Instrument departure, non-IFR airport

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



I know what you're saying, but I really do wonder. I guess it varies
with the facility. SCT has been known to get spooked about such things.

In any case, the OP went back to SCT and found out they don't want
their airspace clobbered with an airport in a really tight airspace
situation.


That's perfectly understandable because you might end up shutting down a
busy airport for one lousy IFR departure. But that's the reason and why
they wouldn't just tell somebody that is difficult to understand.

I also have serious heartburn with some "SOP" obstacle departure
procedure that probably was not "Terpsed" by AVN. Once ATC issues that
puppy they put the FAA on the hook for departure obstacle clearance.

wrote:



And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
trouble?

Why would it? That makes the pilot sound like a victim.

wrote in message
ps.com...

But does SCT have the authority to refuse service to an airport
because of inconvenience? They can certainly delay a departure, but
outright refuse? What if its the middle of the night and there is
very little traffic?

And what if someone crashed trying to scud run to Riverside because an
IFR departure were refused? Wouldn't that get the TRACON manager in
trouble?


FAAO 7110.65 still requires controllers to "provide air traffic control
service to aircraft on a 'first come, first served' basis as circumstances
permit". Denying a departure clearance due to conflicting traffic is
entirely proper, but that's not the situation here. "No instrument
departure, no clearances on the ground.", as expressed by the FSDO, is
simply wrong.

"Michelle P" wrote in message
k.net...

There is your problem in getting the clearance. The computer will not do
that. It needs to be and IFR fix.


That has nothing to do with it. RIR is most likely adapted, but non-adapted
departure points can be entered in flight plans.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Ask the sup at SCT that question.



Why would I ask her to explain what you post? Why can't you do that?


The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.


Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.



Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.


No doubt I don't claim to know more than FAA ATO management, ATC
supervisors, and most (if not all controllers) like you do.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

The post is obvious; you just love to make bull**** arguments.



Your posts make it obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.


I am so far ahead of you on most topics discussed in this forum it just
drives your fragile ego nuts. So, when the issue gets into ATC
procedures it gives you the opportunity to claim a modicum of arrogrant
expertise.

In the case of Flabob you obviously don't know squat about the terrain,
radar coverage, or TERPs issues.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I also have serious heartburn with some "SOP" obstacle departure procedure
that probably was not "Terpsed" by AVN. Once ATC issues that puppy they
put the FAA on the hook for departure obstacle clearance.


Oh? I thought your heartburn was over radar coverage?

The procedure in the SCT SOP is not an obstacle departure procedure and does
not pretend to be. I don't like it either, but it is consistent with FAAO
7110.65 which tells controllers, at airports without a control tower or a
surface area, not to specify the direction of takeoff or a turn after
takeoff and if an initial heading is needed to be flown after takeoff, issue
it so as to apply only within controlled airspace. If it's in the book it's
legal, but not everything that is legal is also a good idea. In situations
like this I specify any needed heading to apply upon climbing through the
MVA, the pilot is free to do whatever he deems necessary to avoid any
terrain or obstructions between the surface and that altitude. The
procedure in the SCT SOP specifies a general area in which to enter
controlled airspace, which begins at 700' AGL, well below the MVA, and also
a direction to fly upon reaching controlled airspace.


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...403.html#4-3-2

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I am so far ahead of you on most topics discussed in this forum it just
drives your fragile ego nuts.


Much of what you post is contrary to current procedures. Is that because
you're so far ahead of them as well?



So, when the issue gets into ATC procedures
it gives you the opportunity to claim a modicum of arrogrant expertise.


I don't recall claiming expertise. Typically, I don't even mention being a
controller when I post something here. I usually just explain why things
are the way they are and provide verifiable documentation which supports
what I've written.



In the case of Flabob you obviously don't know squat about the terrain,
radar coverage, or TERPs issues.


If terrain, radar coverage, and TERPS are issues that prevent the issuance
of an IFR clearance to an aircraft on the ground at Flabob at any time, in
any weather condition, and in any traffic situation, it should be a simple
matter for you to identify them, since you are so far ahead on these topics.
Please do so, be sure to include verifiable documentation which supports
your position.