What initiates the creation of a DP?

[Dave Jacobowitz]

I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
file /G or /A.

This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
(It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)

In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
would say "let's publish a DP!"

So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
hand-rolled departure clearance?

Just curious.

If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)


-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[J Haggerty]

Actually, PAO does have a DP;
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp
PALO ALTO, CA
PALO ALTO AIRPORT OF
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 13, turn left.
Rwy 31, turn right. All aircraft climb direct SJC VOR/
DME before proceeding on course.

FAA/AVN must evaluate all airports with instrument approaches to confirm
there are no obstacles that would prevent a diverse departure. If those
obstacles are found, then they (AVN) have to publish a climb gradient
and ceiling/visibility or publish a DP that will allow avoiding the
obstacles without a climb gradient.
Aside from the obstacle avoidance DPs created by AVN, if ATC had enough
traffic that they thought a textual or graphic DP was needed, then they
would request it through AVN.
Normally an obstacle DP will contain an altitude where the DP ends and
random flight can resume, although a published altitude would not be
needed if the altitude you reach at SJC VOR based on 200' per NM allows
diverse flight from that point.
ATC is allowed to vector you on departure as long as they keep you clear
of any prominent obstacles depicted on their scopes, if I recall correctly.
So, to answer your question, Standard Instrument Departure procedures
are normally created at the request of ATC if they feel they need one.
There are some costs involved, particularly the man hours needed to
build it, evaluate it and flight check it, plus the publication costs,
and periodic review costs.

JPH

Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> file /G or /A.
>
> This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
> (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
>
> In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
> frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
> would say "let's publish a DP!"
>
> So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
> money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
> hand-rolled departure clearance?
>
> Just curious.
>
> If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
> Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
>
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[[email protected]]

Are you aware that Palo Alto has an obstacle departure procedure (ODP)?
It goes to San Jose VOR off both runways.

But, you normally received vectors out over the bay because of the
critical proximity of Palo Alto to San Francisco International, San Jose,
Oakland, and Hayward Airports.

Radar vectors are often provided at busy radar terminal areas instead of
using ODPs.

There would be no useful purpose for a SID (different than an ODP) out of
Palo Alto because of the nature of the airspace.

Dave Jacobowitz wrote:

> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> file /G or /A.
>
> This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
> (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
>
> In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
> frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
> would say "let's publish a DP!"
>
> So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
> money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
> hand-rolled departure clearance?
>
> Just curious.
>
> If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
> Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Dave Jacobowitz]

Ah, I see. I was under the misguided belief that one of the reasons that
published DPs existed was to save a little time by shortening a clearance
that frequently starts off with a "de-facto" DP. (The fact is, whether or
not it is official, ATC will start you out of certain aerodromes the same
way every time, no matter what you file.).

This assumption was in part from backtracking the fact that if you put "no
DPs no STARs" in your flight plan, you will pretty much still get them, but
they'll be forced to read the whole thing out to you rather than just saying
the name; so in that sense the pubished DP becomes merely ATC shorthand for
what they want you to do.

I see the logic of my ways.

> There would be no useful purpose for a SID (different than an ODP) out of
> Palo Alto because of the nature of the airspace.

But a SID can include radar vectors, no? For example, from the San Jose
Loupe 1:

"TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 29, 30L/R: Climb runway heading at SJC 1.8 DME northwest
of SJC VOR/DME turn right heading 120^, maintain 5000, for radar vectors to
SJC VOR/DME, then via SJC R-339 to DYBLO INT, Thence...."

> But, you normally received vectors out over the bay because of the
> critical proximity of Palo Alto to San Francisco International, San Jose,
> Oakland, and Hayward Airports.

By the way, I see vectors that take me to V334 somewhere between SJC vor and
SUNOL intersection. So far, every time.

-- dave j


>
> Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
>> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
>> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
>> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
>> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
>> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
>> file /G or /A.
>>
>> This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
>> (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
>>
>> In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
>> frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
>> would say "let's publish a DP!"
>>
>> So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
>> money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
>> hand-rolled departure clearance?
>>
>> Just curious.
>>
>> If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
>> Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
>>
>> -- dave j
>> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
>

[Dave Jacobowitz]

> I see the logic of my ways.

broken logic, I mean.

-- dj

[[email protected]]

Sure, a SID (they don't call them DPs any longer) can include vectors. In fact,
that is one of the major classification of SIDs; i.e., vector SIDs and pilot-nav
SIDs.

If it was to NorCal's advantage to have a vector SID at Palo Alto, there would
be one.

Dave Jacobowitz wrote:

> Ah, I see. I was under the misguided belief that one of the reasons that
> published DPs existed was to save a little time by shortening a clearance
> that frequently starts off with a "de-facto" DP. (The fact is, whether or
> not it is official, ATC will start you out of certain aerodromes the same
> way every time, no matter what you file.).
>
> This assumption was in part from backtracking the fact that if you put "no
> DPs no STARs" in your flight plan, you will pretty much still get them, but
> they'll be forced to read the whole thing out to you rather than just saying
> the name; so in that sense the pubished DP becomes merely ATC shorthand for
> what they want you to do.
>
> I see the logic of my ways.
>
> > There would be no useful purpose for a SID (different than an ODP) out of
> > Palo Alto because of the nature of the airspace.
>
> But a SID can include radar vectors, no? For example, from the San Jose
> Loupe 1:
>
> "TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 29, 30L/R: Climb runway heading at SJC 1.8 DME northwest
> of SJC VOR/DME turn right heading 120^, maintain 5000, for radar vectors to
> SJC VOR/DME, then via SJC R-339 to DYBLO INT, Thence...."
>
> > But, you normally received vectors out over the bay because of the
> > critical proximity of Palo Alto to San Francisco International, San Jose,
> > Oakland, and Hayward Airports.
>
> By the way, I see vectors that take me to V334 somewhere between SJC vor and
> SUNOL intersection. So far, every time.
>
> -- dave j
>
> >
> > Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> >> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> >> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> >> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> >> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> >> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> >> file /G or /A.
> >>
> >> This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
> >> (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
> >>
> >> In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
> >> frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
> >> would say "let's publish a DP!"
> >>
> >> So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
> >> money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
> >> hand-rolled departure clearance?
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >>
> >> If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
> >> Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
> >>
> >> -- dave j
> >> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
> >

[jharper aaatttt cisco dddooottt com]

I've often wondered the same thing (as a PAO pilot).
But flying north (e.g. to Santa Rosa) I generally get
a different clearance. Can't remember offhand, it's
something like, runway heading, vectors Sausalito.
Generally ends up going directly overhead SFO at about 5000'.
I've also had something different when flying to
Napa, which took me up towards Oakland.

And an interesting one the other day, IFR to San Luis.
I got the standard clearance but while I was still turning
to 060 I got heading 160, which took me just to
the south of the airport and then I was basically
direct Salinas.

John

Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> file /G or /A.
>
> This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
> (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
>
> In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
> frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
> would say "let's publish a DP!"
>
> So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
> money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
> hand-rolled departure clearance?
>
> Just curious.
>
> If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
> Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
>
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Andrew Gideon]

Dave Jacobowitz wrote:

> I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> file /G or /A.

FWIW, a usual "de facto" DP out of CDW is similar:

Left/Right to 180, vectors to Lanna...

except we're being directed to an intersection. What makes this odd is that
this is given even to /U and even though one of the VORs forming the
intersection is roughly between the intersection and airport.

This is just for westbound, though. We've different "de facto" procedures
for other directions (southbound is fun; one passes directly over EWR).

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Your experiences show that IFR traffic departing PAO is handled on
tactical basis, which would render a charted SID ineffective.

To put it another way PAO is a "stepchild" to operations at SFO, OAK, and
SJC.

jharper aaatttt cisco dddooottt com wrote:

> I've often wondered the same thing (as a PAO pilot).
> But flying north (e.g. to Santa Rosa) I generally get
> a different clearance. Can't remember offhand, it's
> something like, runway heading, vectors Sausalito.
> Generally ends up going directly overhead SFO at about 5000'.
> I've also had something different when flying to
> Napa, which took me up towards Oakland.
>
> And an interesting one the other day, IFR to San Luis.
> I got the standard clearance but while I was still turning
> to 060 I got heading 160, which took me just to
> the south of the airport and then I was basically
> direct Salinas.
>
> John
>
> Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I fly out of Palo Alto, CA, and I have never heard an IFR clearance
> > read over ground whose route section did not start "when able, right
> > turn to 060 with 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> > sunol ..." My clearance starts out this way whether I file a flight
> > plan to the east, north, or south. (I haven't flown to Hawaii yet, so
> > can't say what I'd get going west. :) ) It also does not matter if I
> > file /G or /A.
> >
> > This is pretty much what you get out of PAO if you fly a spamcam.
> > (It's possible that more capable aircraft get something else.)
> >
> > In any case it seems that if a certain departure clearance is
> > frequently used, that would be the circumstances under whch someone
> > would say "let's publish a DP!"
> >
> > So, why wouldn't someone publish a DP? Does it cost the gov't extra
> > money? Does a published DP have to meet higher requirements than a
> > hand-rolled departure clearance?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > If they do create one, I want to name it. "Stinky Garbage one, San
> > Jose transition" (STINK.SJC)
> >
> >
> > -- dave j
> > -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Mick Ruthven]

>"when able, right
> turn to 060 with[in] 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> sunol ..."

After the turn to 060, do you go V344 to SUNOL if you haven't received
vectors yet?

[Dave Jacobowitz]

The radar vectors are to the SJC VOR. From there, it's V334, etc.

In actual practice, they always vector you not to the VOR, but to
intercept V334 "somewhere" between the VOR and SUNOL.

-- dave j

"Mick Ruthven" > wrote in message >...
> >"when able, right
> > turn to 060 with[in] 1 mi of the airport, radar vectors san jose, v334
> > sunol ..."
>
> After the turn to 060, do you go V344 to SUNOL if you haven't received
> vectors yet?