Obstacle avoidance between take-off and airway

On Jan 17, 7:05*pm, Sam Spade wrote:
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.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

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.


Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert
No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

Is anyone watching? Unlikely. But, if an FAA safety inspector were
sharp at happen to be at Big Bear when it is decidedly IMC, he would be
justified in exploring why N1234A departed on Runway 26.

On Jan 18, 12:55*pm, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

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.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

No, not 135 standards all all. *I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. *You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.

-Robert

How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite
explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than
200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.

It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.

And just to make sure I understand this:

The 40:1 sloping surface (152 ft/nm) is for actual obstacle penetration, and
the 200 ft/nm incorporates a small buffer of 48 ft/nm.

Is that correct?

Thanks.

Barry

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

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.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.


So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.

-Robert
Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
minimums.

My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. Then, if
he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
by the FAA for IMC departures.

So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)

I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
especially at an airport like this one.

Barry wrote:

How did you infer that out of what I said, or didn't say? The AIM is quite
explicit that,for a diverse departure area, you must climb at not less than
200 feet per mile, from lift off until at the 91.177 altitude.

It is a 40:1 sloping surface, not a flat plane.


And just to make sure I understand this:

The 40:1 sloping surface (152 ft/nm) is for actual obstacle penetration, and
the 200 ft/nm incorporates a small buffer of 48 ft/nm.

Is that correct?

Thanks.

Barry


Yes.

And, when the slope is steeper than 40:1 then the buffer becomes greater.

On Jan 18, 5:59*pm, Sam Spade wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

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.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

No, not 135 standards all all. *I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. *You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
a lot of things *but that seems way to wild to me.

-Robert

Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
minimums.

My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. *Then, if
he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
by the FAA for IMC departures.

By that argument you could argue that shooting the approach "just to
see what it looks like " when wx is reported below mins under part 91
would be a violation.

So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)

That's fine.

I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
especially at an airport like this one.- Hide quoted text -

We are fortunate the FAA regs for part 91 are not, at this point,
restrictive enough to take decision making out of the cockpit. Part
121 is close and will continue to get closer to putting all PIC
decisions in regs.

-Robert

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:51 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:

wrote:
Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.

What point?

I will leave you with a challenge, however.

Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).

There aren't any such airports.



Well, hell, my friend. If that is true, then I can depart any airport
with an IAP, and no ODP, make no turns before 400 AGL, climb at 200
FPNM, and remain clear of obstructions.

This was my original statement, which for some reason, quite
unfathomable to me, you keep saying is not universally true for some
nuanced reason about published minimums.




On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:


wrote:

Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
original statement is correct:

"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
and you will be clear of obstructions."


Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
clear previously, I missed it.

wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:16:51 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:


wrote:

Well, you have contradicted yourself on this point, but I'm done here.

What point?

I will leave you with a challenge, however.

Name a specific airport, with an IAP, and no ODP, where an obstruction
penetrates the 200 FPNM plane within the 25(or 46)nm departure
area(starting at 400 AGL, obviously).

There aren't any such airports.



Well, hell, my friend. If that is true, then I can depart any airport
with an IAP, and no ODP, make no turns before 400 AGL, climb at 200
FPNM, and remain clear of obstructions.

This was my original statement, which for some reason, quite
unfathomable to me, you keep saying is not universally true for some
nuanced reason about published minimums.

You've lost me. Have a nice day.



On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:46:24 -0800, Sam Spade
wrote:



wrote:


Well, with all due respct, I think we have come full circle and my
original statement is correct:

"If there is an approach chart published, but but no departure
procedure, the rule is no turns before 400' AGL, and maintain 200 FPNM
and you will be clear of obstructions."


Provided the runway has takeoff minimums and no ODP. If you made that
clear previously, I missed it.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 18, 5:59 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 18, 12:55 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

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.

Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert

No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

So you are saying that because a non-regulatory ODP is not authorized
to be used for a given runway, that the runway cannot be used for IFR
depature? I guess we'll have to disagree on that. I can see stretching
a lot of things but that seems way to wild to me.

-Robert

Yes, that is what I am saying, along with the lack of regulatory takeoff
minimums.

My hypothetical inspector would be justified (and really required) to
determine whether the IMC departure on Runway 26 was Part 135. Then, if
he found out it wasn't, the next question would be, why would anyone
takeoff under IMC at an IFR airport on a runway determined to be unsafe
by the FAA for IMC departures.


By that argument you could argue that shooting the approach "just to
see what it looks like " when wx is reported below mins under part 91
would be a violation.


So, agreed, we should agree to disagree. ;-)


That's fine.


I just hope you don't teach on the permissive side of this stuff,
especially at an airport like this one.- Hide quoted text -


We are fortunate the FAA regs for part 91 are not, at this point,
restrictive enough to take decision making out of the cockpit. Part
121 is close and will continue to get closer to putting all PIC
decisions in regs.

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

They should be in my view. At a VFR airport the pilot should be free to
roll his own and hopefully with a brain and some technical expertise.