Peter Clark wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:13:37 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:


"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

ODPs came very close to becoming mandatory for Part 91 in the last
amendment to 91.175 issued last year.


That would require ATC to learn to issue clearances that are consistent with
the ODPs.

Often one will get a clearance that includes something like "...enter
controlled airspace on heading 270..." when the ODP calls for climbing above
the floor of controlled airspace on a very different heading. Recently I
responded by saying that I would turn to 270 upon completion of the Obstacle
Departure Procedure. The controller said "What's that?".

All the back and forth involved in trying to get a clearance that is
consistent with pilot intent is difficult if one has to go through AFSS
Clearance Delivery.


Those more familiar with the system and TERPS etc would have to answer
this, but if you are departing an uncontrolled field off a runway with
an ODP but no published SID, and the clearance carries a "Enter
controlled airspace heading blah" does the entry altitude have to be
above the controllers MVA?

Normally, there wouldn't be an MVA, rather a center MIA. The pilot has
the right and duty to challenge a heading that is inconsistent with the
ODP. Where terrain is known to be a problem, the controller is supposed
to qualify the heading assignment with words to the effect "terrain
permitting." Some do, but some don't.