On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. If takeoff
minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a
particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR
for aircraft operating under those parts: " where do you see that it's
anything other than a weather-minimum? (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

I don't see offhand anything in part 91 that speaks to DP/ODP directly
at all. You might be right on there being nothing in 91 for it, but
91.175(f) isn't your basis. Still, taking off on a runway that's
listed as "NA - Obsticle" in the AF/D without being able to see it at
night isn't wise.