departing in ifr conditions at uncontrolled airport

jhugz said:
AC

(1) Limitations. The following instructions should be included in the Limitations Section of all AFM or AFMS:

(a) Navigation must not be predicated upon the use of the TAWS.

NOTE: The terrain display is intended to serve as a situational awareness tool only. It may not provide either the accuracy or fidelity, or both, on which to solely base decisions and plan maneuvers to avoid terrain or obstacles.
Click to expand...

You're not navigating solely based on it, you know you're are going to clear all the terrain (man made things are why I fly the ODP, you never know where they'll pop up) and you use the TAWS to verify that fact, what's the problem. Regardless, what I'm getting at is that it doesn't make you an idiot. You drop that label awfully easy, just because you wouldn't do something doesn't make it unsafe or idiotic. I follow the ODPs, why? Because it doesn't take me far enough out of the way to inconvenience me enough to want to deviate from them. However, given adequate climb performance, a good knowledge of the terrain, instrumentation which would aid in identifying a problem (fine if not TAWS then FLIR), accurate and adequate preflight planning, and the like I don't see a problem.

At PAOH the ODP was wrong for a while and turned you towards terrain at 500' if you climbed too well, so there's no way in hell I'd use it there. In that case it'd be "idiotic" to follow the ODP, no?
 
jhugz said:
Relax, as I said before ODP's are not regulatory. You don't have to fly them in Mountainous Alaska but I'm going to fly them here in flat Maryland.
Click to expand...

Ohh, I sure as hell fly them around here, there's too much stuff to hit. But I know guys who don't, and haven't for years, and they're still alive and well, and I don't consider them idiots for it.
 
jhugz said:
Because if you have another tool to aid in the safety of flight why not use it?
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable thing to say. That being said, if two options are equally safe then why would someone be an idiot for doing one over the other?

See, the content of what we're talking about isn't what bother's me, its the blanket statement of "man, this guy is an idiot because he does something that I don't do." Like I said, the ODP at Hoonah used to turn you into terrain at 500', using essentially blind faith in the published procedure (which isn't mandatory as stated above) one could get oneself killed.

Its not the ODP following vs. not following that pissed me off, I fly IFR so rarely that when I do file, I fly the easiest possible procedures for the primary reason that it makes my life easier, and simpler. What bothers me is this blanket assumption that even though someone does something that's within the regulatory limits, they are an idiot because you wouldn't do it. I wouldn't ferry airplanes across the ocean, primarily because I find the idea of being that far off shore with a piston motor terrifying. That doesn't mean I think those guys are idiots. I don't think blasting off zero-zero part 91 is a good idea, but that doesn't mean that people who do it are idiots. Have you ever flown IFR over a solid overcast that goes down to the ground in a single, or IFR along a route that had surface visibilities of less than a mile? That's not necessarily a good idea, some people may not fly in a single under those conditions because they don't feel comfortable with it. That doesn't make those who do idiots.

/rant
 
ppragman said:
quote
Click to expand...

The difference is they are not equal as safe. Flying an ODP is much safer then blasting off w/ one. As for the wrong procedure on the ODP I'm sure it was fixed w/ a NOTAM. I guess however pilots that fly without NOTAMs are just as safe also.
 
ppragman said:
Have you ever flown IFR over a solid overcast that goes down to the ground in a single, or IFR along a route that had surface visibilities of less than a mile? That's not necessarily a good idea, some people may not fly in a single under those conditions because they don't feel comfortable with it. That doesn't make those who do idiots.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that comment. Using the word idiot is a bit strong but I would say these pilots are assuming a level of risk that leaves them with no out if they have an engine failure/emergency. Just as I find it very unsafe to fly over mountainous terrain when below glide range to a safe landing area. ORM = occupational risk management. Try to minimize or eliminate unnecessary risk.
Now with that said, I have caught myself in some stupid situations in the past that in 20/20 hindsight was risky but at the time seemed OK or justified. This shows why experience generally makes pilots safer because they learn from there prior poor decisions.
 
All I can think of as I keep reading this is:

The accident was a result of controlled flight into terrain. Contributing factors include the pilots failure to fly an established obstacle departure procedure...

...and viola another act of congress.
 
29.92inHg said:
All I can think of as I keep reading this is:

The accident was a result of controlled flight into terrain. Contributing factors include the pilots failure to fly an established obstacle departure procedure...

...and viola another act of congress.
Click to expand...

This is true, but you could equally say the same thing about flying over an area of thick surface fog.
 
subpilot said:
I would disagree with that comment. Using the word idiot is a bit strong but I would say these pilots are assuming a level of risk that leaves them with no out if they have an engine failure/emergency. Just as I find it very unsafe to fly over mountainous terrain when below glide range to a safe landing area. ORM = occupational risk management. Try to minimize or eliminate unnecessary risk.
Now with that said, I have caught myself in some stupid situations in the past that in 20/20 hindsight was risky but at the time seemed OK or justified. This shows why experience generally makes pilots safer because they learn from there prior poor decisions.
Click to expand...


I think it was SteveC who wrote something about "levels of acceptable risk." Different people will tolerate different levels. Every time you take off out of a field with no real places to land after the departure end, you leave yourself without an out in case something happens. Every time you fly an ILS to minimums in a single you leave yourself with no options in the event of a failure. You may try to rationalize these things, but really, every action has a consequence. All this is is risk management, just because you choose to manage your risks differently than someone does not make the someone an idiot. That's the point I'm trying to make. Also what one guy may call a "poor decision" may be another man's bread and butter (just look at all the FLX guys darting out across the country every night SPIFR in a 210).
 
ppragman said:
quote
Click to expand...

Every time you post something on this site you should think in the back of your mind what is the worse thing that could happen if a student pilot googles a question and comes up with this thread. Could they get the wrong impression with the statement I just made? Could my words be the link in the chain that kills a couple people in an airplane? Set aside ego's (not a shot at anyone) and think about that statement. If you read your statement Pat as a student pilot or a fresh instrument pilot in this case do you see how distorted it could be?

We take risks every day as pilots and as SteveC said it is all about managing those risks. The way we could negate every risk is to sit on the ground and make a no go decisions every day because even on VFR clear and a million days tragedy could strike at any second as we saw just a while back. However some of us don't have this luxury. Some of us fly for a living and we accept and embrace the day to day risks. However if there is something I can be doing to reduce risk while still doing my job you can bet that I will do that and someone that does not is an idiot in my book.
 
jhugz said:
Every time you post something on this site you should think in the back of your mind what is the worse thing that could happen if a student pilot googles a question and comes up with this thread. Could they get the wrong impression with the statement I just made? Could my words be the link in the chain that kills a couple people in an airplane? Set aside ego's (not a shot at anyone) and think about that statement. If you read your statement Pat as a student pilot or a fresh instrument pilot in this case do you see how distorted it could be?

We take risks every day as pilots and as SteveC said it is all about managing those risks. The way we could negate every risk is to sit on the ground and make a no go decisions every day because even on VFR clear and a million days tragedy could strike at any second as we saw just a while back. However some of us don't have this luxury. Some of us fly for a living and we accept and embrace the day to day risks. However if there is something I can be doing to reduce risk while still doing my job you can bet that I will do that and someone that does not is an idiot in my book.
Click to expand...

The world is not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. Somethings that appear to be safe are not, and somethings that at first glance would seem dangerous are not. It is all risk management. You can call whoever you like an idiot, regardless, this label fails to give any reasons other than "I don't agree with how they operate, therefore they are an idiot." There are a lot of guys whose operational practices exceed my tolerances for risk. That does not mean that they are idiots.

The operation mentioned above is legal as we collectively ascertained. Is it a good idea, no, not in my opinion. However, it is legal, and some people may choose to operate in such a manner. If they do so without proper preflight planning and preparation, then they are operating carelessly and recklessly, which makes them an idiot in the eyes of the only organization that matters, the FAA. Beyond that, if they've reviewed the options, know the alternatives, have found that they can safely and effectively complete the flight as planned using a totally legal alternative, then how can they be idiots?

Let's spell this out a little for your supposed student pilots. Why isn't this a good idea (outside of legal ramifications if something doesn't happen):

Non-standard departures don't necessarily adhere to TERPS and may not provide obstruction clearance.

However, if you can provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance then why not? By the way, what does center say when you call up off airway below the OROCA outside radar contact to get your clearance? "Can you provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance through 7,000 (or whatever altitude)?"

Each pilot will have to decide that for themselves. A brand new instrument pilot shouldn't be launching in "hardcore" IFR at all until they've got some more experience, that doesn't seem to stop them. I can launch VFR under a special in 1000'CX and 1 mile of visibility under 135 and occasionally do, I know a lot of people that consider less than 2000' Ceilings and 3 miles of vis to be IFR weather, and think I'm completely crazy for doing otherwise. It's totally legal, and is a requirement of the operation, whereas flying IFR might be suicide under certain conditions in these airplanes.

By the way, if your magical student is letting the internet dictate to them how they fly the airplane, then they probably have no business being in it to begin with. You are responsible for your own actions, nothing I say or post on here has any bearing on whether someone crashes an airplane somewhere else. I am not giving Dual instruction. This post cannot be logged as dual given, and I cannot endorse your or anyone elses logbook for it. This is edu-tainment. You may get ideas about things, but it is up to the PIC to decide what he/she does or does not do. Think for yourself.

My words are not warped, they say one thing, "it is legal." Just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea in all circumstances. Just like flying in 1sm and Clear of Clouds, or departing zero-zero part 91, or flying a twin in high density altitude areas where losing a motor won't allow you to clear the terrain. These things are all legal, and there may be times when the operation may require it. That doesn't make people who do these things idiots.

Here's a question for you, do you ever fly your traffic pattern outside of gliding distance, or have you ever made a straight in approach at an uncontrolled airport, or have you ever... the list goes on and on and on.
 
Back to the OP's original post, I think you should ask your CFII for a more in depth discussion on this topic. You don't simply climb to pattern and then do whatever you want.

I've never been issued a clearance from a non towered field (on the ground, either through and RTR or on the phone) that included a SID, but I've certainly picked up an IFR clearance airborne from a non towered field and been issued a SID. Obviously a radar vector SID would be out of the question, but I don't see why you couldn't be issued a SID on a clearance out of a non towered field.
 
To also answer the original post: If an ODP was available, I would depart, fly the ODP, then turn and climb on course. Obstacle clearance is guaranteed by flying the ODP.

If an ODP was not available, I would depart, fly runway heading to 400 AGL, then turn and climb on course. Obstacle clearance is not an issue as long as you can maintain a 200' per NM climb gradient.

Real world: If it was solid IMC (0/0) and I'm departing out of an airport where I don't know the terrain, I would consider delaying the flight until weather conditions improved.
 
ppragman said:
Why?
Click to expand...

You're dangerous!!!

jhugz said:
Every time you post something on this site you should think in the back of your mind what is the worse thing that could happen if a student pilot googles a question and comes up with this thread. Could they get the wrong impression with the statement I just made? Could my words be the link in the chain that kills a couple people in an airplane? Set aside ego's (not a shot at anyone) and think about that statement. If you read your statement Pat as a student pilot or a fresh instrument pilot in this case do you see how distorted it could be?
Click to expand...

If someone comes to this website and reads some words then goes out in real life and tried to act out what they read on an anonymous website and crashes I hate to say their probably getting what they deserve. Think about it.

So in my mind you fly the ODP or SID if there is one and then when you start getting RV's you go with that. When I check in I don't tell them what I'm doing i.e. I'm flying the Podunk ODP to blah blah blah...
 
If an ODP was not available, I would depart, fly runway heading to 400 AGL, then turn and climb on course. Obstacle clearance is not an issue as long as you can maintain a 200' per NM climb gradient.
Click to expand...

If ODP and SID are not available, I would try something different here. This is just my person idea - fly reverse approach. I will be looking the approach plates for a particular airport. After studying that, I woulf fly opposite direction of approach to avoid obstacles.

Just my 0.02 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top