Re: How to adhere to this obstacle departure procedure?

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. ;-)

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.

Unless you have a bird with great climb performance, it all becomes a
crap shoot of sorts.

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.

<<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.  :-)

"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.

<<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,
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.

<<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.

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.

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.

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.

<<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.

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.

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.
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?