Another IFR departure procedure question

aterpster said:
Steve,

You should join Pro Pilot World.

http://www.propilotworld.com

It costs a few bucks a year. It is run by two guys, one a UAL pilot and the other a biz jet pilot.

They welcome not only pilots but controllers. I am sure a recently retired controller would also be welcomed into the fold.

What's different about them is they verify pilot and controller certificates before they approve you for membership.

In this forum you would know the folks are what they claim to be. They may fudge hours but not ratings or certificate.

I am sure they would love having you aboard.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. Do they take center pukes like me? :)
 
John Collins said:
I agree with the advice given above. A separate issue involves if the aircraft is equipped to fly this RNAV ODP. For example, a KLN94 would not qualify. A related set of questions are when can ATC issue the ODP, and what type of flightplan (ICAO or US) must used, and what the pilot must have filed in their flightplan to qualify for this clearance.
Click to expand...

Why would a KLN94 not qualify? Does it have something to do with the "RNAV 1" note on the chart?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/NW-1/8s1_angil_one_rnav_obstacle.pdf
 
Palmpilot said:
Why would a KLN94 not qualify? Does it have something to do with the "RNAV 1" note on the chart?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/NW-1/8s1_angil_one_rnav_obstacle.pdf
Click to expand...


Interesting... So I was wondering does RNAV really mean. And then what would the "1" mean... So, I did a google search and Wiki says the RNAV X is random (or area) navigation where X is the accuracy in miles. So, RNAV1 means area navigation i.e. gps with an accuracy of 1 mile or better. Is this correct? And, if so, what is the accuracy of the KLN94? Has anyone seen other RNAV # like RNAV3 or RNAV0.5?
 
skidoo said:
Interesting... So I was wondering does RNAV really mean. And then what would the "1" mean... So, I did a google search and Wiki says the RNAV X is random (or area) navigation where X is the accuracy in miles. So, RNAV1 means area navigation i.e. gps with an accuracy of 1 mile or better. Is this correct? And, if so, what is the accuracy of the KLN94? Has anyone seen other RNAV # like RNAV3 or RNAV0.5?
Click to expand...
Read the link I posted two posts up, including the embedded "compliance table" link to the source document.
 
Palmpilot said:
Why would a KLN94 not qualify? Does it have something to do with the "RNAV 1" note on the chart?

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/NW-1/8s1_angil_one_rnav_obstacle.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes. AC90-100A requires the GPS be approved for RNAV STAR, SID, or ODP. In order for ATC to issue a clearance to fly the ODP, one must have filed an appropriate ICAO flightplan. There is a supplemental spread sheet that covers GPS units and their level of approval. None of the current TSO C129 boxes are approved with the exception of the GNS430/530. Download the spreadsheet at:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...fs/afs400/afs470/media/AC90-100compliance.xls
 
Thanks for all the answers and links.

I noticed this at the AOPA link:

"... it is very unlikely that your smaller airport has advanced RNAV arrival and departure procedures."

I guess this is one of those "unlikely" airports!
 
Better than 7700 or 7500. :rofl:

Sorry, I couldn't hold back anymore.

Back the OP question. I agree with Ron. If the clearance included the ODP, you have to fly it. If if wasn't than you can fly on course when you know that you can maintain terrain clearance.

The practical issue with an IFR to VFR on top clearance is that you still need to cancel IFR which requires radio communication.

One can always divert for safety reasons (falling bodies, CB's icing), and you are required to immediately report the deviation to ATC. I personally wouldn't change my squak.

The last thing is that just because I did something and ATC didn't get upset and nobody got called on the carpet doesn't mean that the procedure is correct, legal or safe.

roncachamp said:
Changing to 1200 is a lousy way to get the attention of a busy controller. If you stray from the clearance but stay on the assigned code the controller will observe the discrepancy and call you. Change to VFR and the track goes into coast and the data block soon vanishes. Out of sight, out of mind. Eventually, your absence will be noticed as he's still got flight data on you. Now he's gotta find you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Thanks for all the answers and links.

I noticed this at the AOPA link:

"... it is very unlikely that your smaller airport has advanced RNAV arrival and departure procedures."

I guess this is one of those "unlikely" airports!
Click to expand...
The AOPA link is from 2008. They have added quite a few of these procedures since then.
 
Palmpilot said:
Thanks for all the answers and links.

I noticed this at the AOPA link:

"... it is very unlikely that your smaller airport has advanced RNAV arrival and departure procedures."

I guess this is one of those "unlikely" airports!
Click to expand...

That comment needs to be updated. More and more RNAV ODP's are being added for GA aircraft, particularly in challenging obstacle or terrain environments. In several cases, the only IFR DP from an airport is via a RNAV ODP. This makes departure from these airports problematic if you don't have a RNAV system that complies with AC 90-100A.
 
roncachamp said:
Better in what way? Changing to 7700 or 7500 causes the data block to flash, in terminal facilities it also sets off an alarm.
Click to expand...

I was kidding. All jokes aside, setting 7700 or 7500 will get the controller attention. This also assumes that it's the kind of attention you want. In this case, I don't think it's what the poster wanted.
 
You don't need ATC's 'permission' to cancel. Obviously you have to be in a legal position to cancel your IFR, but if you are then you cancel when YOU want...not when THEY want.

The two way communication is a part of the system but it doesn't have to be done over the radio. Comm failure is a prime example. Airports without RCO's or towers is another. In those cases you call on the phone to cancel. See? Radio not required.

Squaking 1200 lets ATC know you're VFR or bumped a switch. Either way, they call you to confirm. That's the point. Radio comms are established and the deed gets done...radio, phone...doesn't matter.

I'm a guy who gets along in the system. This is by no means my standard method of operation. But mark my words, I'm not going to let myself get into a bind just because the frequency is busy and I can't get ATC 'permission' to cancel. If time is not short then by all means I'll wait. But if I gotta act now and a 1200 squak will get the job done that's what I do and it's not a problem.

What would the conflict be? The second you're VFR you're out of the system and seperation doesn't apply. It's 'see and avoid' at that point. Can't say I didn't notify ATC...I squaked the VFR code. Can't say I didn't comply with an instruction. That instruction was for IFR. I'm not IFR anymore.

Again, not my standard method. But it is a tool in the belt if needed. So far in 9,800 hours I've needed it 2, maybe 3 times. Never an issue.
 
John Collins said:
That comment needs to be updated. More and more RNAV ODP's are being added for GA aircraft, particularly in challenging obstacle or terrain environments. In several cases, the only IFR DP from an airport is via a RNAV ODP. This makes departure from these airports problematic if you don't have a RNAV system that complies with AC 90-100A.
Click to expand...

The present policy is to make all effort to construct a ground-based ODP. Only where that is "impossible" (quoting a Western Service Area TERPs manager) do they construct and RNAV ODP.

We were recently discussing KMMH, which has a lousy ground-based ODP. They are adding two RNAV SIDs because the two airlines operating there need them. During the most recent AWP RAPT I requested that the ODP also be an RNAV procedure. "Nope" was the chair's response. Only if the ground-based ODP is 'impossible.' "

KMMH presently has one RNAV IAP. it is schedule to have three added (two RNP AR and one LPV) in addition to the present RNAV IAP.

I think they are inconsistent, though, they changed the ground-based ODP (a tear-drop departure off JAC VOR) to RNAV several years ago.
 
Captain said:
You don't need ATC's 'permission' to cancel. Obviously you have to be in a legal position to cancel your IFR, but if you are then you cancel when YOU want...not when THEY want.

The two way communication is a part of the system but it doesn't have to be done over the radio. Comm failure is a prime example. Airports without RCO's or towers is another. In those cases you call on the phone to cancel. See? Radio not required.

Squaking 1200 lets ATC know you're VFR or bumped a switch. Either way, they call you to confirm. That's the point. Radio comms are established and the deed gets done...radio, phone...doesn't matter.

I'm a guy who gets along in the system. This is by no means my standard method of operation. But mark my words, I'm not going to let myself get into a bind just because the frequency is busy and I can't get ATC 'permission' to cancel. If time is not short then by all means I'll wait. But if I gotta act now and a 1200 squak will get the job done that's what I do and it's not a problem.

What would the conflict be? The second you're VFR you're out of the system and seperation doesn't apply. It's 'see and avoid' at that point. Can't say I didn't notify ATC...I squaked the VFR code. Can't say I didn't comply with an instruction. That instruction was for IFR. I'm not IFR anymore.

Again, not my standard method. But it is a tool in the belt if needed. So far in 9,800 hours I've needed it 2, maybe 3 times. Never an issue.
Click to expand...
Really, is this still going on. Can't you two just agree to disagree and drop it. Oh wait not POA policy. Sorry again.
 
Yeah, I always make one or two too many posts on a topic. I just keep thinking of different ways to get my point across.
 
Captain said:
Yeah, I always make one or two too many posts on a topic. I just keep thinking of different ways to get my point across.
Click to expand...
Sometimes banging your head against the wall to convince others disinclined to agree with you just ends up with giving you a concussion!:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
Captain said:
Yeah, I always make one or two too many posts on a topic. I just keep thinking of different ways to get my point across.
Click to expand...

The best way to prove a point is to supply some verifiable documentation that actually supports your position. Things like "this is how it is and I have 9,800 hours" or "this is how it is and if you don't believe me you can call..." don't carry a lot of weight.
 
How about, "That's been my experience."? Kind of the same thing really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top