Departure procedures notice

[Jim Macklin]

FAASafety.gov - Local Air Safety Information "Fort Worth
Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures"
http://www.faasafety.gov/

This applies anywhere
Fort Worth Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures
Notice Number: NOTC0768
There have been several instances of aircraft deviating from
their ATC clearance when departing Fort Worth Meacham
airport (FTW) over the last few months. The pilots involved
have generally been experienced instrument pilots flying
technically advanced aircraft.
In these instances, all of the aircraft have been cleared to
fly runway heading for radar vectors to a published
departure procedure in their clearance from departure
control. Each of the aircraft has made an inappropriate turn
after takeoff either to join the course for the departure
they were assigned or in following a procedure that is
printed on the chart.
When ATC issues a clearance to fly a heading for vectors to
a departure, the vectors will supersede any other navigation
related instructions printed on the chart. You are not
authorized to fly the departure until ATC either issues a
heading to join a published course or clears you direct to a
fix on your routes and issues instructions to "resume own
navigation."
Pilots are reminded to be vigilant in following ATC issued
clearances and urged to ask to have the clearance clarified
if the instructions are not fully understood.
FAASafety.gov https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/
http://www.faasafety.gov/about/

[Sam Spade]

Air carrier training must really be in the tank these days.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> FAASafety.gov - Local Air Safety Information "Fort Worth
> Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures"
> http://www.faasafety.gov/
>
> This applies anywhere
> Fort Worth Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures
> Notice Number: NOTC0768
> There have been several instances of aircraft deviating from
> their ATC clearance when departing Fort Worth Meacham
> airport (FTW) over the last few months. The pilots involved
> have generally been experienced instrument pilots flying
> technically advanced aircraft.
> In these instances, all of the aircraft have been cleared to
> fly runway heading for radar vectors to a published
> departure procedure in their clearance from departure
> control. Each of the aircraft has made an inappropriate turn
> after takeoff either to join the course for the departure
> they were assigned or in following a procedure that is
> printed on the chart.
> When ATC issues a clearance to fly a heading for vectors to
> a departure, the vectors will supersede any other navigation
> related instructions printed on the chart. You are not
> authorized to fly the departure until ATC either issues a
> heading to join a published course or clears you direct to a
> fix on your routes and issues instructions to "resume own
> navigation."
> Pilots are reminded to be vigilant in following ATC issued
> clearances and urged to ask to have the clearance clarified
> if the instructions are not fully understood.
> FAASafety.gov https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/
> http://www.faasafety.gov/about/
>
>

[Allen[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Air carrier training must really be in the tank these days.
>
Not to many air carriers flying off Meacham :)

Allen

[Sam Spade]

Allen wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Air carrier training must really be in the tank these days.
>>
>
> Not to many air carriers flying off Meacham :)
>
> Allen
>
>
I had a brain fade I was thinking of DFW with the same issues.

Training seems to suck for all segments of the IFR flying pilots these days.

[C J Campbell]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:40:27 -0800, Jim Macklin wrote
(in article >):

> FAASafety.gov - Local Air Safety Information "Fort Worth
> Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures"
> http://www.faasafety.gov/
>
> This applies anywhere
> Fort Worth Meacham (FTW) Departure Procedures
> Notice Number: NOTC0768
> There have been several instances of aircraft deviating from
> their ATC clearance when departing Fort Worth Meacham
> airport (FTW) over the last few months. The pilots involved
> have generally been experienced instrument pilots flying
> technically advanced aircraft.
> In these instances, all of the aircraft have been cleared to
> fly runway heading for radar vectors to a published
> departure procedure in their clearance from departure
> control. Each of the aircraft has made an inappropriate turn
> after takeoff either to join the course for the departure
> they were assigned or in following a procedure that is
> printed on the chart.

They had a rash of that at Riverside, CA a few years ago. (For all I know, it
is still a problem there.)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:35 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Departure procedures notice
> Subject: Re: Departure procedures notice
>
> Allen wrote:
> > "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Air carrier training must really be in the tank these days.
> >>
> >
> > Not to many air carriers flying off Meacham :)
> >
> > Allen
> >
> >
> I had a brain fade I was thinking of DFW with the same issues.
>
> Training seems to suck for all segments of the IFR flying pilots these
> days.

Could it be that attention to detail isn't being pressed as much today?
It was not a sin to bust a student on a phase check 30 years ago, but
today it seems like "everyone passes", just like some of our public
education systems.

Or could it be that we are seeing the results of students not focusing
on the task at hand and trying to do too many things at once during
their training?

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>>Training seems to suck for all segments of the IFR flying pilots these
>>days.
>
>
> Could it be that attention to detail isn't being pressed as much today?
> It was not a sin to bust a student on a phase check 30 years ago, but
> today it seems like "everyone passes", just like some of our public
> education systems.
>
> Or could it be that we are seeing the results of students not focusing
> on the task at hand and trying to do too many things at once during
> their training?
>

Perhaps both of the above?

[Doug[_1_]]

I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current. There are too many
CFII's out there not even able to accept an IFR clearance giving
primary IFR training. A lot of them may (or may not) have tons of
previous IFR experience. But really, it is real world IFR flying where
you pick up the ATC experience. And it is experience with ATC that is
the bottleneck with IFR flight. If you listen to hangar talk from
recent IFR flights, the pilots are always talking about how ATC did
this and ATC did that.

[Sam Spade]

Doug wrote:
> I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
> IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current. There are too many
> CFII's out there not even able to accept an IFR clearance giving
> primary IFR training. A lot of them may (or may not) have tons of
> previous IFR experience. But really, it is real world IFR flying where
> you pick up the ATC experience. And it is experience with ATC that is
> the bottleneck with IFR flight. If you listen to hangar talk from
> recent IFR flights, the pilots are always talking about how ATC did
> this and ATC did that.
>

The FAA doesn't really care about the quality of light aircraft
instruction. The organization is in over its head trying to keep an eye
on commercial operators and also manage an unwieldy airspace system.

[Bob Moore]

Doug wrote
> I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
> IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current.

Well....first off Doug, it's not an "IFR" rating, just an "Instrument
Rating", often broken down into categories such as "Instrument-Airplane
Rating".

Bob Moore
Flight Instructor, Instrument Airplane

[Doug[_1_]]

Big Deal

On Jan 26, 7:14 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Doug wrote
>
> > I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
> > IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current.Well....first off Doug, it's not an "IFR" rating, just an "Instrument
> Rating", often broken down into categories such as "Instrument-Airplane
> Rating".
>
> Bob Moore
> Flight Instructor, Instrument Airplane

[Sam Spade]

Doug wrote:

> Big Deal
>
> On Jan 26, 7:14 am, Bob Moore > wrote:
>
>>Doug wrote
>>
>>
>>>I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
>>>IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current.Well....first off Doug, it's not an "IFR" rating, just an "Instrument
>>
>>Rating", often broken down into categories such as "Instrument-Airplane
>>Rating".
>>
>>Bob Moore
>>Flight Instructor, Instrument Airplane
>
>
"BFD" is better! ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Doug wrote
>
>>I frankly think that the FAA should require that instruction for the
>>IFR rating be done by CFII's who are IFR current.
>
>
> Well....first off Doug, it's not an "IFR" rating, just an "Instrument
> Rating", often broken down into categories such as "Instrument-Airplane
> Rating".

Most airline pilots don't have an instrument rating.