 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / IFR / April 2005How to adhere to this obstacle departure procedure?
For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this airport's obstacle departure procedure was required. The procedure is very straight-forward and reads: "Departing rwy 24, climb runway heading to 1,200 feet (about 500 ft AGL), then climbing right turn direct to DKK VOR (VOR is on the field) before proceeding on course." Here is a small JPG of the relevant sectional chart showing the airport: http://thericcs.net/aviation/misc/DKK.jpg My question is this: I am departing runway 24 with a desired on course heading of 080. Thus, I depart and climb to 1,200 msl, then climbing turn to the right to go direct to the on-field VOR before proceeding at 090 on course. Climbing runway heading at about 800 fpm in a Bonanza, I reach 1,200 feet MSL in about 38 seconds. 38 seconds of traveling at a ground speed of about 95 kts does not place me far enough away from the airport to be able to perform a standard rate turn to the right to go direct to the VOR. The two times I have needed to use this departure procedure I ended up too far west of the VOR (over the water and safe from obstacles). To get around quickly enough to be able to go to the VOR would require a much steeper turn, something not advisable in IMC. In both cases, despite being west of the VOR by 3/4ths of a mile or so, I concluded that I could proceed safely on course to the northeast and did so, rather than spiral around over the VOR in an attempt to reach the waypoint. How would you adhere to this departure procedure?  SignaturePeter >"Departing rwy 24, climb runway heading to 1,200 feet (about 500 ft AGL), >then climbing right turn direct to DKK VOR (VOR is on the field) before [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >about 95 kts does not place me far enough away from the airport to be able >to perform a standard rate turn to the right to go direct to the VOR. I see your dilemma, but I think you're worried about stuff that doesn't need worrying about. By the time you started your right turn at 1200, you were already above anything along your departure path (and still climbing, presumably). Make the initial right turn to 090 and off you go. It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of the airway). In that case, what I would do is set 166 on the OBS and if I wasn't at the 2300 required by the DP when the flag flipped from TO to FROM, I'd do one lap in a racetrack pattern (even easier with a moving map GPS). > It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure > you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of > the airway). In that case, what I would do is set 166 on the OBS and > if I wasn't at the 2300 required by the DP when the flag flipped from > TO to FROM, I'd do one lap in a racetrack pattern (even easier with a > moving map GPS). I was wondering that, too. 2,300 at the VOR for a southbound course (I omitted this section of the DP in my original post) only leaves about 6nm or so to climb the additional 500 feet to clear that tower. Do-able, assuming the pilot of the single-engine piston was really paying attention to flying the aircraft. I agree with you that another safe lap around would be prudent. SignaturePeter Every pilot should maintain a minimum of 200 fpnm when flying any obstacle departure procedure, unless the departure procedure calls for more. In this case, the aircraft should be at least at an altitude of 3500ft by the time it reaches the obstacle. (Pilots who fly IFR and don't "really pay attentionj to flying the aircraft" when flying an obstacle departure procedure, will sooner or later probably be nominated for some kind of Darwin Award). >> It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure >> you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to flying the aircraft. I agree with you that another safe lap around >would be prudent. >> It only gets interesting when heading south and you need to make sure >> you clear the 2849 tower (conveniently located smack in the middle of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >omitted this section of the DP in my original post) only leaves about 6nm >or so to climb the additional 500 feet to clear that tower. Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile. > Do-able, assuming the pilot of the single-engine piston was really > paying attention to flying the aircraft. > I agree with you that another safe lap around would be prudent. My comments about the shallow climb gradient notwithstanding, it's more than prudent, it's required by the DP. > DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 6, 15, climb runway > heading to 1200, then climbing left turn direct DKK [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Southbound aircraft cross DKK VORTAC at or above > 2300. BTW, I think it's a little confusing the way this DP is worded. At first glance, it looks like the requirement to cross DKK at or above 2300 only applies to 24 and 33 departures, but I'm pretty sure it applies to all departures. >BTW, I think it's a little confusing the way this DP is worded. At >first glance, it looks like the requirement to cross DKK at or above >2300 only applies to 24 and 33 departures, but I'm pretty sure it >applies to all departures. It applies to southbound departures, off any runway. > Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile. OK, so that clears the tower by an inch or two, but I was thinking more of the typical IFR obstacle clearance amount, which would be somewhere around 250 feet per mile. SignaturePeter > > Only? That's a climb gradient of less than 100 feet per mile. > > OK, so that clears the tower by an inch or two, but I was thinking more of > the typical IFR obstacle clearance amount, which would be somewhere around > 250 feet per mile. If there is no climb gradient specified, a minimum of 200 feet is required. Anything less than that and you are not protected. It's all in the AIM. > > DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 6, 15, climb runway > > heading to 1200, then climbing left turn direct DKK [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2300 only applies to 24 and 33 departures, but I'm pretty sure it > applies to all departures. How do you read that, at first glance it applies only to 24 and 33 into it? It says "Southbound aircraft cross DKK VORTAC at or abouve 2300." That sentence doesn't say anything about which runway. Make a climbing right turn. If you have not crossed your 090 course by the time you reach a 060 heading or so, stop the turn and hold that heading until you intercept. the 090 course from the south side of the course. Proceed on course. If, on the other hand, you cross the course before reaching a 060 heading, keep on turning around to the southeast (120 or so) and intercept from the north side of the course. Likewise, then proceed on course. You will never be far enough from the VOR to make a difference. >For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY >State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >How would you adhere to this departure procedure? > Make a climbing right turn. If you have not crossed your 090 course > by the time you reach a 060 heading or so, stop the turn and hold > that heading until you intercept. the 090 course from the south side > of the course. Proceed on course. Interesting. This was certainly not an item touched on during my instrument training. I suppose this is where receiving training from an experienced instrument pilot and instructor would far surpass receiving training from a time-building instructor. SignaturePeter <<I suppose this is where receiving training from an experienced instrument pilot and instructor would far surpass receiving training from a time-building instructor.>> Not really. What makes you think that an experienced pilot or instructor necessarily has any higher level of knowledge regarding obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but knowledge? Point two is that students only retain a small fraction of what they're taught. Even if your instructor had understood the sublties regarding ODP's, it's not likely that you would have digested them in their entirety. An interesting thing about DP's is that they tend to not be very GPS-friendly. They're often full of stuff like intercepting bearings, and determining when you've crossed a certain radial. Nothing you can't do with a GPS, but people tend to be less familiar with these functions than with just going direct to a waypoint. > An interesting thing about DP's is that they tend to not be very > GPS-friendly. They're often full of stuff like intercepting bearings, and > determining when you've crossed a certain radial. Nothing you can't do > with a GPS, but people tend to be less familiar with these functions than > with just going direct to a waypoint. Then again, portables like the Garmin 295 and 296 have an RMI option, which would make flying this particular ODP very easy. > Not really. What makes you think that an experienced pilot or > instructor necessarily has any higher level of knowledge regarding > obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but > knowledge? I am making the assumption that one who flies often in the system is more proficient and experienced. Proficiency and knowledge, when coupled with a desire to instruct, carries a lot more weight than one who received their ratings back-to-back with an ultimate goal of flying for the airlines. A pilot who has logged many hours flying in the system for real, as in commuting, traveling, etc., is going to encounter many more of the procedural and weather subtleties of IFR flight than a time-building instructor who logs 95 percent of his/her hours as an instructor. Not only have I encountered this first hand, but I have spoken with others at about my same level have also encountered this issue when seeking IFR refresher training. This is one reason why I subscribe to _IFR_ and _IFR Refresher_. I look to the articles within these periodicals to learn from the experiences of those who have been flying or controlling IFR aircraft for many hours/years. > Point two is that students only retain a small fraction of what > they're taught. Is that so? Have a study to back this up? I suggest that those who routinely exercise their rating in actual IMC will reinforce all that they have learned and then some. That's my opinion, worth what you paid for it. > Even if your instructor had understood the sublties > regarding ODP's, it's not likely that you would have digested them in > their entirety. Perhaps. IMO this would depend on the student and what they actually do with their IFR rating once they receive it. If it gets tucked away on a shelf and rarely used to fly in actual IMC, then I would agree. SignaturePeter <<I am making the assumption that one who flies often in the system is more proficient and experienced. Proficiency and knowledge, when coupled with>> You're confusing the concepts of "proficient", "experienced", and "knowledge". Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of obstacle clearance requirements. Lots of experienced, proficient pilots with lousy radio technique. Lots of experienced, proficient pilots who don't understand how airplanes fly. <<retention level is low...Is that so? Have a study to back this up?>> Six years instructing, and sampling knowledge levels after training is over? But any learning theory book will supply you with the studies you seek, if common sense doesn't. <<IMO this would depend on the student and what they actually do with their IFR rating once they receive it. >> Not in this case. The only way you can reinforce your knowledge of ODP's is to hit something every now and then. Until you do, this knowledge is merely theoretical. I don't disagree with the answers you received on this question, but you bought into the idea that turning to the heading is "close enough" without any idea of whether the posters knew what they were talking about. You can learn a lot from _IFR_ and _IFR Refresher_ but the knowledge level of the authors is highly variable. I dumped "Refresher" after some random CFI wrote a "Pitch vs. Power" article. When I want that sort of analysis, I'll turn to aerodynamics texts. I stopped taking "IFR" after I noticed that so many of their quizzes contained incorrect answers. These guys are supposed to be experts? Opinion from experienced pilots can be useful, but you need a way to discern the good stuff from the bad stuff. Unless they rigorously work to improve their own knowledge, they're as likely to be as full of crap as the newbie -II, maybe more so. >Not in this case. The only way you can reinforce your knowledge of >ODP's is to hit something every now and then. Until you do, this >knowledge is merely theoretical. Well, I would say that you reinforce your knowledge of ODP's every time you fly one and DON'T hit something, and would be an indication, at least, that your knowledge is more than just theoretical. Hitting something, on the other hand, would reinforce one's belief that his theoretical understanding was somewhat incorrect. It certainly would not reinforce one's knowledge of ODP's, although it might motivate one to further study. <<Well, I would say that you reinforce your knowledge of ODP's every time you fly one and DON'T hit something, and would be an indication, at least, that your knowledge is more than just theoretical.>> No. One narrow obstacle creates the need for an ODP. You can misfly it and still miss that obstacle due to chance, or forunately having a higher climb gradient than assumed in the procedure. ><<Well, I would say that you reinforce your knowledge of ODP's every >time you fly one and DON'T hit something, and would be an indication, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it and still miss that obstacle due to chance, or forunately having a >higher climb gradient than assumed in the procedure. "Fortunately" (?) having a higher climb gradient than assumed in the procedure? You are joking here, of course. If the climb gradients you fly are a matter of trusting to luck, I'd suggest you make all your departures visually. <<If the climb gradients you fly are a matter of trusting to luck, I'd suggest you make all your departures visually.>> Oh, please. <sigh> Your climb gradients depend on the quantity of excess thrust in your airplane, the density altitude of your departure location, and the wind direction and gradient on the particular day in question. What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. And we were talking about YOUR departures, not mine. Mine depend only on skill and a positive attitude. :-) >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. Maybe in YOUR aviating world. Climb gradients, especially when flying an obstacle departure procedure in IMC, are WAY too important to leave to chance. Your life may very well depend on them. Again, may I urge you to fly all your instrument departures in VMC until you receive more and better instrument instruction. > >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > procedure in IMC, are WAY too important to leave to chance. Your > life may very well depend on them. Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a crap shoot of sorts. >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a >crap shoot of sorts. Baloney. Especially these days when ground speed is readily available from GPS units, no climb gradient need be left to chance. If for some remote reason, one cannot be certain that his climb gradient exceeds the requirement of an IMC obstacle departure, he ought to stay on the ground until the weather lifts. > >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > gradient exceeds the requirement of an IMC obstacle departure, he > ought to stay on the ground until the weather lifts. You say baloney, yet you essentially agree with me in your second paragraph. If, for example, a ODP at an airport with a density altitude at departure time of 4,000 feet, msl, and a required climb gradient of 280 feet per mile to 7,500, you determine with "certainty" that your bird can do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind direction and velocity with certainty in advance. You depart with your great GPS, and leaving 6,000 find out that your average gradient thus far has been 230 feet per mile and getting worse. What is your certainty at that point? Beats me. The controlling obstacle may be to the side of the containment area, or it may be a granite ridge-line all the way across the containment area. If you try to do a 180 you are now between a rock and a hard place. ;-) If, for example, a ODP at an airport with a density altitude > at departure time of 4,000 feet, msl, and a required climb gradient of 280 > feet per mile to 7,500, you determine with "certainty" that your bird can > do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind > direction and velocity with certainty in advance. I would not depart - not enough margin of safety for me. >> >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >do 300 feet per mile. Further, you cannot possibly determine the wind >direction and velocity with certainty in advance. Let me stop you right here. It's you who will be departing with a certain climb gradient of 300 fpnm with a required gradient of 280 fpnm. I won't be there. >You depart with your great GPS, and leaving 6,000 find out that your >average gradient thus far has been 230 feet per mile and getting worse. >What is your certainty at that point? Beats me. The controlling obstacle >may be to the side of the containment area, or it may be a granite >ridge-line all the way across the containment area. If you try to do a >180 you are now between a rock and a hard place. ;-) > >> >> >What sort of climb gradient you end up with is due to chance. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I won't be there. Oh, I wouldn't either, trust me. But, then again, I haven't done that stuff in non-Part 25 birds for very many years. > Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of > obstacle clearance requirements. Lots of experienced, proficient > pilots with lousy radio technique. Lots of experienced, proficient > pilots who don't understand how airplanes fly. You comment how I bought into the responses I received to my original question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the theory about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept these ideas. Sorry, but unless you can back the above comments up with an official definition of "lots," "lousy," "experienced," and "proficient," I simply read this as just another pilot's opinions. > Six years instructing, and sampling knowledge levels after training is > over? Just out of curiosity, in the last six years were the majority of your hours were accumulated through instructing? Did you have time before your instructor rating to fly with a purpose to many destinations? I ask this seriously because I don't want to underestimate your background. However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for me since I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time. > But any learning theory book will supply you with the studies > you seek, if common sense doesn't. Common sense? How is it common sense that a student only retains a small fraction of what they were taught? It seems to me that any instructor hiding behind this "theory" may want to consider the manner in which he is teaching the material, rather than concede that this as true. > I don't disagree with the answers you received on this question, but > you bought into the idea that turning to the heading is "close enough" > without any idea of whether the posters knew what they were talking > about. Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in this newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars? The 100% agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty telling. SignaturePeter <<question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the theory about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept these ideas. >> Not *should* but probably *would*. :-) <<I simply read this as just another pilot's opinions. >> Ah, very good. The question is, how to verify knowledge? Obstacle clearance: read TERPS. Read Wally Roberts articles. Call Flight procedures offices. Tim seems to be a "TERPS" guy, which I infer because the information he dispenses conforms with information to the above sources. Radio Technique: read the AIM. How airplanes fly: read aerodynamics textbooks. <<However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for me since I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time. No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge your instructors. You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so that you will feel safe when you fly with him. But beyond that, what benefit does it provide you? We have a local guy with 25,000 hours who sometimes allow flight instructors to ride right seat in his King Air to build turbine time. This guy has been known to takeoff into IMC without a clearance. He never uses approach plates or enroute charts, and will often descend right through MDA until he sees the runway. He's rude and obnoxious on the radio. But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you. <<Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in this newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars? The 100% agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty telling.>> Ah, truth by majority vote. The only terpster that replied is "Tim". >But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ah, truth by majority vote. The only terpster that replied is "Tim". I may be reading something into your posts here, but you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well? <<you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well?>> I did not mean to make that implication. Notice that I did not comment on how the OP should comply with the ODP. Before I accept any piece of technical information as "fact", I will cross-check it to the best of my ability with authoritative sources. Until I do, it's "opinion." Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other posters on this subject. > Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative > sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other > posters on this subject. Likewise. After three years of reading this group, it is apparent to me who is credible and who is not. SignaturePeter > > Tim's comments have consistently been in line with these authoritative > > sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other > > posters on this subject. > > Likewise. After three years of reading this group, it is apparent to me > who is credible and who is not. Alas, without a moderated group, who really knows who is on first? ;-) > <<you seem to imply that you might have some extraordinary level of > knowledge about all this stuff. Are you a "terpster" as well?>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sources, so I'm inclined to grant him a higher credibility than other > posters on this subject. Thank you. I am for real, but there is no reason for anyone to accept that in this medium. Plus, I am always worried about our controller friend from Green Bay (Sunskit) finding any kink in the armour to launch an attack. ;-) > No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge > your instructors. What's to question? Being that I already have my instrument rating, I now prefer an instructor who has actually flown in the system for real, not one who sat right seat as an instructor all of his hours. I seek to learn more of the "IFR subtleties" we touched on in this thread. I noticed you conveniently skipped over the sincere question about your background. > You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so > that you will feel safe when you fly with him. It has nothing to do with "feeling" safe when I fly with the instructor. Instead, it has everything to do with getting what I pay for, which is to learn from someone much more experienced than I. An instructor who has little actual IMC time and has placed a hood on a student's eyes more than he has flown behind one himself is not one on which I wish to spend my money. > But beyond that, what benefit does it provide you? See above. <snip> > But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you. LOL! You are funny. This pilot sounds like a real a-hole and a two-minute conversation with him would certainly reveal this. Greg, it seems to me that you may have taken my comments about instructors personally. My apologies if this is so and I do not desire to continue down this ever-eroding path with you. SignaturePeter <<it seems to me that you may have taken my comments about instructors personally. >> Hardly. Locally, I'm "high time" so you'd probably be flying with me. <<I seek to learn more of the "IFR subtleties" we touched on in this thread. >> My original point is that you would not have learned them from "experienced" instructors or pilots, any more than from a newbie. You learned them here. <<It has nothing to do with "feeling" safe when I fly with the instructor. Instead, it has everything to do with getting what I pay for, which is to learn from someone much more experienced than I. >> While you're an instrument student, everybody is more experienced than you are, even a time builder.. Again, my orignial point was that while learning, the time builder was fine for you, as long as he was competent. A more knowledgable teacher would have been wasted on you, until you learned the basics. >Lots of experienced, proficient pilots out there with no knowledge of >obstacle clearance requirements. There is no way, by any stretch of the definition of the word, that an instrument pilot with no knowledge of obstacle clearance requirements can be called "proficient". ><<I suppose this is where receiving training from an experienced >instrument pilot and instructor would far surpass receiving training [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but >knowledge? Opinions? What is there about obstacle departure procedures that involve opinions? The rules are explicit, and well-defined. >Point two is that students only retain a small fraction of what >they're taught. Even if your instructor had understood the sublties >regarding ODP's, it's not likely that you would have digested them in >their entirety. <<The rules are explicit, and well-defined.>> My statement said nothing about the ODP criteria, but only the typical pilot's knowledge of them. ><<The rules are explicit, and well-defined.>> > >My statement said nothing about the ODP criteria, but only the typical >pilot's knowledge of them. You said this: >Not really. What makes you think that an experienced pilot or >instructor necessarily has any higher level of knowledge regarding >obstacle clearances on IFR departure procedures? Opinions, sure, but >knowledge? My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the subject of obstacle departure procedures? > My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the > subject of obstacle departure procedures? In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of faith? ;-) >> My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the >> subject of obstacle departure procedures? > >In the case of light aircraft, the view that the engine (single) or an >engine (Part 23 twin) won't quit during the ODP. Or, is that an article of >faith? ;-) Where is opinion any more relevant concerning engine loss on an obstacle departure procedure than it might be in any other phase of flight? Approach, for example? > >> My question was, and still is, where does opinion enter into the > >> subject of obstacle departure procedures? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Approach, for example? The context was opinions pertaining to ODPs. I suspect that would be the worst place to have an engine failure in a light twin (Part 23) during IMC operations. For a single engine aircraft the worst place would be during climb out (ODP, SID, or vectors) en route, approach, and missed approach, if applicable. ;-) >The context was opinions pertaining to ODPs. I suspect that would be the worst >place to have an engine failure in a light twin (Part 23) during IMC >operations. For a single engine aircraft the worst place would be during climb >out (ODP, SID, or vectors) en route, approach, and missed approach, if >applicable. ;-) The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots really had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely opinions. I'm simply trying ot understand what this means. <<The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots really had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely opinions...I'm simply trying ot understand what this means.>> And I'm trying to understand why you don't understand what that means. Just because people say they know something doesn't mean that they really do. I think that it was "Tim" that use the wonderful phrase "View in a Vacuum". ><<The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots >really had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >really do. I think that it was "Tim" that use the wonderful phrase >"View in a Vacuum". So the "opinion" of which you speak is merely the self-inflated opinion one has of his own knowledge, and he might not know as much as he thinks and therefore implies he does? <<So the "opinion" of which you speak is merely the self-inflated opinion one has of his own knowledge, and he might not know as much as he thinks and therefore implies he does? You got it! > The context was about whether instructors or experienced pilots really > had a certain level of knowledge of ODP's, or merely opinions. > > I'm simply trying ot understand what this means. I've worked with TERPs criteria for a long time and find that ODPs (formerly IFR Departure Procedures) are not well understood. Further, some of them are poorly designed by procedures specialists who sometimes don't have a good understanding of what to provide. One you reach 1,200 feet and complete the turn right back towards the east, you've complied. Just make sure you roll out to intercept the 090 course within a reasonable distance of the VOR. You will have passed abeam, and near, the VOR, which is good enough for this type of ODP instruction. > For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY > State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- > You will have passed abeam, and near, the VOR, which is good > enough for this type of ODP instruction. Thanks, Tim. SignaturePeter > For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY > State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. > However, the last two weeks the weather was IFR and adherence to this > airport's obstacle departure procedure was required. One other question about this departure: Being that it is an uncontrolled field, I would announce my intention to depart the runway and circle to the southwest to overfly the airport and depart to the east. In true IFR weather all of this radio verbiage is probably overkill, no? There are no VFR aircraft around and there are no IFR aircraft that close to approaching, given that I was released by ATC. Would it be more concise for me to simply say "departing rwy 24 to the east?" SignaturePeter > > For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY > > State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to approaching, given that I was released by ATC. Would it be more concise > for me to simply say "departing rwy 24 to the east?" This gets down to style ;-) I would say "Departure Runway 24 with a right turn to proceed east. >> For several weeks now I have been flying to the Dunkirk airport (KDKK, NY >> State, US) for business. Most weeks, the weather was VFR for my departure. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to approaching, given that I was released by ATC. Would it be more concise >for me to simply say "departing rwy 24 to the east?" Just keep in mind that in Class G, VFR is one mile visibility, and VFR aircraft (even radioless, by the way) could be rattling around the pattern. That's often what we call IFR weather, and we all tend to get a bit careless about this stuff, especially until the first time you see a VFR aircraft land that you did not expect to be out there. Better overkill than be killed. Not only announce, but keep an eye out if the visibility is a mile or more. > Just keep in mind that in Class G, VFR is one mile visibility, and VFR > aircraft (even radioless, by the way) could be rattling around the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Better overkill than be killed. Not only announce, but keep an eye > out if the visibility is a mile or more. A few months ago in IFR magazine they had a story about this. I believe the departing aircraft was a small jet who never announced anything on a crossing runway to landing traffic. Gerald > Just keep in mind that in Class G, VFR is one mile visibility, and VFR > aircraft (even radioless, by the way) could be rattling around the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > careless about this stuff, especially until the first time you see a > VFR aircraft land that you did not expect to be out there. Good point. Flying mostly in the northeast US, where the only class G airspace is either 700 or 1,200 ft AGL (making VFR operations a real scud running mission in IFR conditions), I often forget about the other parts of the country where class G airspace is much more voluminous. SignaturePeter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.