"Cleared Direct" - Is flying the SID optional

[dougwells]

I am flying from U42 to KLGU tomorrow. I noticed on Fltplan.com that the most recent ATC clearance for this route was "Direct". I filed "Direct" and it looks like that will be my clearance tomorrow. So, here is my question.

- I understand obstacle clearance is my responsibility when going direct. It is predicted to be severe clear tomorrow. Must I fly the SID or can I simply intercept the direct route and climb to my assigned altitude? Obstacles will not be an issue but KSLC (Salt Lake City International) is about 8 miles to the north and going direct will place me right over KSLC. Cannot imagine ATC would clear me direct if it means I fly directly over KSLC. Will likely be climbing through 7,000 - 9,000 as I fly over SLC. The SID adds 40+ miles to my 70 mile flight so I would prefer to not fly it unless I need to.

Thanks

Doug

 

[taters]

They will include the Itofo2 dep in your clearance if they want to fly this SID,may be necessary for traffic separation .. if it becomes an issue depart VFR and pick up the IFR down the road.

Obstacle Departure Procedures (optional ) and SID's (for traffic flow)

 

[Henning]

Well, I gotta wonder, if it's going to be "severe clear" for your 70 mile flight and you aren't going through FL 180, why are you going IFR?

 

[jesse]

Quite often going directly over a major airport is not an issue. Directly over major airports is not a place where the jets hang out. On the sides of the airport (departure and approach) are areas where jets are climbing and descending rapidly.

I would file direct. Take whatever they clear me for. If they want you to fly the SID they'll tell you to do so. Otherwise don't worry about it.

 

[dougwells]

Well, I gotta wonder, if it's going to be "severe clear" for your 70 mile flight and you aren't going through FL 180, why are you going IFR?

Its just good practice and, frankly, it is usually easier to just go IFR.

Doug

 

[Everskyward]

it is usually easier to just go IFR.

Good luck on getting an IFR clearance out of U42. Because of its location Salt Lake TRACON needs a large break in the traffic going into KSLC. I can recall once being told it would take "at least" an hour. Luckily it was VMC so we picked up the IFR in the air.

 

[N801BH]

Its just good practice and, frankly, it is usually easier to just go IFR.

Doug

On a severe clear day ??? Care to explain ?

 

[dougwells]

On a severe clear day ??? Care to explain ?

Sure. It is not unusual for an IFR flight to be the easiest way to get from point A to B. As an extreme, try flying from KPAO to KHHR (~3 miles outside of KLAX). Much easier to simply file IFR, get your clearance and go. To me, VFR flying would be more stressful.

For this flight, U42 to KLGU, I'll pick up my clearance and they will likely tell me to expect a 30-60 minute delay. I'll likely wait 10 minutes or so. If they don't give it to me by then, I'll cancel my IFR request and go VFR.

My experience is relatively good for getting a clearance out of U42. Getting a clearance INTO U42 from a local airport is tough. Getting a clearance into U42 from a flight 200+ miles from U42 is also easy. Not suppose to be this way but it seems to be how it works. So much so that we relocated to KSLC for a while.

Doug

 

[nddons]

On a severe clear day ??? Care to explain ?

I don't know Doug's experience, but I'll take any opportunity to fly IFR for practice within the system, regardless of whether it's severe clear or not. As it is my radio work is sloppier than when I was in the later stages of my IR training. Working within the system is good practice.

 

[N801BH]

I agree with both of your arguements.... But,,, why not just depart VFR, climb on course and pick up the IFR flightplan while you top the Class B SLC airspace ?

 

[taters]

Cannot imagine ATC would clear me direct if it means I fly directly over KSLC.
Thanks
Doug

in most Bravos ATC will take you right over the primary airport , as Jesse pointed out above, its some of the "safest" airspace there is. At your altitude very possible that they do take you over SLC. I would just depart VFR and pick up the clearance with approach when the SID would no longer be a possibility

 

[N801BH]

in most Bravos ATC will take you right over the primary airport , as Jesse pointed out above, its some of the "safest" airspace there is. At your altitude very possible that they do take you over SLC. I would just depart VFR and pick up the clearance with approach when the SID would no longer be a possibility

Yup... Unless they are launching rockets,,, directly overhead an airport is the safest place to fly.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I am flying from U42 to KLGU tomorrow. I noticed on Fltplan.com that the most recent ATC clearance for this route was "Direct". I filed "Direct" and it looks like that will be my clearance tomorrow. So, here is my question.

- I understand obstacle clearance is my responsibility when going direct. It is predicted to be severe clear tomorrow. Must I fly the SID or can I simply intercept the direct route and climb to my assigned altitude?

SIDs, like STARs and approaches are procedures that you receive a clearance to do. You don't just pick one that you like and decide to maneuver where you want IFR.

If you are "cleared to the KXYZ Airport. Direct. Maintain 8000 ft." that's what you do. If you are "cleared to the KXYZ airport. Bigtown3 Departure..." then you fly the SID.

You mention obstacles. Are you sure you aren't thinking of an an ODP and not a SID?

I'm not sure what you mean by obstacle clearance being your responsibility when going direct. ATC will assign an altitude which will be (or at least should be) compliant with the minimum IFR en route altitude.

BTW, i the context of your flight, your clearance may be direct but the chances are excellent that your departure instructions will include vectors, with "proceed on course" or "direct..." coming after you are gone from busy airspace.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I agree with both of your arguements.... But,,, why not just depart VFR, climb on course and pick up the IFR flightplan while you top the Class B SLC airspace ?

I agree with Doug's plan. IFR involves both procedures and in-cloud flight. In many cases, the procedural aspect is the bigger one. When you fly in an area with very little flyable IMC, it's easy to let both deteriorate. At least when filing IFR when not strictly "needed" you get to keep proficient in the procedural tasks of receiving and executing clearances and understanding what they are.

 

[Everskyward]

My experience is relatively good for getting a clearance out of U42. Getting a clearance INTO U42 from a local airport is tough. Getting a clearance into U42 from a flight 200+ miles from U42 is also easy. Not suppose to be this way but it seems to be how it works. So much so that we relocated to KSLC for a while.

Must be me then. I have had problems getting IFR clearance out of U42 a couple times and I've only been there a couple times. I've also had the same problem at Tooele. Each time the suggestion was to depart VFR. None of these flights were local in nature.

 

[gismo]

Good luck on getting an IFR clearance out of U42. Because of its location Salt Lake TRACON needs a large break in the traffic going into KSLC. I can recall once being told it would take "at least" an hour. Luckily it was VMC so we picked up the IFR in the air.

If the weather is IMC it can take a lot longer than that. I got stuck there for 3-4 hours once. It was even MVFR at U42 but not good enough to get out from under the Class B under VFR. The problem is that there's no practical way out of the valley that doesn't conflict with traffic arriving/departing from SLC although I think an RNAV route could be built that would work.

 

[aterpster]

I am flying from U42 to KLGU tomorrow. I noticed on Fltplan.com that the most recent ATC clearance for this route was "Direct". I filed "Direct" and it looks like that will be my clearance tomorrow. So, here is my question.

- I understand obstacle clearance is my responsibility when going direct. It is predicted to be severe clear tomorrow. Must I fly the SID or can I simply intercept the direct route and climb to my assigned altitude? Obstacles will not be an issue but KSLC (Salt Lake City International) is about 8 miles to the north and going direct will place me right over KSLC. Cannot imagine ATC would clear me direct if it means I fly directly over KSLC. Will likely be climbing through 7,000 - 9,000 as I fly over SLC. The SID adds 40+ miles to my 70 mile flight so I would prefer to not fly it unless I need to.

Thanks

Doug

You can't fly a SID unless it is assigned. If it is assigned you either obtain an amended clearance or fly the SID.

With no SID assignment it's your choice to fly the ODP unless you are a commercial operation, in which case you must fly the ODP or get a clearance to climb VFR.

But, at U42 you have the Class B to contend with. You can't enter it unless either on an IFR clearance or a VFR clearance to enter the Class B

From your statement about extra miles I presume you want to go north, so why not depart VFR, remain near the mountains to the west and stay below the Class B until clear of the area then pick up your IFR clearance in the air?

 

[aterpster]

I am flying from U42 to KLGU tomorrow.

Thanks

Doug

I missed that Logan is your destination. Seems to me VFR to destination is the most practical course of action.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You can't fly a SID unless it is assigned. If it is assigned you either obtain an amended clearance or fly the SID.

It's a little surprising that you are I are the only ones who seem to have picked up on this piece, especially considering it's the title of the thread.

 

[coma24]

The only time you can fly a graphical SID without receiving an explicit clearance to do so would be if the SID contained the phrase "(OBSTACLE)."

Otherwise, you could fly the textual ODP as long as you hadn't received a specific vector or course guidance.

You could get the clearance on the ground, and then advise them than you can accept a VFR climb if it will get you a released a little sooner (read: a lot sooner). I prefer this method to the "call in the air for the clearance" in busier terminal areas. I've heard New York controllers _roast_ pilots for calling to activate their clearances in the air on a busy TRACON frequency.

If all else fails, simply depart VFR and call for Bravo transition with your location and destination and see what they say. Based on the flows, traffic, and your radio work (presumably), they'll work something out with you.

If you can't get into the Bravo, have a Plan C that will circumvent the Bravo and get you to your destination.

Good luck, let us know what happens.

 

[aterpster]

The only time you can fly a graphical SID without receiving an explicit clearance to do so would be if the SID contained the phrase "(OBSTACLE)."

Do you have a specific example?

 

[coma24]

PSP had oneup until about a year ago (I was going to include that as an example), but the current iterations of the SIDs have removed that notation.

I just remembered that Big Bear (L35) has one, though, the OKACO1.

 

[coma24]

Technically, a graphical ODP is NOT a SID, it's a DP...but I figure it's still relevant to the discussion.

 

[N801BH]

I am still waiting for the original poster to chime in on how his flight went.

Ben.

 

[aterpster]

Technically, a graphical ODP is NOT a SID, it's a DP...but I figure it's still relevant to the discussion.

Actually, it's an ODP, period. Since it is an RNAV ODP policy requires it be charted, not described in text. Note the takeoff minimums for Runway 8 associate with that RNAV ODP.

 

[coma24]

Wally, agreed. My point is that I was wrong to call the graphical ODP a SID. It is (as you said) an ODP. It is also, less specifically, a DP.

There was a non-RNAV graphical ODP at PSP a while ago. They're up to TRM6 and CATH1 now, but I think it was the TRM4, TRM5, or the CATH9 that was a non-rnav graphical ODP (all since retired).

 

[aterpster]

Wally, agreed. My point is that I was wrong to call the graphical ODP a SID. It is (as you said) an ODP. It is also, less specifically, a DP.

There was a non-RNAV graphical ODP at PSP a while ago. They're up to TRM6 and CATH1 now, but I think it was the TRM4, TRM5, or the CATH9 that was a non-rnav graphical ODP (all since retired).

This is from FAA Order 8260.46:

(3) An ODP may be either textually or graphically depicted within the following guidelines.

(a) Textual ODP. A relatively simple ODP may be published textually unless a graphical depiction is required for clarity. Textual ODPs may include a climb gradient when required for obstruction avoidance; but must not include ATC related climb gradients. Textual ODP instructions must not exceed a maximum of one turn, one altitude change, and one climb gradient.

(b) Graphic ODP. Complex ODPs are those that require a visual presentation to clearly communicate the departure instructions and desired flight paths. If the ODP is depicted graphically, it must be stated on Form 8260-15A, Takeoff Minimums and Textual Departure Procedures (DP), in the “DEPARTURE PROCEDURE” section; e.g. “USE JONES DEPARTURE.” The decision to graphically publish ODPs rests within the NFPO. When determining the need for a graphic DP, the NFPO must, in addition to the textual DP restrictions noted in paragraph 10b(3)(a), consider:

1 The number of ground-based NAVAIDs and fixes.

2 Whether graphical depiction will enhance pilot comprehension of the procedure.

3 The proximity and effect of precipitous or significant terrain.

Policy requires that RNAV ODPs be graphically charted. "Conventional" ODPs are subject to the above policy, which is looser than a goose. A previous edition of the order spelled it out with complexity parameters. The NFPO cried out loud over the additional workload requirements, so the order was watered down.

The most common non-RNAV graphical ODPs are at airports where ATC wants to use them in clearances, yet have not established a need for SIDs. Two examples are KJAC and KGPI.

Yet, look at the texual ODP at KPUC. By any reasonable standard that should be a graphical ODP.

Having said that, there are a handful of non-RNAV graphical ODPs at non-towered airports. I don't recall any offhand, though.

Further, by policy an ODP may have only one transition whereas a SID may have multiple transitions. The NTSB is all over the FAA on this one because a Big Piney transition may have prevented the tragic Mooney CFIT of not too long ago.

The FAA position is that an ODP can have only one transition since it is usually flown without a specific clearance. Maybe that is reasonable, then again maybe not. But, at KJAC there clearly should have been SIDs.

 

[bob_albertson]

I tend to think the FAA is still about 50 years behind on some of their updates, LOL. Even with an ODP, I don't think safety would be compromised with multiple transitions. If you are flying under IFR then ATC already has the responsibility of keeping other IFR traffic in the area clear of you, unless this is all happening below their radar coverage. The FAA might be thinking the one route transition allows for predictability, but doesn't ATC also have to ensure the airspace is clear (IFR or VFR traffic as appropriate) prior to releasing you for departure? In that case, then, multiple departure transitions are a cinch, just add a requirement to communicate to ATC which transition you will fly. That may cost them too much in print costs though

 

[aterpster]

I tend to think the FAA is still about 50 years behind on some of their updates, LOL. Even with an ODP, I don't think safety would be compromised with multiple transitions. If you are flying under IFR then ATC already has the responsibility of keeping other IFR traffic in the area clear of you, unless this is all happening below their radar coverage. The FAA might be thinking the one route transition allows for predictability, but doesn't ATC also have to ensure the airspace is clear (IFR or VFR traffic as appropriate) prior to releasing you for departure? In that case, then, multiple departure transitions are a cinch, just add a requirement to communicate to ATC which transition you will fly. That may cost them too much in print costs though

My guess is in the Mooney crash case the NTSB will be saying to the FAA pretty much what you state.