121 Takeoff into IFR direct a VOR

S

SierraPilot123

Well-Known Member
Technical question for 121 operators:

ATC clears you direct Red Bluff VOR for your IFR departure.

Great. FARs don't require you to fly a departure procedure, nor obstacle departure procedure. Even though it is always a great idea.

Our OPS specs require us to fly a "departure procedure" or me must request a VMC climb out.

Yet, we often take off from KRDD, flying direct to the Red Bluff VOR and don't utilize a Jepp Departure procedure, nor use the Obstacle Departure Procedure. Flying direct to the VOR provides no info or required climb gradient. Luckily most of us are familiar that it is a departure over a valley and the mountains are in the sides.

So what do you do and what is legal? FAA is going to say that we need to follow our ops specs, even though they give us otherwise. Do we need to politely demand something other than direct to the VOR each time?

Thanks

Redding: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRDD
Departure: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0904/00688HOMAN.PDF
Airport Diagram: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0904/00688AD.PDF
 
SierraPilot123 said:
Technical question for 121 operators:

ATC clears you direct Red Bluff VOR for your IFR departure.

Great. FARs don't require you to fly a departure procedure, nor obstacle departure procedure. Even though it is always a great idea.
Click to expand...


I thought 91.175 required 121 operators to fly ODP's when its available?
 
Well if there is no SID or ODP published for the departure airport you are referring to, then as long as you can cross the depature end threshold at 35' and climb to 400'agl before making a turn and climbing at least 200ft/nm there will not be a SID or ODP.

Pherhaps your FOM considers the "400' min turn altitude and 200ft/nm" a standard departure procedure?

Of course as was previously mentioned you could always "play the game" and ask for a heading off the runway.
 
Hmmm you all bring up good points.

1. For the first point regarding radar vectored departure doesn't apply in this instance because they don't have radar contact in all directions at this airport. In fact there is a DME arc to the southern approach end because of no radar coverage in that area. So I don't think the radar can be relied upon.

2. 91.175 looks like it does require us to fly the ODP:

"(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.
(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"

3. I'll have to look into this one more. This airport does in fact have an ODP. But good point for those that do not. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the heading game?
 
Does your airline have an approved two-engine or single-engine special departure procedure for the airport? When I was in 121 we hardly ever flew an ODP; if we needed to meet specific climb gradients it was almost always done with a company-issued special departure procedure based on the surrounding terrain. The special departure procedure (with an engine out or not) was always controlling, regardless of an ATC vector, SID, ODP, etc.

Which airport is this, by the way?
 
Does't your FOM have a hierarchical display of how you're supposed to do your departure? I.E. IF there is a SID, then use that, if there is not a sid, then use X, if not X, then Y, if not Y, then Z, etc. etc.?
 
Sadly, it is more common than not for people to be busting FARs like this one without realizing it.

As for VFR climb on departure, you better check our opspec on that one as well. Not generally legal.
 
seagull said:
Sadly, it is more common than not for people to be busting FARs like this one without realizing it.

As for VFR climb on departure, you better check our opspec on that one as well. Not generally legal.
Click to expand...

ExpressJet allowed VMC climbs, but they had to be on an IFR flight plan. I don't think we had the ability to depart VFR, but somebody with a current FOM would have to chime in on that one.
 
jtrain609 said:
ExpressJet allowed VMC climbs, but they had to be on an IFR flight plan. I don't think we had the ability to depart VFR, but somebody with a current FOM would have to chime in on that one.
Click to expand...

I was only referencing the procedure while on an IFR flight plan.

A lot of companies allow it. It is usually not legal per their opspec, but probably not an issue until a savvy inspector writes you up and you get to do the 8020 carpet dance. I never cared for that dance, but have at it!
 
seagull said:
I was only referencing the procedure while on an IFR flight plan.

A lot of companies allow it. It is usually not legal per their opspec, but probably not an issue until a savvy inspector writes you up and you get to do the 8020 carpet dance. I never cared for that dance, but have at it!
Click to expand...

Are you saying when someone says that they can maintain VFR obstruction clearance so that they can get a shorter route may not be legal at most carriers?
 
v1valarob said:
Are you saying when someone says that they can maintain VFR obstruction clearance so that they can get a shorter route may not be legal at most carriers?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. A "VFR climb" is considered by FAA to be a hybrid of "VFR On top". Are you legal to fly VFR on top in your part 121 jet? If so, then your opspecs may allow a VFR climb. If not, well, you need a specific authorization (like what Delta has out of SLC) to do it.
 
seagull said:
I was only referencing the procedure while on an IFR flight plan.

A lot of companies allow it. It is usually not legal per their opspec, but probably not an issue until a savvy inspector writes you up and you get to do the 8020 carpet dance. I never cared for that dance, but have at it!
Click to expand...

If the FOM comes from the ops specs, then ExpressJet allowed it, as did Amflight.
 
jtrain609 said:
If the FOM comes from the ops specs, then ExpressJet allowed it, as did Amflight.
Click to expand...

Quite an assumption. The FOM actually does NOT come from the Opspecs but is supposed to conform to it. If the company got it wrong, it doesn't save you from the carpet dance. How well did those companies conform in other ways? Kind of that old "well, punk, do you feel lucky?"
 
seagull said:
Quite an assumption. The FOM actually does NOT come from the Opspecs but is supposed to conform to it. If the company got it wrong, it doesn't save you from the carpet dance. How well did those companies conform in other ways? Kind of that old "well, punk, do you feel lucky?"
Click to expand...

Well, a few things.

Amflight didn't have an FOM really. I mean I guess we had one, but more importantly we had a copy of the ops specs sitting in each airplane, and now I believe every pilot carries a copy of the actual ops specs with them. There's less debate that way.

With Express, I generally trusted the guys in tech pubs to write the thing correctly (or whoever it was that was writing it). If you follow the FOM and get busted, I can't imagine a pilot getting in a ton of trouble, but I can see the company being hung out to dry.

I mean really, there's always the spectre of mass destruction coming from the FAA, but how often does that actually happen? In my experience, the FAA starts to be come really interested in how the company managed to lead their pilots so far astray that they would have a gross violation of the ops specs. When that violation comes from following the FOM, then problem isn't with the pilot, it's with the company. Generally I found the FAA to be fairly reasonable in that regard.
 
Remember that there is a difference also between JETS and the others and this is talking part 121 ONLY.
 
If there is no ODP or SID (DP) assigned, it is considered a diverse vector area. Basically, this is the same as vector DP and allows the controller to vector aircraft below the minimum vector altitude off the end of the departure runway, thus you can simply be cleared direct to the first fix while continuing to climb to the initial altitude.

As far as this ever occurring in real life, I beleive it is a requirement that no obstacles penetrate the 40:1 slope off the end of the runway in order for ATC use diverse vector area procedures for departing aircraft.

As far as this applying to part 121, I dont really know that. BUT in our comapny opspecs and GOM (part 135) nothing is mentioned regarding DVA, so it is allowed, same as descending below a published altitude such as MEA when the controller clears you to do so... think Visual Approach, for example (in which case the controller is using the minimum vector altitude) To me these two situation are the same (flying at MVA and a Diverse vector area departure).

Clear as mud? lol
 
Our ops specs clearly do allow for a VFR climb-out, as well as VFR climb on top.

SIUav8er said:
If there is no ODP or SID (DP) assigned, it is considered a diverse vector area. Basically, this is the same as vector DP and allows the controller to vector aircraft below the minimum vector altitude off the end of the departure runway, thus you can simply be cleared direct to the first fix while continuing to climb to the initial altitude.
Click to expand...

This would make sense if you were in radar contact during the departure. But in the case of KRDD you are not in radar contact until you begin climbing out. Tower has no radar and center can't see you until you are 10 miles away from the airport. Thus, you have no chance for terrain callouts on freq.

A diverse vector area only appears to work in a radar environment:

"DIVERSE VECTOR AREA- In a radar environment, that area in which a prescribed departure route is not required as the only suitable route to avoid obstacles. The area in which random radar vectors below the MVA/MIA, established in accordance with the TERPS criteria for diverse departures, obstacles and terrain avoidance, may be issued to departing aircraft."

So, in other words I am still confused as to whether a "vectored departure" from this airport with no radar environment, satisfies our need for a "departure procedure".
 
SierraPilot123 said:
Our ops specs clearly do allow for a VFR climb-out, as well as VFR climb on top.

This would make sense if you were in radar contact during the departure. But in the case of KRDD you are not in radar contact until you begin climbing out. Tower has no radar and center can't see you until you are 10 miles away from the airport. Thus, you have no chance for terrain callouts on freq.

A diverse vector area only appears to work in a radar environment:

"DIVERSE VECTOR AREA- In a radar environment, that area in which a prescribed departure route is not required as the only suitable route to avoid obstacles. The area in which random radar vectors below the MVA/MIA, established in accordance with the TERPS criteria for diverse departures, obstacles and terrain avoidance, may be issued to departing aircraft."

So, in other words I am still confused as to whether a "vectored departure" from this airport with no radar environment, satisfies our need for a "departure procedure".
Click to expand...

Your op specs are not for part 121 jet, apparently, or someone made a serious "boo boo".

As for the "vectored departure", absent radar, there are no "vectors". Some VFR towers have been known to issue headings on departure for traffic purposes, but, if that happens, YOU still retain responsibility for terrain separation and it does not exempt you from IDP's, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top