Teterboro tips?

mikecweb said:
Tell me you're joking.
Click to expand...

Oh this is gonna be good.......

popcorn_10000.jpg
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Just to clarify; you won't get a clearance to "climb and maintain 2,000, expect FLxxx ten minutes after departure." You'll get "...via the Teterboro Six departure (with the appropriate departure fix specified; WHITE, ELIOT, PARKE, etc), expect FLxxx ten minutes after departure." It's up to you to LOOK at the TEB6 departure plate and figure out what course and altitudes you are to fly depending on which runway you depart.

Not calling out you specifically, but I fail to see what's so damn difficult about the whole thing. Then again, I've been in sim houses and FBOs enough to get a pretty good idea as to the root of the problem.
Click to expand...

No worries. I'm probably mixing up the specifics of what happened to this particular Falcon crew. I thought when she checked on with departure she reported "leveling at 2000", but maybe it was "2000 climbing xxxxx". Either way, the departure controller did NOT like what she had to say...
 
mikecweb said:
Tell me you're joking.
Click to expand...

I wrote it a little wrong. What I was trying to say is that the climb gradient published on a SID is assuming all engines operative. However, 91.175 (f)(4)(i) now states that 121 and 135 operators must ensure obstacle clearance with one engine inoperative. Nothing mentioned about Part 91.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
I wrote it a little wrong. What I was trying to say is that the climb gradient published on a SID is assuming all engines operative. However, 91.175 (f)(4)(i) now states that 121 and 135 operators must ensure obstacle clearance with one engine inoperative. Nothing mentioned about Part 91.
Click to expand...

They're working on including certain 91 operations, according to my sources on the inside... I hate AC 120-91 for several reasons, don't get me started.
 
Boris Badenov said:
On a slightly related note, I've been given the TEB6 in weather that precludes basic VFR. Which is it? An IFR Departure, or a VFR "procedure"? Is it fish or fowl? I find it extremely disturbing that "special procedures" outside the normal rules of the FARs/AIM are instituted for reasons that are, for all practical purposes "because a lot of rich people want to fly out of the Teterhole or the AssPen." It's an open secret, for example, that most aircraft can't meet the single-engine climb gradients required out of the AssPen, but people blast off all the time 'cause some Patrician needs to get to his next meeting with Chinese moneylenders. And guess who will be blamed when there's another pricey bizjet decorating a mountaintop?
Click to expand...

It also depends on your Opspecs. We are allowed to conduct a VMC climb on an IFR flight plan if so requested. As you said, it's a work-around (at least when i'm flying, because I know my eyeballs don't have peak elevations over-layed on to them:)).
 
Allentown is a sweet little airport, They have an annual balloon festival there every September. Flying the Dash 8 out of EWR in that area is pretty sweet since they keep us down low. Keep your eyes peeled because some of those things get really close! We actually used to service it for CAL but now they just send a bus. Seriously, you go to the AIRport and go to gate 70 and get on a bus...
 
This is new from TEB with regards to the Dalton departure. Good read.:

Some pilots, mostly crews from outside TEB and foreign crews, are still violating the altitude restrictions, which puts Teterboro departures in conflict with Newark arrivals. The Dalton departure is used when Teterboro is departing from runway 19 and Newark is arriving runway 22. It reduces the vertical separation from 1000’ to 500’. If you can’t fly the Dalton departure, you may have to wait for a gap in Newark arrivals, which increases delays. The procedure appears in the Jepp charts and in the Airport/Facility Directory. You will not find it in the NACO instrument charts.



And most importantly, ATC CANNOT solicit the Dalton departure from pilots anymore. Pilots must request the procedure when the contact clearance delivery in order to get it in their clearance. If you don’t request it, you won’t get it. This will make Teterboro delays longer.



Before you go look at the TEB website and get all the latest. It's not as bad as you've seen here but I agree "you better be on your game"
 
It just so happens that this discussion is happening concurrently on another forum.

Here's a great summary from a guy that knows TERPS inside and out.

The task of cataloging all of the urban legends, Old Wives' Tales and good old BS is too tall for posting on the forum.

We could begin by saying that pilots flying the line lack the requisite tools, terrain/obstacle surveys and data to be rolling their own runway analyses per AC 120-91 and 14 CFR 135.379/121.189. Pilots should understand how the AFM data is used by outfits like Jeppesen OpsData, APG and the rest, but it's completely unrealistic to expect a pilot to perform the calculations her/himself consistently without error.

The problem is that (primarily due to absence of specific FAA guidance for operators flying jets under Part 91) over the past several decades, generation after generation of CFI's, CFII's, Check Airmen, DPE's and FAA ASI's have been inculcated with the same misconceptions when it came to explaining how the Certification Rules of 14 CFR Part 25 are applied to various Operating rules -- i.e., Parts 121, 135, 91, etc. And because generations of pilots were left to "wing it", we are now stuck with an impossible mess that probably will take another decade or so to sort out.
But the first thing that CAE/FSI/SimComn could do is remember the rule of holes -- STOP DIGGING! Stop teaching urban legends.
soapbox.gif


It doesn't matter if the misconceptions came from Cessna, Dassault or some Air Force Colonel -- "someone" has to grab this issue and bulldog it all the way to the top of the food chain at the Part 142 training centers. Get senior management to recognize the issues and then to commit to correcting them.
And then the leadership of those schoolhouses has to turn around all of those battleships...
fightwall.gif
fightwall.gif

It won't be easy.

A few of the sins and urban legends -- (each of them FALSE):

  • You can't accept a SID unless you can fly it after losing an engine.
  • FAA will bring 91.13 down on your head if you takeoff from KASE without being able to fly the SARDD with OEI.
  • FAA has violated crews for doing so at ASE -- "I know a guy who has a friend... whose brother in law's cousin... got violated... it wasn't last winter, but not too long ago... I'm pretty sure..."
  • You must be able to fly an ODP with OEI.
  • If you can't fly the SID with OEI, it's legal to do so as long as you are in VMC.
So don't feel like the Lone Ranger if the subjects have been taught to you partly-wrong or entirely-wrong.

Fortunately, the AC and the AIM advice are finally there for anyone who choses to read them.

APG has plenty of training available on the subject; a number of PPW members may have seen APG's presentations at the Bombardier Safety stand downs and/or NBAA functions.
Click to expand...
 
1) I think it might be a little less cut and dried if you fly under 135

but, more importantly

2) The above nothwithstanding, imho, flying out of KASE in a plane that's going to become a ski-lodge garnishment if you lose an engine, is unlikely to be what the passengers in the back think their level of safety to be. And, finally, you can be sure that when the crash finally happens, the pilots will be blamed, regardless of the legality of their actions.
 
Boris Badenov said:
The above nothwithstanding, imho, flying out of KASE in a plane that's going to become a ski-lodge garnishment if you lose an engine, is unlikely to be what the passengers in the back think their level of safety to be.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. Just another example of "safe may not be legal and legal may not be safe".
 
Flown out of there several times. We use alternate departure procedures in case of engine failure. Several companies out there will give you analysis of any airport in the world. The Aspen alternate turns you westerly down the valley (below the ridge line) and then back southwesterly through another valley all the time gaining altitude.

Flew the alternate VFR once just to see how it panned out - - wish I hadn't. Somethings better left unknown - ignorance is bliss. There is a lot of Cumulogranites around there!
 
Last night we got held up in Fort Dodge due to thunderstorms, which wasn't too bad because they had a decent FBO. We woke up at 4 this morning and headed for Rapid City. It took forever because we had a 30+knot headwind and were only getting a 108kt ground-speed. We finally made it there and then headed on to Bozeman and then on to Walla Walla without any complications or weather giving us trouble. I have had my fair share of thunderstorms lately and don't want to see one for quite some time!
 
FLY_BOY said:
Last night we got held up in Fort Dodge due to thunderstorms, which wasn't too bad because they had a decent FBO. We woke up at 4 this morning and headed for Rapid City. It took forever because we had a 30+knot headwind and were only getting a 108kt ground-speed. We finally made it there and then headed on to Bozeman and then on to Walla Walla without any complications or weather giving us trouble. I have had my fair share of thunderstorms lately and don't want to see one for quite some time!
Click to expand...

Glad you checked in. We lost one PA44 today, I was worried looking at your Flight Aware track that it might be 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top