Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:


I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
circumstance.

It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -


Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.

-Robert
No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.

It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
of an ODP based on safety.

OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
"triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
followed.

Is this not so?




On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:46:58 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

wrote:
This is not my understanding. According to old Wally Roberts, who
once published great IFR articles for the IFR Refresher, the TERPS
guys are required to evaluate departures for every runway for any
airport for which an IAP is published, and if obstacles penetrate the
200:1 plane, then an ODP is required.

Therefore if a pilot follows the 200:1 plane in all cases where there
is an IAP published, and no ODP, he is assured of obstacle clearance
(unless the runway is designated NA). There is no need for published
IFR Takeoff Minimums for this to apply, as I understand it.

This has always been my understanding. If there is a source that
proves this to be incorrect, I would appreciate being so enlightened.



The TERPS guys are indeed required to evaluate every qualified runway
for an IFR airport (an airport with one, or more IAPs).

In some unusual situations a runway, such as a secondary dirt or turf
runway may not be approved by the regional Airports Division. But, this
is unusual.

So, for every qualified runway the evaluation will be made. If the
TERPS folks decide it would require an excessive climb gradient for the
aircraft that typically use the airport they will NA it. If they do not
NA it, then they must provide Part 97 takeoff minimums in order to have
a diverse departure area or an ODP. They go hand in glove. If you find
an exception, let us know.

wrote:
OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
"triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
followed.

Is this not so?


It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.

On Jan 17, 4:38*am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. *I also agree
that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. *My question
is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
a particular runway. *I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
circumstance.

It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -

Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.

-Robert

No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.

It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. *It is about "NA" means
an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
unsafe. *That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
of an ODP based on safety

It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
circumstance.

It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -

Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.

-Robert

No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.

It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
of an ODP based on safety


It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.

-Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.

On Jan 17, 11:28 am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:38 am, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 16, 3:45 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

I agree that Part 91 can roll your own at VFR airports. I also agree
that takeoff minimums do not legally apply to Part 91 only. My question
is about an IFR airport where takeoff minimums are denied altogther for
a particular runway. I think the "hazards of litigation" exist for that
circumstance.

It certainly is not clear cut, of course, but if something goes wrong it
would become a factor.- Hide quoted text -

Possible but I know of no precedent set where a court held a pilot to
135 standards when operating under 91. Even for part 135 the procedure
does not say you cannot take off from runway 20, it just says that the
given ODP is not authorized for runway 20.

-Robert

No, what it says is that takeoff minimums are "NA" for Runway 26 (if we
are still talking about Big Bear), thus there is no ODP.

It's not about Part 121, or 135 at this point. It is about "NA" means
an assessment for an ODP has been made by the FAA and determined to be
unsafe. That is far different than a pilot rolling his own ODP at a VFR
airport where the FAA has not made an obstacle assessment and the denial
of an ODP based on safety

It still comes down to the fact that, either way, the part 91 pilot
could take off runway 20 IMC without violating any FARs.

-Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.

MSFS should be patched, so that when someone attempts to fly it
anyways, it should just call "FDISK C:"

:P

On Jan 17, 8:28*am, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

-Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -

I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:


-Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -


I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13

-Robert

Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
No NOTAM is required.

If you disagree that they have made an OPD safety assessment that has
determined IIR (IMC actually) departures from that runway are unsage,
then lets agree to disagree. ;-)

As to whether anyone would get violated, that is like asking when the
local cops will be around to enforce that local stop sign that is ran
quite often.

Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
have published takeoff minimums.

So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".

In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".

This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:03:55 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

wrote:
OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
"triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
followed.

Is this not so?


It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.

I made an omission here.

Should read "any airport without published takeoff minimums OR an
ODP"...




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:42:29 GMT, wrote:


Well, an airport with no "triangle'T" on the chart is not going to
have published takeoff minimums.

So you are saying the answer to my question is "no".

In effect, what you are saying is that for any airport without
published takeoff minimums, departure planning must be done by VFR
sectional. To put it another way, if there is no "triangle-T" symbol
on the chart, departure planning is always "roll-your-own".

This seems odd to me, and contrary, I think, to common belief. It is
certainly contrary to my understanding of several years.




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:03:55 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

wrote:
OK, then it seems it is a correct statement to say that when departing
from an airport with an IAP and not ODP (e.g., an airport with no
"triangle-T" on the plate), the 200:1 rule can always be safely
followed.

Is this not so?


It is so provided the runway has published takeoff minimums.