.>>
>
> You're contradicting yourself, dude.
>
> Non-radar facilities can, and, do, issue headings, but as you say,
> they cannot vector, because they do not have radar.
>
> <<Any heading issued by a tower controller is a vector. >>
>
> As you stated above, a non-radar tower cannot vector, but they can
> issue headings.

A nonradar facility cannot vector. There aren't very many of them
around anymore. Helena, MT is one of the few left. They are a nonradar
approach control and tower. You will fly the DP and it is a one in and
one out facility. You will never get a vector or a heading from them.
Now if they are a VFR tower, with or without a DBRITE scope, they may
give a vector if the approach control gives the tower the vector with
the IFR release. And of course a tower with radar gives vectors all the
time. As a matter of fact at my facility we have made the tower
controller a radar controller, it let's us use the airspace more
efficiently since we do a lot of opposite direction stuff.


>
> You're vastly outvoted by other experts in the subject, so I think you
> are in error and are dangerously misleading readers, because the
> heading assignment by tower is not capable of providing what a vector
> provides, which is terrain clearance.

If terrain is a factor there will be a DP. Any vector will meet that.
None of this changes the fact that there is no difference between a
vector and a heading, they are synonomous.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<They are either canned from the LOA with the IFR facility, relayed
> verbatim from the IFR facility (4-2-4), or the tower controller is
> trained, certified, and delegated the authority by the appropriate
> level of management to use the tower radar display to issue them
> (3-1-9c).
>
>
> Exactly. In the first case, the tower is not capable of tracking the
> aircraft with respect to obstacles, and therefore cannot provide any
> terrain clearance, which is why they can't vector.

No, many approach control facilities will have an LOA with a tower to
send the departures out on canned headings not for terrain but for
operational needs. Take a busy airspace like Minneapolis. MSP TRACON
will have an LOA with the four towers in their airspace. What they can
do is tell each tower that you can automatically release IFR departures
but they have to be on certain headings, these headings will guarantee
separation from all other IFR traffic in the area. Each faciltiy wins
in this deal. TRACON doesn't have to constantly answer the landline to
issue releases and tower doesn't have to call all the time.

[Newps]

KP wrote:


>
> In the first two instances the departing aircraft is still being vectored.
> The vector (a heading issued to provide radar navigational guidance) is
> being issued (originates in) the IFR facility (radar approach control or
> center) and is *relayed* to the aircraft by the tower. The aircraft may be
> talking to the tower but the initial *vector* is (technically) coming from
> the approach control or center.

Or the tower if the tower is a radar facility. All class B and C towers
are radar facilities. All have automatic release agreements with their
respective approach controls.


>
> In the third instance the tower issues (originates) the vector. Normally
> the tower is delegated a "fan" of headings to use in the LOA. This allows
> them to take advantage of the 15deg divergence rule for succesive or
> simultaneous departures contained in 5-8-3.

Yes.


>
> Whether a tower does or does not have a radar display has no effect on
> whether tower controllers can or cannot *relay* vectors. ANY facility can
> relay IFR clearances/instructions.

Yes.


>
> Just because a tower has a radar display does not mean it can *issue*
> vectors either. That authority is delegated by the IFR facility through
> management channels, is location specific, and operationally unique.

Some VFR towers have a DBRITE scope but are not allowed to vector. It
is the controller equivalent of a VFR GPS. It is for situational
awareness only.

[Newps]

Snowbird wrote:

> Newps > wrote in message news:<mI_ob.83301$e01.270611@attbi_s02>...
>
>
>>Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors
>
>
> Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

Sure they can.

[Newps]

Snowbird wrote:


>
> Now that I think about it some more, I think the issue is
> that some VFR towers (which won't tell you "radar contact")
> can relay radar vectors from the radar approach control
> which serves them. But sitting on the ground, I have no
> way of knowing whether Whatzits Approach meets the criteria
> (whatever they are) to provide radar vectors to Podunk Tower.
> If I hear "fly heading XXX, intercept the ABC 188 degree
> radial" is that a vector or a heading?

Vectors and headings are the same.


> I think the rule has to be, if there's something to hit
> and departure instructions don't include the obstacle
> DP, Ask.

Can't ever go wrong by asking.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And, at a mountain airport, until you reach MVA on departure, even the
>>>radar controller and you are in a obstacle-clearance haze.
>>
>>Mountain airport, non mountain airport it doesn't matter. There is no haze.
>
>
> Well, how do you determine where the obstacles are below the MVA. Dig out a
> sectional chart?

It's all laid out for the controller. Here at BIL we have some TV
antennas that are less than 3 miles from the airport, therefore we have
a vector SID. Everybody gets the SID, which tells you to climb at a
higher than normal rate until leaving a certain altitude. I issue you
that and I get to vector you where ever I want. Every other airport
with obstacles will have a similar procedure, does not matter if you are
in the mountains or not. If the airport is really closed in with
mountains the procedure just becomes more restrictive.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Greg Esres wrote:
>>
>>
>>><<Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
>>>associated at all with any radar facility.
>>
>>Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
>>clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
>>must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
>>The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
>>the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
>>they may have the tower give you a vector.
>
>
> That is a contradiction in terms. If the tower controller can't see you on
> radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading.

If there is no radar in the tower the approach control will assign the
vector. If you get a heading in your takeoff clearance it is a vector.
Period.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> (Snowbird) wrote:
>
>
>>Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
>>is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.
>
>
> Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?

A VFR tower is a tower with no radar at all in the cab or a DBRITE that
has not been certified for separation services. An example of a VFR
tower are all contract and non federal towers. Grand Forks, ND is VFR,
Van Nuys is VFR, etc. Almost all class D towers are VFR.

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:


>
> I can buy the idea of a relayed vector, but the person who provided
> the vector still must see you on radar.

Yes, they have to be able to see you by a certain point after departure
to be allowed to issue vectors in the takeoff clearance.


When the aircraft is sitting
> on the ground, approach control can't see it and therefore can't
> vector it.

Well we can see aircraft on the ground, though that has nothing to do
with anything.


>
>
> Consider that if you take off with the heading and start to wander
> into some obstacle, tower won't be able to do anything about it
> (because they won't know) and neither will the approach control until
> they get you on radar, which will happen at various altitudes,
> depending on where you're departing from.

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

[Newps]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

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

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

[Robert Henry]

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

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

[Newps]

Robert Henry wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02...
>
>> In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the radar
>>facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into
>>anything.
>>
>
>
> Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?

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

[Robert Henry]

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

> >
> > Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?
>
> No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to
fly.
>

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

[Chip Jones]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Snowbird) wrote:
>
> > Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> > is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.
>
> Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?
>

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

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<He/she created their own problem by clearing you into conflicting
> traffic unless they can prove you deviated from your IFR clearance.>>
>
> Do you feel that it's ATC's responsibility to protect the route of the
> obstacle departure procedure, even when it's not included in the
> pilot's clearance and does not lie in his route of flight?

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

>
> Even if it is ATC's responsibility do you not think it prudent of the
> pilot to keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, as part of the
> cooperative spirit?
>

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

Chip, ZTL

[Robert Henry]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Yes. It is my point that the ODP *is* included in an IFR departure
> clearance unless ATC issues explicit alternate departure instructions as
> part of the launch. Should ATC fail to protect for the ODP, the official
> statement on the controller's operational error recert package will likely
> include the sentance: "Primary cause: Controller A procedurally failed to
> maintain vertical separation prior to losing lateral separation."
>
>
> I agree with you. I believe that it can be clearly prudent for the pilot
to
> keep ATC informed of what he intends to do, but within reason. I don't
know
> that it is always reasonable for you to tell ATC that you are going to be
> flying the ODP though. The controller responsible for formulating your
IFR
> clearance is supposed to be a specialist in his/her airspace. He/she
should
> know if an ODP is an option when you depart. If that procedure is a
threat
> to another IFR aircraft, then ATC needs to eliminate the traffic threat
via
> alternate instructions or not clear you. Otherwise, your IFR clearance
is
> flawed (and ATC's fault).
>
> Chip, ZTL

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

fwiw.

[Greg Esres]

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

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

Otherwise, all ok. ;-)

[Greg Esres]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Newps]

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

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<As counter-intuitive as it sounds radar contact isn't required to
> issue an initial vector. >>
>
> The words "initial vector" do not appear in FAAO 7110.65,

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


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

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



That is not supported
> by the .65. The section you cited, 5-8-2 contains the following:
>
> -----------<snip>-----------------
> 5-8-2 Initial Heading
> Before departure, assign the initial heading to be flown if a
> departing aircraft is to be vectored immediately after takeoff.

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


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

All headings given are vectors.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

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

I agree with you and would like to know which ATC facilities feel this way.
The ATC facilities with which I am familiar do NOT feel this way.


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

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
> >I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I
> >experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot
if
> >not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I
think
> >that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I.
>
> I agree with you and would like to know which ATC facilities feel this
way.
> The ATC facilities with which I am familiar do NOT feel this way.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Greg Esres]

<<Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking
about>>

Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you.

<<what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a heading and
a vector. >>

The ability to provide obstacle clearance.

<<And what do you think the difference is to the controller?>>

Depends on the controller, obviously. ;-)

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

So you keep saying, but you offer no evidence.

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

No, airperson said "If the tower controller can't see you on
radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading."

[Greg Esres]

To add some controller input for the position that a heading is not a
vector, here is a post from a controller in another online aviation
forum:

-----------------<snip>-------------------------------
From a radar controllers' perspective, there is no such thing as a
radar vector when in a non radar environemnt, this mean if you don't
hear radar contact first, then any assigned heading prior to those
words does not constitute a vector. A radar vector is course guidance
predicated on radar. Simply by launching from the surface on a
assigned heading must not be construed as a radar vector.

We assign an initial heading to fly from all our towered fields, and
that is all they are, until you hear radar contact and then receive a
subsequent heading. Then and only then is a radar vector in play.
....
my concern here is that many pilots assume that when a heading is
assigned off the ground by a tower controller where there is a surface
area, that it is automatically controller assuming terrain and
obstacle clearance, it is not. The pilot assumes this responsibility
until reaching a minimum IFR altitude or the controller provides a
subsequent heading once airborne whether at or below the Minimum IFR
altitude. The rationale for this is that the 40:1 is reviewed or
there is a ODP for the pilot to fly at his/her perogotive.
-----------------<snip>-------------------------------

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

>
> <<They don't need to. A heading is a vector.>>
>
> So you keep saying, but you offer no evidence.

In two different posts by KP he showed the relavant parts of the .65.


>
> <<Because that's what it means to everybody except you.>>
>
> No, airperson said "If the tower controller can't see you on
> radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading."

That doesn't even make sense.

[Greg Esres]

<<Would you have been happier if I had used the words "radar contact
isn't required to issue the initial heading issued to an aircraft to
provide navigational guidance by radar."? >>

No, because you changed the wording. If it actually said that, you'd
have a better argument, but it says "heading issued FOR THE PURPOSE OF
providing navigational guidance".

This convoluted wording can easily be interpreted to mean that the
heading is to put an aircraft in a position to receive radar vectors,
which requires radar contact. This, in fact, is what I think it
means.

<< A purpose for the heading is not necessary, since pilots operating
in a radar environment associate assigned headings with vectors to
their planned route of flight.>>

Yes, it says pilots ASSOCIATE headings with the vectors which will
come once the aircraft has been radar identified and subsequently
issued a heading. It doesn't say that a heading IS a vector. Big
difference.

<<Please give an example of a heading issued by ATC in a radar
environment that *is not* "issued for the purpose of providing
navigational guidance by radar" and therefore *is not* a vector. >>

If a controller has established radar contact with an aircraft and
then offers a heading, that is a vector.

Until radar contact has been established and a heading issued, the
aircraft is effectively "non-radar". (I don't care much about
aircraft separation....that's your problem.)

<<"Avoid the use?" You mean like when they say "...is to be
vectored>>

Yes, IS TO BE. This is future tense, as in indicated that the
aircraft is not currently being vectored but will be once certain
conditions are met.

<TURN LEFT/RIGHT HEADING (degrees)" and not "TURN LEFT/RIGHT VECTOR
(degrees)>

A vector requires radar contact and a heading assignment, so the use
of the word "heading" in a vector is entirely appropriate, because
he's already been informed of "radar contact."

However, the use of the word heading in 5-8-2 is outside radar contact
and doesn't fall into the defintion of vector.

[Greg Esres]

<<find a distinction where none exists the proper application of these
procedures might make more sense to you :-/>>

The distinction that I have described is made by others who have
considerable air traffic experience, both in the field and at a higher
level.

I posted elsewhere a comment from an active controller, and I'll post
a portion of it again here:

---------------------<snip>-------------------------
....if you don't hear radar contact first, then any assigned heading
prior to those words does not constitute a vector. A radar vector is
course guidance predicated on radar. Simply by launching from the
surface on a assigned heading must not be construed as a radar vector.

We assign an initial heading to fly from all our towered fields, and
that is all they are, until you hear radar contact and then receive a
subsequent heading. Then and only then is a radar vector in play.
....
---------------------<snip>-------------------------

So your accusation that our difference of opinion is due to your
knowledge and my lack of it is in error. If there is at least one
controller that stated what I quoted, there are likely many more. And
I think that what he expressed is more in accordance with the .65 and
other noted authorities than what you posted.

Wally Roberts stated in one of his articles that
---------------------<snip>-------------------------
The controller is permitted to assign a departure heading without it
being for purposes of a vector, or even for a vector where radar
contact won't be established for greater than the typical distance
from the departure runway...It's clear its appplication isn't clearly
understood by anyone, neither controllers nor pilots.
---------------------<snip>-------------------------

The point behind that quote is that even if YOU intend your heading to
be a vector, not every controller will, and therefore the pilot can't
depend on the fact that he's being provided terrain clearance.

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:0Ydpb.87662$Tr4.226083@attbi_s03...
>
>
> Robert Henry wrote:
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > news:UTcpb.88415$e01.290862@attbi_s02...
> >
> >> In order to get a vector off the ground you have to be seen by the
radar
> >>facility within a half mile of the airport. So you can't wander into
> >>anything.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?
>
> No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to
fly.

Huh!!! And all this time I thought a heading was a "heading", and a heading
and altitude instruction was a "vector".

Tom
"We have vectors, Victor!!".

[Fred E. Pate]

I thought that VFR towers (with a DBRITE) could *suggest* headings if you're having a hard time finding the airport or about to collide with traffic but could not assign headings unless, as posted by others, it is a relayed departure vector from the TRACON.

They'd say "suggest 20 degree left turn" or "suggest a right turn to 230."

So what is a non-vector heading anyway? Who gives them? And how do you know when you've gotten one? Do you have examples?

Greg Esres wrote:

>
><<Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking
>about>>
>
>Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you.
>
><<what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a heading and
>a vector. >>
>
>The ability to provide obstacle clearance.
>
><<And what do you think the difference is to the controller?>>
>
>Depends on the controller, obviously. ;-)
>
><<They don't need to. A heading is a vector.>>
>
>So you keep saying, but you offer no evidence.
>
><<Because that's what it means to everybody except you.>>
>
>No, airperson said "If the tower controller can't see you on
>radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading."
>
>

[Chip Jones]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

>
> Huh!!! And all this time I thought a heading was a "heading", and a
heading
> and altitude instruction was a "vector".
>
> Tom
> "We have vectors, Victor!!".
>

Is that ewe out there, Over?

Chip, ZTL

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:05:23 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I spoke with both the tower and the APPCON facility following an issue I
>> >experienced, and both held that an ODP needs to be requested by the pilot
>if
>> >not issued, and will never be recommended/suggested/alluded to/etc. I
>think
>> >that is a deathtrap waiting to happen, but who am I.
>>
>> I agree with you and would like to know which ATC facilities feel this
>way.
>> The ATC facilities with which I am familiar do NOT feel this way.
>>
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>


Robert,

Your response was blank. Both on my ISP and on GOOGLE. I think your
response got dropped. Could you "say again"?

Thanks.


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

[Snowbird]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message news:<C5fpb.9559$Re.3059@lakeread06>...

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

FWIW Robert, was this in US or Canada?

Sydney

[Robert Henry]

> >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:57:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> >> > wrote:
> >>

>
>
> Robert,
>
> Your response was blank. Both on my ISP and on GOOGLE. I think your
> response got dropped. Could you "say again"?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Yeah, I'd rather not. The APPCON controller involved may have received some
"counseling" subsequent to my discussion with the supervisor about the whole
thing. It was east of the Mississippi River, if that helps.

Bob

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:08:09 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>Yeah, I'd rather not. The APPCON controller involved may have received some
>"counseling" subsequent to my discussion with the supervisor about the whole
>thing. It was east of the Mississippi River, if that helps.

If the problem has been taken care of, then fine. However, if the problem
has not been taken care of, then it should be for all of our sakes.

If you don't feel comfortable disclosing it here, please contact someone
who can get the controllers properly trained. Scott Dunham is one such
person. He participates in AVSIG (www.avsig.com) and, if you don't have
it, I can get you an email address for him.

You did say that this was an issue with both tower and TRACON controllers;
and you imply that you are not sure about whether they have been retrained.
Hence my concern about whether this problem will arise in the future to
affect me or someone I care about.




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

[Newps]

Tom S. wrote:

>>>Is "proceed on course, contact departure" a vector?
>>
>>No. That's a VFR tower instruction. A vector is an actual heading to
>
> fly.
>
> Huh!!! And all this time I thought a heading was a "heading", and a heading
> and altitude instruction was a "vector".

Altitude has nothing to do with it. A haeding is a vector and vice versa.

[Newps]

Fred E. Pate wrote:

> I thought that VFR towers (with a DBRITE) could *suggest* headings if you're having a hard time finding the airport or about to collide with traffic but could not assign headings unless, as posted by others, it is a relayed departure vector from the TRACON.

You are correct. Typical phraseology would be "N123 suggest heading 180
for the airport."

>
> So what is a non-vector heading anyway? Who gives them? And how do you know when you've gotten one? Do you have examples?

A controller would use them instead of saying something like "Proceed
direct to the smokestack then the airport will be at yout two o'clock."
They would be used by a VFR tower controller. You know you got one
when the word suggested or similar wording is used. That's how you know
it's optional.

[Greg Esres]

<<So what is a non-vector heading anyway? Who gives them? And how do
you know when you've gotten one? Do you have examples?>>

Any heading assignment that occurs outside of "radar contact". IOW,
any heading assigned by a non-radar tower.

[Greg Esres]

<<Even though you can't point to a single in-context reference>>

Huh? Nowhere in the .65 is the initial heading assignment referred to
as a vector. Such assignments are on occasion given by towers who
have no means of providing obstacle protection, hence they are not
vectors. Simple, eh?

Most of the rest of your post is an effort to establish dominance by
delving into a lot of ATC minutiae that really aren't relevant to the
above point.

[Greg Esres]

<<You cannot point to any other similar procedures in any paragraph of
the IFR or Nonradar chapters nor can you explain how, when, where, or
why these unreferenced procedures would be applied.>>

Because it's irrelevant. The point is that non-radar towers DO issue
headings, even when the aircraft will not immediately vectored after
takeoff. I could speculate on the why, but you're in a better position
to know than I am, if you will acknowledge that it happens.

This is why the distinction between a "vector" and a "heading" is
important.

Whether the initial heading into a DVA is a vector or not is a matter
of semantics. A better description to me is that the heading is an
unpublished ODP. But a pilot receiving a heading can't tell the
difference between one that will provide obstacle protection and one
that won't.

In Wally Roberts article "Radar Services Terminated", he doesn't
directly address the vector vs. not-vector issue, but instead focuses
on the issue about when radar contact will be established. If not
established within one mile, he shows a strong inclination not to
accept any heading that differs from a published DP or SID.

<<There wasn't anything on TV :-(>>

There never is. I haven't watched it in 4 years. I hope you have
better plans for your retirement than watching TV and scanning
newsgroups. ;-)

[Newps]

Greg Esres wrote:

> Because it's irrelevant. The point is that non-radar towers DO issue
> headings, even when the aircraft will not immediately vectored after
> takeoff.

They are one and the same.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Snowbird) wrote:
> >
> > > Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> > > is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.
> >
> > Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar tower"?
> >
>
> Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
> Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
> scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest ATC
> could give you an answer. :-)

I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
classic.

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > (Snowbird) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> > > > is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.
> > >
> > > Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
tower"?
> > >
> >
> > Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
> > Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then again,
> > scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
ATC
> > could give you an answer. :-)
>
> I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
> classic.
>

Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
reports about the hearings and debates.

Chip, ZTL

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (Snowbird) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> > > > > is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.
> > > >
> > > > Is there an official definition of a "VFR tower" or a "non-radar
> tower"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, you could ask the DOT Inspector General or the Federal Aviation
> > > Administrator for an official definition of a VFR tower. Or then
again,
> > > scratch that- they clearly don't know either....maybe Serco or Midwest
> ATC
> > > could give you an answer. :-)
> >
> > I thought the presentation of unicom as VFR tower during the debate was
> > classic.
> >
>
> Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
> reports about the hearings and debates.

It all left me with a warm fuzzy feeling, thinking these were going to put a
finger in the works. :)

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> If the problem has been taken care of, then fine. However, if the problem
> has not been taken care of, then it should be for all of our sakes.

That assumes there is a problem. The way it has been explained to me is
that the rules that apply for departing IFR at a non-towered field apply in
this case, and that operating under the understanding that terrain
separation services are available when departing a towered field (especially
a VFR-only one as in my case) is just a bad one.

So from that perspective, that looks to be the way the system works, not a
system problem. Now, if the controllers here would like to jump in and
correct me, great, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Also, I made some inquiries with some people that know, and I wrote it up
for NASA.

I will also recommend to anyone to plan the departure according to the ODP
and make sure it is requested. Flying the ODP without telling ATC about it
can create separation issues. In this case, the ODP goes right into the
arrival corridor for the field.

[Ron Natalie]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message k.net...

> Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation media
> reports about the hearings and debates.

Or the slightly less popular beta towers.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:30:38 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>That assumes there is a problem. The way it has been explained to me is
>that the rules that apply for departing IFR at a non-towered field apply in
>this case, and that operating under the understanding that terrain
>separation services are available when departing a towered field (especially
>a VFR-only one as in my case) is just a bad one.

I have read and reread this paragraph, and I must confess I don't
understand what you are saying, at least in the context of ATC and ODP's.

If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
what field you are departing from.


>
>So from that perspective, that looks to be the way the system works, not a
>system problem. Now, if the controllers here would like to jump in and
>correct me, great, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Again, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. At least, I don't
understand how you are saying "the system works".

>
>Also, I made some inquiries with some people that know, and I wrote it up
>for NASA.
>
>I will also recommend to anyone to plan the departure according to the ODP
>and make sure it is requested. Flying the ODP without telling ATC about it
>can create separation issues. In this case, the ODP goes right into the
>arrival corridor for the field.

If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
problem.


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

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...

>
> If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
> that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
> alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
> then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
> problem.

Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
ODP was not issued.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:39:57 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
>> that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
>> alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route clear,
>> then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
>> problem.
>
>Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
>ODP was not issued.
>

Weather conditions don't make any difference. Whether they protect the ODP
or not depends on the flight rules under which you are flying. VFR or IFR.

If you were IFR they should have been protecting the ODP, regardless of the
weather conditions. Or they should have given you alternate departure
instructions. If they are not doing this, they need training.




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

[Snowbird]

Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Snowbird) wrote:
> > Um...VFR tower guys (the subject of this subthread
> > is non-radar towers) don't give vectors.

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

I thought so. A VFR tower is one which can not provide separation
services. They have no radar, or a radar (BRITE) which isn't
certified to provide separation. If they issue vectors they are
at the direction of an associated approach control which has to
meet some criteria I don't know about (having to do with how
quickly they can pick up departures on radar).

However, I don't know how NewPS's definition that a heading issued
by a VFR tower is really always a vector actually plays out IRL.
We have definately have headings issued to us by towers where I know
radar contact was over 3000 ft and there was no "suggest" about it.
OTOH we have also had headings given to us outside PC airspace under
VFR where the controller is only supposed to "suggest" headings,
not vector -- "oh, golly, guess I did forget to say 'suggest' ".

So I dunno -- either there are an awful lot of controllers at
VFR towers who have trouble with the word "suggest", or there
are some subtleties to the distinction between heading and
vector. I have no way of knowning.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Chip Jones]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
news:u4Gpb.565$0d2.102@lakeread06...
>
> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > If flying the ODP without telling ATC can create separation issues, then
> > that is NOT how the system should work. If ATC is neither giving you an
> > alternate TERPs checked procedure to fly, nor keeping the ODP route
clear,
> > then they are flat out doing it wrong, and there most certainly IS a
> > problem.
>
> Conditions were clear, night vmc in the mountains with no moonlight. The
> ODP was not issued.
>

When would an ODP ever be specifically issued unless more than one procedure
was available and traffic separation depended on which one you flew? Is the
assignment of an ODP something that if they don't specifically issue it as
part of your IFR clearance, then you can't fly it?

The way it works in my airspace is that I issue you an IFR departure
clearance *after* I deconflict you from other IFR traffic. You fly any
pertinent ODP at your discretion unless I assign something else. You do an
ODP and get with traffic, and I am the guy who screwed up.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> > Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
> > reports about the hearings and debates.
>
> Or the slightly less popular beta towers.
>

LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
for some 8-track capability.

Chip, ZTL

[Newps]

Snowbird wrote:
If they issue vectors they are
> at the direction of an associated approach control which has to
> meet some criteria I don't know about (having to do with how
> quickly they can pick up departures on radar).

This rule applies to all radar facilities. If you want to give vectors
with the takeoff clearance then you have to be able to see departures
within a half mile of the end of the runway. Never a problem when the
radar is on the field, maybe a problem when the radar is across town.


>
> However, I don't know how NewPS's definition that a heading issued
> by a VFR tower is really always a vector actually plays out IRL.

If a VFR tower gives a heading to a departing IFR aircraft that is
always a vector. It's just that it either originated with the approach
control facility when the tower requested the IFR release or if the
tower has a letter of agreement with the approach control to
automatically release IFR departures they may have a pie to relaese
those departures into.


> So I dunno -- either there are an awful lot of controllers at
> VFR towers who have trouble with the word "suggest"

Nope.


, or there
> are some subtleties to the distinction between heading and
> vector.

Nope.

[Newps]

Hey, we're getting a new tower built here, I think it's a DVD.

Chip Jones wrote:

> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
>
> k.net...
>
>>>Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
>
> media
>
>>>reports about the hearings and debates.
>>
>>Or the slightly less popular beta towers.
>>
>
>
> LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
> for some 8-track capability.
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And, at a mountain airport, until you reach MVA on departure, even the
> >>>radar controller and you are in a obstacle-clearance haze.
> >>
> >>Mountain airport, non mountain airport it doesn't matter. There is no haze.
> >
> >
> > Well, how do you determine where the obstacles are below the MVA. Dig out a
> > sectional chart?
>
> It's all laid out for the controller. Here at BIL we have some TV
> antennas that are less than 3 miles from the airport, therefore we have
> a vector SID. Everybody gets the SID, which tells you to climb at a
> higher than normal rate until leaving a certain altitude. I issue you
> that and I get to vector you where ever I want. Every other airport
> with obstacles will have a similar procedure, does not matter if you are
> in the mountains or not. If the airport is really closed in with
> mountains the procedure just becomes more restrictive.

That higher-than-standard climb graident applies to three runways, and only for
about 1,000 feet. Once I reach 4,500 (onl about 1,000 agl) presumably I can climb
at only 200 feet per mile after that. Are you required to keep me within the MVA
sector that overlies the airport until I achieve the altitude of a higher MVA
sector into which you plan to take me?

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:kjPpb.76419$275.204991@attbi_s53...
> Hey, we're getting a new tower built here, I think it's a DVD.

Lemme guess; it's got 60 slots in it, right?


>
> Chip Jones wrote:
> > LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
> > for some 8-track capability.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Greg Esres wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><<Tower guys don't give headings, they give vectors>>
> >>>
> >>>Nonsense. Vectors require radar contact, and lots of towers aren't
> >>>associated at all with any radar facility.
> >>
> >>Vectors do not require radar contact when issued with your takeoff
> >>clearance. There are rules as to how soon after you takeoff that you
> >>must be seen on the radar, otherwise the controller cannot vector you.
> >>The tower itself does not have to have radar to give you a vector. If
> >>the approach control can see aircraft within a half a mile after takeoff
> >>they may have the tower give you a vector.
> >
> >
> > That is a contradiction in terms. If the tower controller can't see you on
> > radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading.
>
> If there is no radar in the tower the approach control will assign the
> vector. If you get a heading in your takeoff clearance it is a vector.
> Period.

That happened to me personally at KMRY a few years ago, taking off to the east
towards the rapidly rising mountains. I had filed the MRY 3 vector SID, which
required a turn to a heading of 315, or so, to fly away from the terrain and over
the ocean.

I was assigned the heading by the tower just after takeoff. I replied, "Is this
for vectors?" Silence. I then said, "I cannot achieve a climb gradient to climb
straight out. Silence. I then said, "I am turning left to a heading of 315 to
follow my filed departure." Then, there were some "ahhs and errrs" and I was
handed off to departure control.

I later learned that the TRACON cannot see you on an east departure until you're
about 1,100 feet, agl, due to the fact the antenna is located several miles away
so it can serve KSNS as well.

I was well aware that the Runway 10 non-radar SID had a climb gradient of 400
feet per mile for almost 4500 feet.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> Greg Esres wrote:
>
> > <<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
> > has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>
> >
> > When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
> > must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
> > followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.
>
> No. A heading issued with a takeoff clearance is a vector.

If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated, the prudent pilot
should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar vectors?"

[Newps]

Chip Jones wrote:

>
> When would an ODP ever be specifically issued unless more than one procedure
> was available and traffic separation depended on which one you flew? Is the
> assignment of an ODP something that if they don't specifically issue it as
> part of your IFR clearance, then you can't fly it?

We have a vector SID here that was created because there are some TV
antennas less than 3 miles SE of the airport that are about 700 feet
above airport elevation. Every IFR aircraft gets the SID even though if
you depart to the west you don't have to have it. If you file NO SID
your take off instructions will be "leaving 4500 fly runway heading(or
some other heading that works for me)." The airport elevation is 3650.

>
> The way it works in my airspace is that I issue you an IFR departure
> clearance *after* I deconflict you from other IFR traffic. You fly any
> pertinent ODP at your discretion unless I assign something else. You do an
> ODP and get with traffic, and I am the guy who screwed up.

The difference at a tower is I can issue you a heading and that vector
will separate you from other traffic.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Radar coverage and "radar contact" have nothing to do with terrain
> clearance, except when above the MVA and a vector is issued. Even then
> there can be errors, so it's wisest to always know position relative
> to terrain.>>
>
> Vectors can be issued below MVA in departures and missed approaches.
>
> Otherwise, all ok. ;-)

And, with the restriction that they must see you at or above the MVA
altitude for an adjacent higher MVA sector before they allow you to enter
that higher MVA sector. It doesn't say that in the 7110.65, though, but
when it was rased at ATPAC by pilot groups, the ATC folks said, "Well,
that is just understood."

But, I have an airspace friend at SCT who says there are truly two camps
within the controller ranks about the restrictions on vectors below MVA.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

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

Which can happen at KMRY only if you'r flying an F-18. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Now I already know you don't have any idea what you're talking
> about>>
>
> Funny, but I was thinking the same thing about you.
>
> <<what you, as a pilot, think the difference is between a heading and
> a vector. >>
>
> The ability to provide obstacle clearance.
>
> <<And what do you think the difference is to the controller?>>
>
> Depends on the controller, obviously. ;-)
>
> <<They don't need to. A heading is a vector.>>
>
> So you keep saying, but you offer no evidence.
>
> <<Because that's what it means to everybody except you.>>
>
> No, airperson said "If the tower controller can't see you on
> radar he cannot vector you. He can only assign a heading."

But, the tower controller issues that heading with the expectation that
the TRACON will cause it to be a vector..eventually.

They managed to muck this up at KMRY for a long time. Whether it's
straightened out today I don't know. I do know they haven't "TERPsed" out
the prominent obstacles they have selectively chosen to display on their
MVA video map.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<find a distinction where none exists the proper application of these
> procedures might make more sense to you :-/>>
>
> The distinction that I have described is made by others who have
> considerable air traffic experience, both in the field and at a higher
> level.
>
> I posted elsewhere a comment from an active controller, and I'll post
> a portion of it again here:
>
> ---------------------<snip>-------------------------
> ...if you don't hear radar contact first, then any assigned heading
> prior to those words does not constitute a vector. A radar vector is
> course guidance predicated on radar. Simply by launching from the
> surface on a assigned heading must not be construed as a radar vector.
>
> We assign an initial heading to fly from all our towered fields, and
> that is all they are, until you hear radar contact and then receive a
> subsequent heading. Then and only then is a radar vector in play.
> ...
> ---------------------<snip>-------------------------
>
> So your accusation that our difference of opinion is due to your
> knowledge and my lack of it is in error. If there is at least one
> controller that stated what I quoted, there are likely many more. And
> I think that what he expressed is more in accordance with the .65 and
> other noted authorities than what you posted.
>
> Wally Roberts stated in one of his articles that
> ---------------------<snip>-------------------------
> The controller is permitted to assign a departure heading without it
> being for purposes of a vector, or even for a vector where radar
> contact won't be established for greater than the typical distance
> from the departure runway...It's clear its appplication isn't clearly
> understood by anyone, neither controllers nor pilots.
> ---------------------<snip>-------------------------
>
> The point behind that quote is that even if YOU intend your heading to
> be a vector, not every controller will, and therefore the pilot can't
> depend on the fact that he's being provided terrain clearance.

He was probably talking about a non-tower airport in Glass G airspace.
Alas, most pilots don't know the difference. Thus, from a pilot
prespective, it is best for self presevation to aks whether a heading
assignment is for radar vectors, unless it is a flat-land airport and the
pilot knows the "fleck" from having operated there a lot.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> Greg Esres wrote:
>
> > It's unclear to me what "on the hook" for obstacle clearance means.
> > How can tower provide what it has no ability to provide?
>
> Assuming no DP then as long as you climb in a normal fashion terrain
> clearance is not a factor. If there is a DP, like the vector one we
> have here at BIL, a minimum climb rate will be listed. I give you the
> DP in the clearance and you will be issued a vector on departure.

There are airports with climb graidents associated with the takeoff mnimums
that do not have DPs.

[[email protected]]

I can't find the message where you mention HLN, which has a non-radar approach
control. I believe you mention there aren't many of those around these days,
which is correct.

And, at a place that does have a tower and a non-radar approach control it's all
pretty well sorted out with full use of IAPs and DPs except when visuals can be
issued or good weather permits hopefully familiar pilots to request VFR climbs.

Then, there are the cases of VFR towers with no approach control of any kind,
such as Jackson, WY. A bit of grey creeps into that picture since ZLC provides
terminal services and has no radar below the mountain tops. Plus, the tower is
part-time so it goes from one shade of grey to another when the tower closes.

This is grey for pilots, not controllers. The Air Force proved that at Jackson.
After that Jackson got a part-time tower but no remoted ASR (unlike MSO).

What is on the increase are RNAV IAPs at Class G (and, in some cases surface
Class E) airports with no tower and with Center providing terminal services
without radar below the mountain peaks. As a matter of policy, ATC pretty well
walks away from terrain clearance at these airports. It's up to the pilot to
ferret out the Obstacle DP, which in some cases will be in apparent conflict with
the initial ATC clearance.

To make it safe and consistent from JFK Airport to BIH Airport, the aviation
community would be far better served if the initial ATC clearance at the BIH-type
airport included the obstacle DP, then onto routing at the terminus of the ODP,
that would tie to the en route phase of the clearance.

Then, let the burden fall on the pilot to say on a clear day or night, "I don't
want the obstacle DP, I request a VFR climb to XYZ VOR."

The system would be safer as a result. And, with the pending rule change that
may come out mandating obstcle DPs unless ATC assigns a vector or SID, then
perhaps we will get there.

BTW, Billings has an easy vector environment compared to many mountain area
airports. You are basically flat landers to the north and east. MSO should have
it so good.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> That higher-than-standard climb graident applies to three runways, and only for
> about 1,000 feet. Once I reach 4,500 (onl about 1,000 agl) presumably I can climb
> at only 200 feet per mile after that. Are you required to keep me within the MVA
> sector that overlies the airport until I achieve the altitude of a higher MVA
> sector into which you plan to take me?

No, if you accept the SID then for all intents and purposes the obstacle
disappears. We vector you normally if you have the SID. Our MVA at the
airport is 5300, however this really doesn't apply to departures because
as long as we don't restrict your climb you are responsible for whatever
minimum climb rates are required.

[Newps]

There are times where the reason does not have to be stated because it
is obvious, that is one of them. Just like when you are told to hold
short of the runway, if it's obvious that there is an aircraft on final
then I don't have to tell you why you are holding short.

wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Greg Esres wrote:
>>
>>
>>><<That's not always the case. And to make matters worse, the pilot
>>>has no way of knowing without direct knowledge.>>
>>>
>>>When would that not be the case? And if it were the case, the pilot
>>>must certainly know. If you don't hear the words "radar contact"
>>>followed by a heading, then you're not being vectored.
>>
>>No. A heading issued with a takeoff clearance is a vector.
>
>
> If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated, the prudent pilot
> should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar vectors?"
>

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> There are times where the reason does not have to be stated because it
> is obvious, that is one of them. Just like when you are told to hold
> short of the runway, if it's obvious that there is an aircraft on final
> then I don't have to tell you why you are holding short.

No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the runway
is because an aircraft is on final. It could be that, it could be a hold by
the departure controller, or it could be a hold for flow control. It's
unimportant to me, because holding short of the runway cannot place me in
harm's way.

If LAX tower tells me to maintain runway heading, I agree that it is to be a
vector. Plus, there is nothing for me to run into for many miles at that
airport.

OTOH, if KMRY tells me to maintain runway heading I have heartburn. It
depends entirely on the location and the circumstances. It is simply not
black and white.

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the runway
> is because an aircraft is on final.

Then you are blind because the aircraft is right there on final. As
opposed to being on base behind you where you can't see, then I have to
tell you why. Or maybe there is an aircraft landing opposite direction.


It could be that, it could be a hold by
> the departure controller, or it could be a hold for flow control.

Then you would have to be told because it isn't obvious.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
>> No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the
>> runway is because an aircraft is on final.

Newps > wrote:
> Then you are blind because the aircraft is right there on final.

There are airports where you can't see final from the hold short line
due to trees. Runway 29 at HPN comes to mind.

That being said, I really don't see any operational difference to me why
I've been asked to hold short.

[Greg Esres]

Airpersoj wrote:<<But, the tower controller issues that heading with
the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
vector..eventually.>>

Ok, I can live with that. ;-) I take it you disagree with the blanket
statement that a heading and vector mean the same thing?

Airpersoj wrote:<<If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
vectors?">>

And if the answer were "No", would you infer that the controller
intended the heading to apply only after flying any DP or is able to
maintain his own obstruction clearance?

Airpersoj wrote: <<He was probably talking about a non-tower airport
in Glass G airspace.>>

Do you not think that departing a non-radar class D airport is an
almost identical situation as departing a class G in regards to that
initial heading assignment?

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>>No, it's not obvious to me that you telling me to hold short of the
>>>runway is because an aircraft is on final.
>
>
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>Then you are blind because the aircraft is right there on final.
>
>
> There are airports where you can't see final from the hold short line
> due to trees. Runway 29 at HPN comes to mind.
>
> That being said, I really don't see any operational difference to me why
> I've been asked to hold short.

Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
difficult than it is.

[Newps]

> Airpersoj wrote:

<<But, the tower controller issues that heading with
> the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
> vector..eventually.>>

What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.


> Airpersoj wrote:<<If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
> the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
> vectors?">>

To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

[Robert Henry]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> When would an ODP ever be specifically issued unless more than one
procedure
> was available and traffic separation depended on which one you flew?

Well, how about if my life depended on flying it?

That's the issue - that it is perfectly fine to depart IFR using visual
terrain avoidance. That ODP's are not specifically
issued/suggested/etc/otherwise to ensure the safest egress from a facility
bordered by mountains; that's just wrong...to me.

The last instruction I received was "proceed on course, contact departure."
That was a left turn to fly the clearance issued routing. The ODP calls for
a right turn. The delta is almost 80 degrees combined - a heading of 140
vice 220.

So, when I contacted the tower later, I asked why a heading of 220 wasn't
mentioned or suggested. Is "proceed on course" really the most appropriate
instruction instead of something like "fly heading 220, contact departure"?
The answer was more or less:

oh no, people make the left turn all the time, maintain there own visual
separation with the terrain, no problem. Why would we suggest a right turn?
Besides, if you turn right according to the ODP and don't tell us, you might
cause an issue with arriving traffic into the pattern (for the VFR tower).
If we're not expecting that by you having made the request, that could be
bad. Oh, but by the way, the military guys always turn right because
they're required to fly the ODP, but we know that and expect it. But the
choice is yours, just tell us, and we'll coordinate that with the APPCON.

Is there a certain percentage of misconception among some pilots that they
might get a bit more help than that when departing IFR from a towered
facility? I think so. I think it might be far safer if the pilot was
required to waive the ODP instead of the other way around. I also think the
instruction to proceed on course is so ambiguous as to be dangerous, but
that's just imho.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>oh no, people make the left turn all the time, maintain there own visual
>separation with the terrain, no problem. Why would we suggest a right turn?
>Besides, if you turn right according to the ODP and don't tell us, you might
>cause an issue with arriving traffic into the pattern (for the VFR tower).
>If we're not expecting that by you having made the request, that could be
>bad. Oh, but by the way, the military guys always turn right because
>they're required to fly the ODP, but we know that and expect it. But the
>choice is yours, just tell us, and we'll coordinate that with the APPCON.

If it's VMC, then it is your responsibility to see and avoid other traffic.
But it is also your perogative to fly the ODP on an IFR departure without
notifying ATC.

As I've said, and which you seem resistant to, that facility needs some
education.


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

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
> isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
> difficult than it is.

"Whatever" says a lot. Your perspective is that of a controller who thinks in
terms of trying to do the job right for eight hours, then split for a beer or
whatever. ;-)

The informed pilot perspective, however, is to act upon the premise of "the
least cost of being wrong" when confronted with an ambiguous situation,
perceived or real. It's called survival.

And, for you to presume I can see the aircraft on final disregards many
possibilities, including perhaps that the weather is 200 and 1/2.~

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> Airpersoj wrote:<<But, the tower controller issues that heading with
> the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
> vector..eventually.>>
>
> Ok, I can live with that. ;-) I take it you disagree with the blanket
> statement that a heading and vector mean the same thing?

I do, unless it is at a place where context resolves any doubt in my mind.

>
>
> Airpersoj wrote:<<If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
> the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
> vectors?">>
>
> And if the answer were "No", would you infer that the controller
> intended the heading to apply only after flying any DP or is able to
> maintain his own obstruction clearance?

I would infer that ATC couldn't care less; that I am solely responsible
for my own obstacle clearance. I would, and have, reply that I am going
to fly the XYZ DP."

>
>
> Airpersoj wrote: <<He was probably talking about a non-tower airport
> in Glass G airspace.>>
>
> Do you not think that departing a non-radar class D airport is an
> almost identical situation as departing a class G in regards to that
> initial heading assignment?

It varies so, that it is probably best to start from the premise that a
Class D airport without radar could provide a departure clearance similar
to what a Center does out of a Class G IFR airport. (Then, there are
Glass G VFR airports where it really becomes a crap shoot ;-) As to the
Class D non-radar airport, it all depends upon the IFR ATC clearance they
issue in the context of the obtacle environment for that airport. Bottom
line: the pilot is *always* the one on the hook, first anf foremost.

To keep the system working, it's the pilot's duty to challenge any ATC
clearance or instruction that is ambigous, but in a cooperative manner
unless urgency is of the utmost importance.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> > Airpersoj wrote:
>
> <<But, the tower controller issues that heading with
> > the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
> > vector..eventually.>>
>
> What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.
>
> > Airpersoj wrote:<<If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
> > the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
> > vectors?">>
>
> To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> > Airpersoj wrote:
>
> <<But, the tower controller issues that heading with
> > the expectation that the TRACON will cause it to be a
> > vector..eventually.>>
>
> What the hell does this mean? A heading issued is a vector.

Ok, let me change "eventually" to "sooner or later." You can't apply the
circumstances at BIL to all airports.

>
>
> > Airpersoj wrote:<<If the term "for radar vectors" has not been stated,
> > the prudent pilot should ask, "Is that heading assignment for radar
> > vectors?">>
>
> To which the controller would immediately put on his kid gloves.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Newps]

wrote:
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Whatever. If it is obvious then I don't have to tell you why. If it
>>isn't obvious then I do, for whatever reason. Don't make it more
>>difficult than it is.
>
>
> "Whatever" says a lot. Your perspective is that of a controller who thinks in
> terms of trying to do the job right for eight hours, then split for a beer or
> whatever. ;-)
>
> The informed pilot perspective, however, is to act upon the premise of "the
> least cost of being wrong" when confronted with an ambiguous situation,
> perceived or real. It's called survival.
>
> And, for you to presume I can see the aircraft on final disregards many
> possibilities, including perhaps that the weather is 200 and 1/2.~

So you do want to make it harder than it is. When you are sitting there
at the end of the runway and there is an airplane on final, no matter
what the conditions, if I know you can see him I don't have to tell you
why I said to hold short. But if it is 200/ and a 1/2 and there's a
plane on a mile final then I will tell you why. Everything is based on
what you can or cannot see. It's also based on your equipment. If you
are an airliner or other aircraft with TCAS I can expand that area
because you can see the aircraft on your display.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:30:38 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
> >That assumes there is a problem. The way it has been explained to me is
> >that the rules that apply for departing IFR at a non-towered field apply in
> >this case, and that operating under the understanding that terrain
> >separation services are available when departing a towered field (especially
> >a VFR-only one as in my case) is just a bad one.
>
> I have read and reread this paragraph, and I must confess I don't
> understand what you are saying, at least in the context of ATC and ODP's.
>
> If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
> what field you are departing from.

Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > > Or "VHF" towers, or "VHS" towers...all of which came up in aviation
media
> > > reports about the hearings and debates.
> >
> > Or the slightly less popular beta towers.
> >
>
> LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could outsource
> for some 8-track capability.

I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't even
bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.
Boeing spent a fortune developing a model to implement DCAC and take
advantage of manufacturing automation, but there was still a nose wheel
collapse on the the first DCAC 747-4xx.

[Newps]

wrote:

> Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
> for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

So are you saying that Center is giving you headings to fly just like a
tower would? I have never seen this.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
> > for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.
>
> So are you saying that Center is giving you headings to fly just like a
> tower would? I have never seen this.

That's never happened to me. But, my experience with center clearances at non-tower
airport has been limited to mountainous area airports. They simply clear me via
airways and say report over XYZ VOR or ACMEE intersection/waypoint. It's up to me to
know I should fly the OPD. I've never had a problem with that but folks like the
USAF crew at KJAC did.

Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting
heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands. Isn't there some
provision in the 7110.65 that permits that "open entering controlled airspace..." or
something to that effect?

[Chip Jones]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
[snipped]
> >
> > LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
outsource
> > for some 8-track capability.
>
> I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
even
> bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.

You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
that you can bust up a tiny labor union? You must be a Republican. That's
the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
employees. Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit, and
profit is what business is all about.

Chip, ZTL

[Roy Smith]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
> works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
> major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And management better watch out if the stockholders get too ****ed off.
The last time the stockholders got really ****ed, King George got a
black eye. Might happen again some day :-)

[Newps]

wrote:

>
> Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of pilots getting
> heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands.

Doesn't matter if the airport is in the mountains or not you should not
ever get a heading at a nontowered airport.


Isn't there some
> provision in the 7110.65 that permits that "open entering controlled airspace..." or
> something to that effect?

Yes, you should receive a clearance that states "upon entering
controlled airspace fly heading xxx." Or "Enter controlled airspace
heading xxx."

[Tom S.]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
> works best when we run it like a business,

Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
flexibility of decision making).

> just like Enron, MCI, or any
> major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).

And those companies tired to run the business like a government.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:



>>
>> If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
>> what field you are departing from.


>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:

>
>Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
>for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

Nor would there be an ODP to fly!


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

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> [snipped]
> > >
> > > LOL. If only that damn union would get out of the way, we could
> outsource
> > > for some 8-track capability.
> >
> > I favor privatization for just that reason, but these "experts" didn't
> even
> > bother to develop a model of the system they want to modify immediately.
>
> You favor privatization of the public National Airspace System simply so
> that you can bust up a tiny labor union?

I want automation that the Federal system has been incapable of delivering.

> You must be a Republican.

The reform of FAA, such that retrofits cease to kill was a Republican
initiative. It is only a few hundred lives a year, but eliminating them put
ATC in the cat bird seat.

> That's
> the best reason they could come up with to justify ATC privatization too,
> since the facts don't lend themselves to any higher motive.

ATC becomming the number two killer in common carrier events after terrorism
helps move the issue forward.

> Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
> works best when we run it like a business, just like Enron, MCI, or any
> major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc). Thanks to the political
> lobbying efforts of persons such as the Federal Aviation Administrator
> herself, we have defeated the evil force of collective bargaining for
> employees.

All aviation is politics.

> Now we can rest assured that any Republican-owned private
> business monopoly winning the low bid on American ATC can turn a profit,
and
> profit is what business is all about.

Many profit from FAA.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
>
> >>
> >> If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
> >> what field you are departing from.
>
> >On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
> >for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.
>
> Nor would there be an ODP to fly!

True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:16:54 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:

> As I've said, and which you seem resistant to, that facility needs some
> education.

Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
are inherently bad.

I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the
overall safety of the system we fly in.

My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that
are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to
cumologranite.

If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>
>
>Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
>are inherently bad.

I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published
procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both
the AIM and the 7110.65
>
>I am not interested in flaming the facility; my interest is in improving the
>overall safety of the system we fly in.

We share that goal. I have no interest in flaming anyone, but I would like
to improve safety by having someone educate that facility so that they do
things the way it's done in the rest of the country.

To have a few facilities implementing IFR departure procedures differently
from the rest of the country is inherently bad. Whether the procedure
needs to be changed or not.

I do not equate education with flaming; and as I mentioned before, I'll be
happy to give you some ATC contacts who can take the ball further in a
proper method.

>
>My position is that ATC should not be issuing instructions - anywhere- that
>are inherently ambiguous and can put airplanes dangerously close to
>cumologranite.

I would agree. But educating ATC in your area that pilots (even if they
are non-military) may, at their prerogative, fly a published ODP is a
different issue. And if a conflict results from that, it will be with
traffic, and not with terrain.

>
>If I read more seconds for your approach, I'll reconsider.
>

I was hoping to convince you by logic rather than a Usenet opinion poll.
It seems I have failed at that. But please think about it and, as I said,
I'd be happy to give you some ATC contacts whose goals are professional,
and not "flaming".


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
>> >> what field you are departing from.
>>
>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
>> >for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.
>>
>> Nor would there be an ODP to fly!
>
>True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
>of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.

Well, then, they wouldn't be able to fly an ODP if there wasn't one there.


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

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:26:30 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Yes, because no amount of training or retraining will fix procedures that
> >are inherently bad.
>
> I see nothing inherently bad in allowing a pilot to use a published
> procedure so as to avoid terrain. The verbiage to allow that is in both
> the AIM and the 7110.65

Agreed, of course. That is not at issue.

The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I
consider that inherently bad.

[Chip Jones]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:B2dqb.114069$Tr4.318941@attbi_s03...
>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Having said all that, I've read here and on other aviation forums of
pilots getting
> > heading assignments out of non-tower airports in the flatlands.
>
> Doesn't matter if the airport is in the mountains or not you should not
> ever get a heading at a nontowered airport.
>

What about at a non-towered airport within a Class E surface area?

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote:
> > Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
> > works best when we run it like a business,
>
> Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
> because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
> flexibility of decision making).
>
> > just like Enron, MCI, or any
> > major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).
>
> And those companies tired to run the business like a government.
>

Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken.

Chip, ZTL

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:24:08 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation. It doesn't matter
> >> >> what field you are departing from.
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:02:30 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been evaluated
> >> >for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.
> >>
> >> Nor would there be an ODP to fly!
> >
> >True enough. But, Murphey's Law being what it is, some might conclude that the lack
> >of an ODP at a VFR airport means diverse departures are approved.
>
> Well, then, they wouldn't be able to fly an ODP if there wasn't one there.
>

I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR
takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching
400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or
takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction
since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:22:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>Agreed, of course. That is not at issue.
>
>The problem was that I was given an instruction to fly into the ground. I
>consider that inherently bad.

And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been trying
to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:19:39 -0800, wrote:

>I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR
>takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching
>400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or
>takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction
>since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them.

That's a different point than what you wrote in response to my comment
about flying ODP's.


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

[Icebound]

Tom S. wrote:
> "Chip Jones" > wrote:
>
>>Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
>>works best when we run it like a business,
>
>
> Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
> because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
> flexibility of decision making).
>
>
>>just like Enron, MCI, or any
>>major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).
>
>
> And those companies tired to run the business like a government.
>
>

Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and
outright deception and fraud.

Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the
shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of
management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as
large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of
budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent
figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what
do you expect?


The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company
you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad
one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which
is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a
private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until
it's too late.

It is easy to continue cutting an agency's budget, because we all "don't
want to pay taxes" and then complain that it is not producing. Then we
invested our "savings" in ENRON. Good deal. It would be an interesting
excercise to see how good an ATC system we might have now if all the
outright stock market fraud losses of the last 10 years had been
re-directed to government agencies instead of invested in the "private
sector".

If the general culture is that people are good, then a government agency
can produce good results just as well as a private one, given the
resources, especially in a monopoly industry such as ATC. If the
general culture is that people are bad, then I would rather have the
accountable, scrutinized agency doing the work, as opposed to a
self-serving, private one.

People are people whether in "private industry" or "government service"
and I can't quite see this idea that the people of one are somehow
"different" or "worse" than the other.

[Tom S.]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote:
> > > Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American
government
> > > works best when we run it like a business,
> >
> > Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
> > because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
> > flexibility of decision making).
> >
> > > just like Enron, MCI, or any
> > > major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).
> >
> > And those companies tired to run the business like a government.
> >
>
> Now that's an interesting point, Tom. :-) Well taken.

Who destroyed those companies? The management? To a great extend, they did;
they tried to run like a bureaucracy. But what really did them in? The
(relatively) free market; they could bribe (see: PAC and campaign
contributions) a few legislators, but they can't fool millions of consumers.

A government can't run like a business (not a limited government), nor can a
business hope to endure when run as a bureaucracy (i.e., a government).

The next time your say government is a hopeless bureaucracy, but glad it is,
because tight rules and restrictions are what a limited government are all
about (not to be confused with Third World governments in which bureaucracy
exists for graft and corruption).

[Tom S.]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> Tom S. wrote:
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote:
> >
> >>Who cares about a system model for what comes next? American government
> >>works best when we run it like a business,
> >
> >
> > Sounds nice, but it's a myth. One can't run a government like a business
> > because the rules are the inverse of one another (bureaucracy vs.
> > flexibility of decision making).
> >
> >
> >>just like Enron, MCI, or any
> >>major airline (say Eastern, Pan Am, TWA etc).
> >
> >
> > And those companies tired to run the business like a government.
> >
> >
>
> Not nearly. There is quite a difference between inefficiency and
> outright deception and fraud.

In that case, it's EXACTLY like government.

>
> Failure to deliver by public agencies is often as much the fault of the
> shareholders' (taxpayers) lack of investment as it is the fault of
> management's incompetence. Government agencies can be as flexible as
> large private companies, if they have some assurance of continuity of
> budget and programs. But if all the management hours have to be spent
> figuring out how to cut as opposed to what and how to deliver, then what
> do you expect?

See my post about LIMITED government. There is no way they can be "flexible"
and legitimate.

[Tom S.]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> The bottom line is that you have little way of knowing if the company
> you choose to run your ATC will operate like a "good" company or a bad
> one... so would you rather have a Government agency screw it up, which
> is at least somewhat under the scrutiny of press and public, or a
> private company screw it up, which can hide its shady dealings until
> it's too late.

Looks like that scrutiny has been such an advantage til now.

One group that WILL NOT stand ofr incompetence is the consumers in a market.
Guess who beat the media and the government to to the punch on Enron, MCI,
etc.

>
[rest of naiveté snipped]

[Icebound]

Tom S. wrote:
>
> ...
>
> One group that WILL NOT stand ofr incompetence is the consumers in a market.
> ...
>
>

Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
controls. I am not sure whether that qualifies as competence/efficiency.

I am not sure that consumers have that much power. They are forced to
operate in an existing infrastructure... infrastructure that is largely
the long-term result of corporate and government policy. There is no
easy way of knowing if it is the most efficient infrastructure or not.

[Roy Smith]

Well, for what it's worth, I called the tower and asked about the
clearance. The tower supervisor I spoke to said they ALWAYS assign the
SID. If the clearance delivery guy didn't read me the SID, he goofed.
If he did but I just didn't hear it, I goofed. If I read it back
without the SID and he didn't correct me, he goofed. One way or
another, if I didn't have the SID written down, somebody goofed
somewhere.

I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

[Tom S.]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
> Tom S. wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > One group that WILL NOT stand ofr incompetence is the consumers in a
market.
> > ...
> >
> >
>
> Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
> competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
> they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
> controls. I am not sure whether that qualifies as competence/efficiency.

And I suppose YOU do make wise choices?


> I am not sure that consumers have that much power. They are forced to
> operate in an existing infrastructure... infrastructure that is largely
> the long-term result of corporate and government policy.

Welcome to reality and prosperity.

> There is no
> easy way of knowing if it is the most efficient infrastructure or not.

Welcome to reality.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:19:39 -0800, wrote:
>
> >I think you're missing my point. There are many IFR airports that have Part 97 IFR
> >takeoff minimums but no ODP because they are 40:1-clear in all directions once reaching
> >400 feet. That is the result of a survey by the feds. There aren't any such surveys or
> >takeoff minimums at VFR airports but some Part 91 pilots don't understand the distinction
> >since takeoff minimums are mandatory for them.
>
> That's a different point than what you wrote in response to my comment
> about flying ODP's.
>
>

It is? Sounds like one, or perhaps both of us, is confused.

I understood you to say that a VFR airport wouldn't have an OPD. True enough. But, many IFR
airports don't have ODPs either. So, the existence of absense of an OPD is not the real clue;
takeoff minimums or lack thereof is the more important clue.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Well, for what it's worth, I called the tower and asked about the
> clearance. The tower supervisor I spoke to said they ALWAYS assign the
> SID. If the clearance delivery guy didn't read me the SID, he goofed.
> If he did but I just didn't hear it, I goofed. If I read it back
> without the SID and he didn't correct me, he goofed. One way or
> another, if I didn't have the SID written down, somebody goofed
> somewhere.
>
> I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
> just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

Moral: Oh so fragile is that 1930's-era AM VHF audio comm link.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:57:50 -0800, wrote:

>It is? Sounds like one, or perhaps both of us, is confused.
>
>I understood you to say that a VFR airport wouldn't have an OPD. True enough. But, many IFR
>airports don't have ODPs either. So, the existence of absense of an OPD is not the real clue;
>takeoff minimums or lack thereof is the more important clue.

My role in this discussion has been to point out that ODP's are safe, and
that ATC must protect the ODP routing for any IFR departure.

In that context, your responses, although accurate, did not relate in my
opinion.

RR: If you fly an ODP, you will have terrain separation.

AP: Assuming it's an IFR airport. If not, then the airspace has not been
evaluated for takeoff minimums and 40:1 surfaces.

RR: Nor would there be an ODP to fly

etc.

Your statement is related to the more general problem of departing in IMC,
but not related to the point that ODP's will provide terrain separation and
should be protected by ATC. ODP's are not the only method of safely
departing an airport in IMC. The method a pilot chooses to use depends on
many variables, including whether or not there is a SIAP; weather; climb
rate of his a/c; rules under which he is flying; company policies; etc.

I don't disagree with anything you've written. And if you had not written
it apparently in response to my statement that flying an ODP provides
terrain separation, we would not even be having this discussion <g>.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:54:25 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Well, for what it's worth, I called the tower and asked about the
>clearance. The tower supervisor I spoke to said they ALWAYS assign the
>SID. If the clearance delivery guy didn't read me the SID, he goofed.
>If he did but I just didn't hear it, I goofed. If I read it back
>without the SID and he didn't correct me, he goofed. One way or
>another, if I didn't have the SID written down, somebody goofed
>somewhere.
>
>I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
>just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

And as of now, the "goof" has resulted in 175 messages in this thread!


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

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
> just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.

Actually it's pretty easy. Most facilities now have several days to
nearly a week of "tapes" on a hard drive, depending on how busy a
facility is. The voice data goes down on the hard drive with no gaps
for dead air. So if you were to call up and provide a time it would be
a simple matter of a few mouse clicks. Plus effective November 1st
all tapes are now being kept for 45 days instead of 15.

[Newps]

> "Icebound" > wrote in message

>>Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
>>competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
>>they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
>>controls.

That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> And if the tower folk were properly trained, which is what I've been
trying
> to get you to contribute to, you would not have received that instruction.

Well, I think it comes down to philosophy. I think it's just as much a
pilot training issue. The instruction was terrible, but
technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish.

I now know what I can do to additionally ensure the safety of any flight I
undertake, which is to always depart IFR using an ODP when available. That
removes the controller training level from the risk equation.

Tangentially, here are a couple of other 'best practices' (or personal
minimums) to avoid other safety traps I've noticed.

1) Never cancel IFR until a landing is assured (i.e., after landing), or
airport/nearby activity is enough that an unsuccessful approach will be
immediately noticed. (Credit to United Airlines: learned while listening to
channel 9 landing in a severely remote area late at night).

2) Decline visual approaches at night.

[Robert Henry]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:2rEqb.131847$HS4.1048024@attbi_s01...
>
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I imagine we could have pulled the tapes and listend to them, but it
> > just didn't seem worthwhile going to that trouble.
>
> Actually it's pretty easy. Most facilities now have several days to
> nearly a week of "tapes" on a hard drive, depending on how busy a
> facility is. The voice data goes down on the hard drive with no gaps
> for dead air. So if you were to call up and provide a time it would be
> a simple matter of a few mouse clicks. Plus effective November 1st
> all tapes are now being kept for 45 days instead of 15.
>

A speaker from PCT mentioned the hard drive use for storing the comm. It's
nice to know that it's more prevalent than just being in the newest of
facilities.

[Icebound]

Newps wrote:
>
>
>
>> "Icebound" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
>>> competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost. Hence
>>> they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
>>> controls.
>>
>
> That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
> a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
> we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.
>

Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
activists and scientists.

When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
"emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.







--
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--- Serenity Prayer

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:CsEqb.131854$HS4.1048032@attbi_s01...
>
> That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
> a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
> we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.

People stopped buying detergents with Phosphates long before the government
banned them.

Are these the same consumers that leave fast food wrappers and other trash
blowing around?

[Tom S.]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
ogers.com...
> Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>> Consumers do not make wise choices. They do not care a damn about
> >>> competance at all... They care about the lowest short-term cost.
Hence
> >>> they opt for the 2-dollar-per-day offshore wages and no pollution
> >>> controls.
> >>
> >
> > That's ridiculous. If consumers didn't care about $2 wages we wouldn't
> > a minimum wage law. If consumers didn't care about clean air/water/etc
> > we wouldn't have all these pollution control laws.
> >
>
> Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
> initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
> activists and scientists.

Cite?

>
> When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
> certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
> "emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
> environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.

Cite?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>The instruction was terrible, but
>technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish

>That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.


I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
pilots who do things by the book.


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

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
> >The instruction was terrible, but
> >technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish
>
> >That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.
>
>
> I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
> departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
> pilots who do things by the book.

No, sorry for the confusion. In the discussions that followed, the tower
suggested that I inform them of my intentions to fly the ODP (which is
similar to the circumstances originating this thread, right?), so that they
could coordinate better. The implication was that in vmc RAPCON could
vector arriving aircraft on the visual approach further away from the ODP so
that there would not be a head to head situation. There was nothing to
imply that the ODP was not being protected.

Now, it is my position that the safer procedure would be for the tower to
automatically issue departure heading instructions that are consistent with
the ODP. I think we agree on that. (Frankly, I know now that my error was
in expecting this to happen - AGAIN, a misconception (that I believe
non-scientifically could be fairly common about the level of service one can
expect at a towered airport in a radar environment on an IFR flight plan.)
Now, when the pilot contacts departure, he can say, "...can we get on
course?" Departure can say, "radar contact, but I cannot turn you on course
until you reach MVA." If conditions warrant, the pilot can come back and
say, "We will maintain our own terrain clearance, request on course." All
things being equal, that could be approved as requested with an instruction
to maintain visual terrain clearance.

[Newps]

Icebound wrote:

> Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
> initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
> activists and scientists.

Nope, sorry. A few tree huggers don't have the political power
necessary to force down all these changes.

[Icebound]

Tom S. wrote:
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ogers.com...

>
>
>>When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
>>certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
>>"emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
>>environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.
>
>
> Cite?
>
>

From the business pages:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

or

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C34921976

some quotes:

"And so the giant Electronic Data Systems Corp., founded by Ross Perot
but no longer run by that noisy patriot, now recruits $1.25-an-hour tech
workers in India and sheds their $10-an-hour counterparts in EDS's home
state of Texas.

Wall Street brokerages including Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. are shifting from New York to India the ground-floor stock-research
jobs that traditionally lead to plum analyst assignments. Both India and
China are already well-known to recruiters from Intel Corp. and
Microsoft Corp.

Levi Strauss & Co. has just announced the closing of its remaining four
North American plants, including three in Canada, and will shift all
production to Asia and Latin America."

[Tom S.]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:8yOqb.99886$275.275845@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Icebound wrote:
>
> > Those things didn't come from consumers. They came grudgingly at the
> > initiative of slightly progressive politicians under pressure from
> > activists and scientists.
>
> Nope, sorry. A few tree huggers don't have the political power
> necessary to force down all these changes.

Bull! See the fires in California last couple of weeks, as well as the
Yellowstone fire a few years back, the fires in Colorado and Arizona last
year...

These are the same "progressives" that cleaned up the air and water
everywhere but in the areas they control themselves. The same ones that
Rachel Carlson gave the impetus to that still kills tens of millions a year.

[Tom S.]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> Tom S. wrote:
> > "Icebound" > wrote in message
> > ogers.com...
>
> >
> >
> >>When those same wage-earners become Consumers, they continue to buy from
> >>certain large, dominant chains who have tons of suppliers in the
> >>"emerging-economy" countries with questionable human rights and
> >>environmental records and low wages, but thats a whole other NG.
> >
> >
> > Cite?
> >
> >
>
> From the business pages:
>
>
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?>pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

What a joke! Now that's funny!!!

When you learn something other than what they shoved down your face in
school, we'll discuss it.

One person asked if someone was listening to talk radio, I guess this guy is
listening to NPR!

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom S." > wrote in message ...
>

> >
> > From the business pages:
> >
> >
>
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?>pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

A spurious > appears in the above:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1066428608401&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:45:18 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:45:15 -0500, "Robert Henry"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >The instruction was terrible, but
>> >technically/procedurally correct as far as I have been able to establish
>>
>> >That removes the controller training level from the risk equation.
>>
>>
>> I thought you said that ATC was not protecting the ODP for an IFR
>> departure. If so, there is an ATC training issue that will affect other
>> pilots who do things by the book.
>
>No, sorry for the confusion. In the discussions that followed, the tower
>suggested that I inform them of my intentions to fly the ODP (which is
>similar to the circumstances originating this thread, right?), so that they
>could coordinate better. The implication was that in vmc RAPCON could
>vector arriving aircraft on the visual approach further away from the ODP so
>that there would not be a head to head situation. There was nothing to
>imply that the ODP was not being protected.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the ODP is being protected, then a
conflict will not arise. If a "head to head situation" arises, then the
ODP was not being protected.

Also, you previously wrote that "both held that an ODP needs to be
requested by the pilot if not issued"

That is just not the case. An ODP never needs to be requested by the
pilot. The pilot may fly it at his prerogative, unless alternate departure
instructions have been received from ATC.

>
>Now, it is my position that the safer procedure would be for the tower to
>automatically issue departure heading instructions that are consistent with
>the ODP.

It should be the case that any departure instructions issued by the tower
are either consistent with the ODP *OR* with taking you over an area that
is 40:1 clear. In some circumstances (although generally not a towered
field), ATC is *required* to obtain pilot agreement to fly certain
departure routes.



>I think we agree on that. (Frankly, I know now that my error was
>in expecting this to happen - AGAIN, a misconception (that I believe
>non-scientifically could be fairly common about the level of service one can
>expect at a towered airport in a radar environment on an IFR flight plan.)
>Now, when the pilot contacts departure, he can say, "...can we get on
>course?" Departure can say, "radar contact, but I cannot turn you on course
>until you reach MVA." If conditions warrant, the pilot can come back and
>say, "We will maintain our own terrain clearance, request on course." All
>things being equal, that could be approved as requested with an instruction
>to maintain visual terrain clearance.
>
>
>

Approach control should NOT give you vectors below the MVA/MIA (with rare
exceptions as noted above).

However, if you say "...can we get on course?", ATC could certainly say
"Proceed on course". They have not given you a vector, and you are still
responsible for terrain clearance.

If you say to ATC, "We'd like to ..." ATC will generally assume that you
feel it is safe and legal for you to do so and that you are able to do so.
Whether they allow it or not usually depends on factors other than terrain.
Some of these factors include traffic and LOA's between facilities that may
require you to be in a certain spot.


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

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> That doesn't make sense to me. If the ODP is being protected, then a
> conflict will not arise. If a "head to head situation" arises, then the
> ODP was not being protected.

Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What
protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to
either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA.
Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no
approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft
or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
protect.

>
> Also, you previously wrote that "both held that an ODP needs to be
> requested by the pilot if not issued"
>
> That is just not the case. An ODP never needs to be requested by the
> pilot. The pilot may fly it at his prerogative, unless alternate
departure
> instructions have been received from ATC.

True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I
would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more
smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have
requested it, even though it's not required.

>
>
> Approach control should NOT give you vectors below the MVA/MIA (with rare
> exceptions as noted above).
>
> However, if you say "...can we get on course?", ATC could certainly say
> "Proceed on course". They have not given you a vector, and you are still
> responsible for terrain clearance.
>
> If you say to ATC, "We'd like to ..." ATC will generally assume that you
> feel it is safe and legal for you to do so and that you are able to do so.
> Whether they allow it or not usually depends on factors other than
terrain.
> Some of these factors include traffic and LOA's between facilities that
may
> require you to be in a certain spot.

Absolutely, and until ATC and you concur on that course of action, I think
proceeding according to the ODP is the ideal strategy to reach the enroute
system.

[Newps]

Robert Henry wrote:

> Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
> aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point? What
> protection would be provided? Radar services are not being provided to
> either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA.
> Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case, but there are no
> approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft
> or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
> protect.

IFR aircraft are always provided separation from each other until
touchdown, the type of airspace does not matter. The fact that one
aircraft is inside some kind of ring or below the MVA is not relavant.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
>aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point?

ATC is responsible for providing separation between IFR aircraft. IFR
refers to the RULES under which the aircraft are flying and NOT to the
weather conditions.

>What protection would be provided?

Separation from other IFR traffic.

> Radar services are not being provided to
>either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below MVA.

I don't know what you mean by "the ring". But since when are radar
services required for IFR traffic separation? Radar allows for less
separation, but non-radar IFR regulations have been around for a long time.

>Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case

Why and how?

(Unless *both* aircraft report traffic in sight, and consent to "maintain
visual separation")


>no approaches that traverse this ODP, so there would be no truly VFR aircraft
>or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
>protect.

But you are implying that they are NOT protecting this airspace unless the
pilot specifically requests an ODP (something he is NOT required to do)
when you talk about the possibility of "head to head" encounters.


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

[Snowbird]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message news:<rIZqb.402$5e.280@lakeread06>...

> Inside Class D, below MVA, for a visual approach in vmc? Aren't both
> aircraft VFR for the purposes of collision avoidance at this point?

No. IFR separation rules still apply.

Aircraft operating under IFR in VMC must still be separated.
They are not separated from aircraft operating VFR in VMC.

> What protection would be provided?

IFR separation should still be provided

> Radar services are not being provided to
> either aircraft along the ODP

If radar services can not be provided then the aircraft should
be separated under non-radar rules.

> True. I think I overstated that. The idea was that they would hope that I
> would tell them of my intentions to fly the ODP to make things go more
> smoothly for all involved. I took this to mean that I really should have
> requested it, even though it's not required.

Getting back to the original topic in the thread, it's clear
that it's helpful to inform ATC of one's intentions.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Robert Henry]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:48:42 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> > wrote:
>
>
> ATC is responsible for providing separation between IFR aircraft. IFR
> refers to the RULES under which the aircraft are flying and NOT to the
> weather conditions.

Yes, but see and avoid applies to IFR also. I can now see that there is more
to it than that.
>
> >What protection would be provided?
>
> Separation from other IFR traffic.

Sure, as long as the arrival remains IFR. If the arriving aircraft is
cleared for the visual, the departing aircraft is probably not going to be
released, and if the departing aircraft is released, the arriving aircraft
is probably going to be given delaying / spacing vectors. If the arriving
aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's different.
Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft
proceeds west according to the ODP, then what?

>
> > Radar services are not being provided to
> >either aircraft along the ODP since both are inside the ring and below
MVA.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "the ring". But since when are radar
> services required for IFR traffic separation? Radar allows for less
> separation, but non-radar IFR regulations have been around for a long
time.
>
> >Now if it were IMC, that would be a different case
>
> Why and how?

because... there are no approaches that traverse this ODP, so in IMC there
would be no truly VFR aircraft (we hope ;) )
> >or IFR aircraft on visual approaches in that space; it's pretty easy to
> >protect.

> (Unless *both* aircraft report traffic in sight, and consent to "maintain
> visual separation")
> >>
> But you are implying that they are NOT protecting this airspace unless the
> pilot specifically requests an ODP (something he is NOT required to do)
> when you talk about the possibility of "head to head" encounters.

No, the tower is saying, we don't know what you are going to do, so it'd be
nice if you would tell us. Are you saying that the tower is responsible for
protecting the ODP? I don't believe that's the case, else they wouldn't
have to request a release.

That said, I totally agree that since there is clearly ambiguity (tower
thought: let's see, the aircraft has an easterly flight plan, but the ODP is
westerly...I wonder which way he is going to turn after departure since he
might be able to outfly the terrain over there visually?), I think the tower
would be well advised to clarify. Instead, they have clearly stated that the
pilot can do what he wants (just like you say - pilot prerogative), and
they'll figure it out/react/respond accordingly.

So as Sydney notes, it would be best to state intentions, but that would not
have made any difference if I had hit the ground less than 3 minutes after
departure. That's what I would like to prevent from happening to someone
else. Let's get back to that.

Bob

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:21:53 -0500, "Robert Henry"
> wrote:

>If the arriving
>aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's different.

Yes it is, but that wasn't the situation you initially described. In my
experience, it is unusual for an aircraft to cancel IFR when arriving at a
towered field.

Does that happen frequently at your field?

>Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft
>proceeds west according to the ODP, then what?

If the a/c is departing IFR, with no particular alternate departure
instructions, the tower should expect that the aircraft will fly the ODP.
Again, if the tower is NOT expecting the IFR departure to fly the ODP, then
they need proper training.

In any event, I would expect that the tower would clear arriving VFR
aircraft to enter the pattern in such a way as to not conflict with
departing traffic.

At towered airports where I have operated, in a situation similar to what
you are now describing, the tower will usually issue advisories to both
aircraft. It sure has not been unusual for me to depart an airport in VMC
and have traffic arriving from many directions.


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

[Newps]

Robert Henry wrote:

> Sure, as long as the arrival remains IFR. If the arriving aircraft is
> cleared for the visual, the departing aircraft is probably not going to be
> released,

Probably? I guarantee it, unless someone provides visual separation.


If the arriving
> aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's different.
> Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft
> proceeds west according to the ODP, then what?

Well, since he cancelled IFR it doesn't matter.


> No, the tower is saying, we don't know what you are going to do, so it'd be
> nice if you would tell us. Are you saying that the tower is responsible for
> protecting the ODP? I don't believe that's the case, else they wouldn't
> have to request a release.

The fact that a tower has to request a release has nothing to do with
the ODP. That is simply what the tower and their approach control have
worked out. I worked in the flatlands of North Dakota for a while, we
had to get a release for every IFR departure.

[Robert Henry]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:thfrb.147219$HS4.1197781@attbi_s01...
>
>
> Robert Henry wrote:
>
> > Sure, as long as the arrival remains IFR. If the arriving aircraft is
> > cleared for the visual, the departing aircraft is probably not going to
be
> > released,
>
> Probably? I guarantee it, unless someone provides visual separation.

So it, possible, but most unlikely? Isn't that probably not.

> If the arriving
> > aircraft cancels IFR and proceeds direct to the field...that's
different.
> > Now, if the tower was expecting an easterly departure, and the aircraft
> > proceeds west according to the ODP, then what?
>
> Well, since he cancelled IFR it doesn't matter.

Well, it would be nice if it did, too. It remains my hope that a midair in
Class D airspace because the inbound aircraft was instructed (verbally or
through omission of other instructions) to continue, and the outbound
aircraft was proceeding on the inverse (ODP) heading is not going to be a
career enhancing incident for the tower. In other words, "How did you not
know that the departing aircarft was flying the ODP."

>
>
> > No, the tower is saying, we don't know what you are going to do, so it'd
be
> > nice if you would tell us. Are you saying that the tower is responsible
for
> > protecting the ODP? I don't believe that's the case, else they wouldn't
> > have to request a release.
>
> The fact that a tower has to request a release has nothing to do with
> the ODP. That is simply what the tower and their approach control have
> worked out. I worked in the flatlands of North Dakota for a while, we
> had to get a release for every IFR departure.

Is it safe to conclude that if an aircraft departs IFR without a release
that the ODP may not be protected at that time? I am certain there is a
relationship, even if there are 100+ better reasons that most SOPs/LOAs
require a coordinated release before departure.

[Newps]

Robert Henry wrote:

>>Well, since he cancelled IFR it doesn't matter.
>
>
> Well, it would be nice if it did, too. It remains my hope that a midair in
> Class D airspace because the inbound aircraft was instructed (verbally or
> through omission of other instructions) to continue, and the outbound
> aircraft was proceeding on the inverse (ODP) heading is not going to be a
> career enhancing incident for the tower. In other words, "How did you not
> know that the departing aircarft was flying the ODP."

But he cancelled, so the tower controller is under no obligation to do
anything. When I worked at the VFR tower we would simply say "traffic
is one Cessna inbound from the NE, freq change approved."


> Is it safe to conclude that if an aircraft departs IFR without a release
> that the ODP may not be protected at that time?

Sure, it may also be littered with VFR aircraft going the same direction.


I am certain there is a
> relationship, even if there are 100+ better reasons that most SOPs/LOAs
> require a coordinated release before departure.

All towers have an LOA with their approach control on how they will
handle IFR traffic. Some class D's will have automatic releases on a
few headings or within a pie. The pie will be some wedge fanning out
from the departure end encompassing about 60 degrees. Most class D's
will have to call for each release. Likewise the approach control will
be required to inform the tower of each inbound and turn over comm by a
certain point. Now if all IFR aircraft will be flying a certain same
exact procedure then what you have is essentially nonradar airspace.
When that happens there will only be one aircraft in the area at a time,
whether that is a departure or an arrival.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN -> HFD (White
> Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
> "radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".
>

Unless they made some major changes to the airway structure in the northeast
recently, V1 does not go to HFD from CMK, V3 does.


>
> Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
> but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
> without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
> went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
> sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
> fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
> with a shorter routing.
>
> We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
> almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
> me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
> asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.
>

Sounds like you were departing RWY 16, what vector did they issue prior to
takeoff?


>
> So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
> DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
> was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
> didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?
>

Well, somebody goofed. Can't say for sure who it was without knowledge of
standard procedures or hearing the tapes. You say it's unusual to not be
issued the Westchester One departure, but you read the clearance back as
issued and clearance delivery said it was correct. But since the clearance
was "radar vectors Carmel" a heading should have been issued with the
takeoff clearance. Was it? If one was not, and you weren't issued the
departure procedure, you shoul have known something was amiss before taking
the runway.

[Ginny]

Had a strange thing happen to me today. I filed IFR HPN - HFD (White
Plains NY to Hartford CT). The route part of my clearance came back
"radar vectors Carmel[VOR], V1, Hartford[VOR], Direct".

Usually out of HPN I would expect to get the Westchester-1 departure,
but it wasn't in my clearance, and I when I read back the clearance
without it, I got "readback correct". Seemed a little strange, but I
went with the flow (I should have asked for clarification, I'm not
sure why I didn't). The turn in the SID took us away from our first
fix, so I guess I figured they were just doing us a favor or something
with a shorter routing.

We took off and I started climbing straight out. The HPN-1 has an
almost 180-degree turn almost immediately. The guy I was with asked
me why I wasn't making the turn and I said we weren't on the SID. I
asked tower and they said I should be on the SID.

So, what went wrong? Did I goof? Am I supposed to fly the SID (not a
DP) even though it's not in the clearance? Is it more likely that it
was in the clearance but I just didn't hear it and the controller
didn't notice that it wasn't in the readback?

As I understand, you get climb out instruction from approach unit before departure (if it's not included in the ATC clearance). That climb out instruction can be or cannot be SID. In anyway, you just follow it. I think htere could be some misunderstanding between tower and approach controllers. So if there happen to be something unclear, pilot need to make sure with ATC unit. We never assume anything.