How do you leave this airport IMC?

On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
matter).


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



You are missing my point so let me restate it:

There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
(at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.

See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.

I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.


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

On 28 May 2005 07:27:01 -0500, Andrew Sarangan
wrote:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.

No, not "to any heading" but rather to the heading that will take you to
the airway to which you have been cleared.


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

Journeyman wrote in
:

Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?

I'm not sure I understand your question. You just fly the published DP.
If you climb on runway heading until above 2300, then you will have
sufficient obstacle clearance *in that direction*. The MSA is based on
any obstacle in any direction, unless otherwise specified, so you don't
need to use it for everything. A DP takes into consideration the
obstacles, and if you follow it, you will have sufficient clearance.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Journeyman wrote in
:

Sure, but the book lists departure minima for 10/28. I can't
figure out how to go from those minima to enroute safely. If
the minima are there, I'd assume there was a way.

That's a non sequitur. You can safely be in IMC entirely above the
departure minima. I'm still not sure what you mean about getting from
departure minima to MEA.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

In article , Stan Gosnell wrote:

Sure, but the book lists departure minima for 10/28. I can't
figure out how to go from those minima to enroute safely. If
the minima are there, I'd assume there was a way.

That's a non sequitur. You can safely be in IMC entirely above the
departure minima. I'm still not sure what you mean about getting from
departure minima to MEA.

Thanks for all the replies. Got it straight now. The missing piece
was pretty simple and basic. I'm familiar with approach procedures,
but it's been a while since I've departed IFR anywhere but my home
airport.

I forgot that departure procedures assume a minimum climb gradient,
and the airports are surveyed to keep you clear of obstacles if you
meet the performance requirement.

Missing that piece of information, it just seemed odd that you could
go up a few hundred feet, turn in any direction and be safe even if
you're below the MSA.


Morris

This has been valuable for me.

I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure for
any airport with an IAP.

It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
not know this.

So, thanks to all the contributors for this.


wrote in message ...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles. Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.

I should have stated "any airport with an IAP and no ODP"


" wrote in message
...
This has been valuable for me.

I was under the erroneous understanding that a departure folowing the "no
turns before 400feet, 200fpnm climb" rule would assure a safe departure
for
any airport with an IAP.

It appears that this is not true when takeoff minima are published. I did
not know this.

So, thanks to all the contributors for this.


wrote in message ...


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I have not seen anyone directly answer the question raised by the
poster. What exactly is 'on-course'? Which airway are you supposed to
intercept? MSA may not be operational in nature, but it does tell us
there are 3200' ft obstacles within 25NM. If you proceed at 2300', how
can you remain clear of these obstacles?

How do you infer that you can proceed at 2,300 feet? That is a turn
restriction to avoid the antennas to the south. It is NOT a level off
altitude. With a ODP worded like this your minimum level-off altitude
is
either your ATC-assigned altitude, which should be (will be if issued
correctly) at, or above, the MEA of the route to be flown.

It's up to you, as the pilot, to fit the ODP with your filed or
clearance
route. This ODP is 40:1 clear once above close-in obstacles.
Apparently
the procedures specialist decided the close in obstacles were too
hazardous
to be overflown with a climb gradient, thus the ceiling and visibility
minimums.

Although Part 91 operators are not required to use takeoff minimums
anyone
who ignores mandatory ceiling/visibility minimums (as opposed to
standard
takeoff minimums) can be placing himself in harm's way, especially at an
airport where he lacks detailed local knowledge about the airport and
close-in obstacle hazards.

A case in point quite a few years ago was at KLGB (Long Beach,
California).
At about 3:00 AM a guy taxis out in an Aztec and wants a climb to on-top
because the weather is basically zero-zero in ground fog. He wanted
Runway
16L, which had a 600-1 mandatory (for commercial operators) take-off
minimum. The controller tried to convince the pilot to instead use
Runway
30, the ILS runway with standard takeoff minima (actually,
lower-than-standard for commercial operators because of lots of runway
markings and lights).

The pilot got his way and shortly after takeoff at about 500 feet, above
airport elevation, he crashed into a giant natural gas steel structure,
then, in a burning remains of an Aztec nose-dived into a warehouse,
through
the roof onto the concrete floor.

I remember it well, because I did some work on that needless, senseless
tragedy.

The 600-1 takeoff minimum for Runway 16L was for the natural gas storage
tank and associated steel structure.

You are correct about no takeoff minima, but that applies to all 91
operations no matter the size of aircraft. Subparts F & G do not apply to
takeoff minima.


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch"
wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under
Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
matter).


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



You are missing my point so let me restate it:

There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
(at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.

See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.

I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.


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

In article , Bob Gardner wrote:
You may be remembering some Canadian regs. The MSA is irrelevant. It has no
operational significance and is not part of an instrument approach
procedure. Under Part 91, you don't have any takeoff minimums.

Actually, I did my IFR in the U.S. I finished up with Spence.

It's just a case of forgetting an aspect of The System that I hadn't
used before. This thread has been very valuable in setting me straight.
Usenet near its best :-)


Morris

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
1...
Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

Good point. In other words, the aircraft should climb on runway heading
to 2300', and then turn to any heading and continue climbing at 200ft/NM
to the minimum IFR altitude.




No you should *not* "cllimb on runway heading to 2300' ". You:

1) cross the runway end at 35'
2) climb to 400' straight ahead at 200'/nm
3) turn to any heading while continuing to climb 200'/nm, obviously you
would choose your on course or clearance heading.


Mike
MU-2