To ODP, or not to ODP, that is the question.

[Deleted member 27505]

To be totally fair, you're right about it being risky. I saw this in the King Air sim in Eagle and Telluride, too. A lot of guys don't have a lot of "mountain sense" and couldn't hold their airspeed accurately enough to keep climbing at Vxse instead of at blue line OEI, and couldn't look out the window and tell if they were going to hit something or not.

I wonder if you couldn't actually make a gouge that would let you "see and avoid" obstacles by the required altitude with a grease pencil. From a given eye height, there's a spot on the windshield where if the obstacle goes below that and you're climbing at a particular ft/nm you'll clear the obstacle by more than 300'.

Meh, Telluride? That's a box canyon. Perfect for a crop-dustin'* hammerhead turn to climb out the other way... you know, away from the rocks.

*No affiliation with cropdusters living or dead is indicated or implied by this statement.

 

[ppragman]

and I fly 121. So why are you so obsessed with quoting 135 stuff??

Because I don't and that's what I know, but 91 governs all of us so look up subpart I

 

[Deleted member 27505]

The intersection for the ODP off runway 21 is Marke.
So, if you're flying the ODP, I guess you should enter that in the FMS, and head that way, and once in contact with Denver center and they radar contact you, you are then cleared to turn on course?? (asking to clarify this, not be smart-ass)
Looking at flightaware and tracks departing DRO.. looks like Trans States and Skywest head towards Marke each time but never make it to the intersection... however Mesa turns directly on course without headed that way.. seems like a fundamental misunderstanding that needs to be addressed. I've heard the argument in the crew-room before as well, with about a 50/50 split.
I always think, the most conservative the better; no harm in doing the ODP, even if not necessary. But if it is indeed required, I want to be sure to do it each time and be doing the right thing.

I also recall departing MTJ (Montrose) which is in mountainous area, and doing the ODP and once in contact w/ Denver they were pissed we weren't turning directly on course. So you can't win for losing.

Back to Basics:

1. Don't hit nothing.
2. Don't do nothing stupid.
3. If, later, you end up having to talk to someone on the phone, you'll have a plausible story, and you'll have legal justification for your actions, and most important... you'll be alive to tell your story.

All that said, EOD, all of this can usually easily be ameliorated by a quick and simple radio call... while complying with 1. and 2. above. It's been my impression over the years that ATC doesn't so much care WHAT you're doing, as long as they know what that is. None of us likes surprises in the air.

 

[deadstick]

and I fly 121. So why are you so obsessed with quoting 135 stuff??

Not all pilots fly 121 and this is a general discussion that could save the ticket or the life of of a newbie who simply doesn’t know better. Heck, I know pilots with thousands of hours in 135 who don’t because a lot of the minutia is buried in the CFRs are confusing as heck.

 

[STS-41B]

got it. clear as mud. just as it was before.
did another poll amongst friends who fly 121.
Still roughly a 50/50 split on the opinion.
something so basic and IMPORTANT should not have this result.

 

[z987k]

got it. clear as mud. just as it was before.
did another poll amongst friends who fly 121.
Still roughly a 50/50 split on the opinion.
something so basic and IMPORTANT should not have this result.

I dont know what is so confusing. You HAVE to fly the ODP barring the exceptions we discussed(which in your case is likely only going to be a charted visual). 135 is relevant here, because aside from different exemptions, it's the same rule. Since the rule is grounded in 91, which applies to ALL flying. In this case the reg mentions both 121 and 135 equally.
Just because you found more people that have no clue doesn't mean its not black and white. They just have no idea. Like a lot of other lazy pilots. Also don't assume because company A does it this way means A) it's legal at all or B) that they have the same exemptions as you, perhaps brand X has a charted visual and you don't. Perhaps they don't and just break the rules willingly.
Don't assume a 121 certificate holder has any idea what they're doing. A lot of regional upgraded people in violation of 121.436, but the FAA doesn't have the manpower to enforce such things until they cause a problem. So you can usually do what you want and violate regs left and right until the FAA takes an interest in you. In which case you want all your ducks in a row.

Your poll should read
1) You have to fly the ODP.
2) I dont know the regs.

This is almost like the 24/7 on call stuff. People will say they found some people that say it's legal. It's not. It's not even gray. 100% no.

 

[RamRise]

Climb to the top of the odp then turn to assigned heading. Tower doesn't guarantee obstacle clearance with heading assignments.

Diverse departure areas will only muddy the waters further...

Is this a thing?
when given an initial heading by tower you DON'T turn at 400 AFE ? (or 1000 AFE in the case of part 121 using aerodata when field is IFR)
To comply with obstacle requirements for example if an ODP is published with some higher altitude? I understand the reasoning but seems like it would confuse the heck outta controllers.

I know Diverse Vector Area (DVA) airports meet the TERPS requirements. But How can we tell if the particular tower is compliant or eyeballing it?

Sounds like ATC instructions can sometimes conflict with opspec/far requirements when it comes to departures. Like at AVL where they were turning the girl into the mountains?

This is why "cleared on course" is the best and most straightforward assignment for fields that have known obstacles. Fly the ODP, get to the vectoring altitude/MEA and be on your merry way.

 

[deadstick]

Sounds like ATC instructions can sometimes conflict with opspec/far requirements when it comes to departures.

AIM 5-2-9

ODPs are recommended for obstruction clearance and may be flown without ATC clearance unless an alternate departure procedure (SID or radar vector) has been specifically assigned by ATC.

We went through this goat rope a few years back with out tower. If ATC (TRACON telling the tower where to send you) is giving you an initial heading to fly, they are assuming responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance.

 

[RamRise]

AIM 5-2-9



We went through this goat rope a few years back with out tower. If ATC (TRACON telling the tower where to send you) is giving you an initial heading to fly, they are assuming responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance.

Makes sense. How about when you are cleared on course and the runway has a greater than standard climb gradient, but no textual ODP,
For example, if a field was at sea level, would you turn at the altitude specified in the climb gradient (i.e. 360 FPNM until 700') or can you still turn at 400' and keep climbing at or greater than the gradient? Splitting hairs here I know. This assumes the plane has the performance either way. but I'm trying to figure out what the designer's intention is.

 

[STS-41B]

judging by 5-2-9 and the ops-specs of my gig..... CLEARLY is that it is NOT necessary to fly the ODP -
despite ppragman's beliefs.
obviously, if it's IFR, then fly it. If it's night VFR - probably a good idea to do so, but not required... otherwise it's not needed.
Still don't know where his passion for *MUST FLY IT* comes from.

 

[ppragman]

judging by 5-2-9 and the ops-specs of my gig..... CLEARLY is that it is NOT necessary to fly the ODP -
despite ppragman's beliefs.
obviously, if it's IFR, then fly it. If it's night VFR - probably a good idea to do so, but not required... otherwise it's not needed.
Still don't know where his passion for *MUST FLY IT* comes from.

Probably because you don't understand 91.175.

 

[STS-41B]

Dude. You’re not giving it up are you.
WHY can’t you see that’s not the case?

 

[ppragman]

Dude. You’re not giving it up are you.
WHY can’t you see that’s not the case?

Read what it says in the reg... the reg says an "alternative procedure assigned by ATC" or something to that effect. If they give you a radar vector you're good, but just taking off and turning under 135 or 121 is verboten.

 

[z987k]

Dude. You’re not giving it up are you.
WHY can’t you see that’s not the case?

We'll quote the reg again. Try to read it.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, no pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs or an alternative procedure or route assigned by air traffic control.

(4) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, no pilot may takeoff from an airport under IFR unless:

(i) For part 121 and part 135 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff obstacle clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the applicable airplane performance operating limitations requirements under part 121, subpart I or part 135, subpart I for takeoff at that airport; or

There's very few 121 operators with the opspec for VFR. If you're one of them, well, then VFR rules. But when you take off under IFR, the wx being IMC or VMC is largely irrelevant.

ATC cannot assign a heading in lieu of an ODP unless you're radar contact. Since they cannot take the responsibility for terrain clearance if they cannot see you.

 

[STS-41B]

A god damn men

 

[deadstick]

I see where he’s coming from, but paragraph f is a hot mess.

—Right off the bat, it says that all of para (f) applies to air carriers. Then skip the wx mins in (f)(1)-(2)...

—(f)(3)...if there’s an ODP use it, unless “an alternative procedure or route assigned by air traffic control.” Oh yea, check (f)(4), too.

—(f)(4) Now, don’t forget this applies to 121/135...mmm-kay?...those folk have to meet the performance requirements of 135 Subpart I. That’s a mess with the cross-references and lawyer vaguery, especially for .398-9 and the non-transport aircraft. FWIW, the SFAR 41 (has since expired) is what the gave us the King Air 300. FMI: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04 ac equip & auth/chapter 03/04_003_002.htm

I don’t really see anything different from the AIM.

(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter.

(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.

(2) If takeoff weather minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a particular airport, the following weather minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR:

(i) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less—1 statute mile visibility.

(ii) For aircraft having more than two engines— 1⁄2 statute mile visibility.

(iii) For helicopters— 1⁄2 statute mile visibility.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, no pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs or an alternative procedure or route assigned by air traffic control.

(4) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, no pilot may takeoff from an airport under IFR unless:

(i) For part 121 and part 135 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff obstacle clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the applicable airplane performance operating limitations requirements under part 121, subpart I or part 135, subpart I for takeoff at that airport; or....

 

[deadstick]

@z987k

looks like we were looking at the same paragraphs.

This reminds me of something from HEMS/HAA ops from a few years ago. There were IFR helicopters trying to get into the system from a scene (not on an airport). It came down to (regardless of fw/rw) on entering the system from a TERP’d (known) area/surface and being able to provide obstacle/terrain separation up to the min IFR altitude. There was an LOI on it around 2014 or 15. I’ll go looking tomorrow. There was one op I know of that had/has to go SVFR from a hospital pad that’s inside controlled airspace back to the runway in order to depart IFR. It makes since.

They (the FAA folks who write these procedures) know what it and isn’t along the departure path. I’m pretty sure ATC can assign a vector. It’s possible they gave a cheat sheet that says aircraft coming off RW01 can get an initial turn of anything from 350 cw to 090. I have no idea for sure, but how else can they tell a pilot to “enter controlled airspace (700 AGL) heading....?” I’ve received that numerous times, and it was a 180d turn away from the ODP and the obstacle that was miles away.

 

[STS-41B]

Think about this. DRO 21. ODP states a turn to go to MARKE... yada yada yada.
Single -engine procedure says to fly runway heading.
SO. I got 2 good engines but “have to” fly this ODP. But if I lose one, we go straight out.
Makes sense???
NOT.

 

[ppragman]

Think about this. DRO 21. ODP states a turn to go to MARKE... yada yada yada.
Single -engine procedure says to fly runway heading.
SO. I got 2 good engines but “have to” fly this ODP. But if I lose one, we go straight out.
Makes sense???
NOT.

I mean, that's a thing, that's an "engine out procedure." You only fly it if you're single engine...so... yah?

 

[STS-41B]

I mean, that's a thing, that's an "engine out procedure." You only fly it if you're single engine...so... yah?

Exactly.. so you’d fly an out of the way procedure if all ok.
But lose an engine and go straight out??
You’re just LAUGHABLE.