IFR Departure from Class D with tower open

[Walboy]

.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

At 400 AGL, should I have turned to the assigned heading regardless of other traffic?

Yes. That was your clearance.

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah, those were your departure instructions. 400 AGL then turn 280. No need to query tower again. Only thing you need to hear from tower is contact departure when you're about 1/2 mile off the departure end. Sounds like they were a little late on that but it happens.

 

[frfly172]

If you don't question the clearance ,then you have to fly it.

 

[roncachamp]

At 400 AGL, should I have turned to the assigned heading regardless of other traffic? Previous IFR departures from the same airport under same conditions, the tower has issued left turn approved in takeoff clearance.

You should have turned to the assigned heading. Not necessarily at 400' AGL, you could turn before that. What was the pattern traffic doing? If I was working the tower I would have put potential conflicting pattern traffic in right traffic.

 

[MAKG1]

The only part that wasn't right is that you should have told Tower you didn't have the traffic in sight and were extending.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm curious that a few posts are treating 400 AGL as though it were some absolute altitude flight requirement. AFAIK, it is a minimum altitude that guaranties obstruction clearance if you also maintain a 200 FPNM climb rate. I don't see it as a directive to turn at 400 AGL and not one foot later.

Yes, given the clearance, I would turn heading 280 after departure without waiting for another instruction, but I would not blindly make the turn at 400 AGL, especially without considering other traffic on a visual day.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Yes, given the clearance, I would turn heading 280 after departure without waiting for another instruction, but I would not blindly make the turn at 400 AGL, especially without considering other traffic on a visual day.

Yeah, I was concerned about the "regardless of other traffic" part of the question. If the PIC is aware of a possible traffic conflict, it's the PIC's responsibility to make sure that concern gets resolved, IMO.

 

[rocketflyer84]

I'm curious that a few posts are treating 400 AGL as though it were some absolute altitude flight requirement. AFAIK, it is a minimum altitude that guaranties obstruction clearance if you also maintain a 200 FPNM climb rate. I don't see it as a directive to turn at 400 AGL and not one foot later.

Yes, given the clearance, I would turn heading 280 after departure without waiting for another instruction, but I would not blindly make the turn at 400 AGL, especially without considering other traffic on a visual day.

ATC is expecting you to turn at or near 400 ft unless there is a departure procedure that says to do otherwise.

 

[midlifeflyer]

ATC is expecting you to turn at or near 400 ft unless there is a departure procedure that says to do otherwise.

Even in the OP's scenario, ATC didn't call Walboy to say, "why haven't you turned yet?" Sounds more like ATC "hollared" at him for calling after an extended period and asking what to do when he was already told what to do.

"At or near," sure, although it is probably more like "at or reasonably above." Wouldn't want to turn lower into unprotected airspace, would you?

I'm not suggesting flying 3 miles away from the airport on runway heading before making the turn. One wouldn't do that VFR either at Class Ds where they ask for direction of flight or at Class Bs and Cs where the departure instructions include a turn to a heading. But I am suggesting a turn at the same altitude one would normally make the turn on course VFR when the takeoff clearance is "cleared for takeoff, left turn on course approved" would not raise a single eyebrow*.


[* except maybe on POA, of course )

 

[Velocity173]

I'm curious that a few posts are treating 400 AGL as though it were some absolute altitude flight requirement. AFAIK, it is a minimum altitude that guaranties obstruction clearance if you also maintain a 200 FPNM climb rate. I don't see it as a directive to turn at 400 AGL and not one foot later.

Yes, given the clearance, I would turn heading 280 after departure without waiting for another instruction, but I would not blindly make the turn at 400 AGL, especially without considering other traffic on a visual day.

I didn't want to imply that he was required at 400 ft, only that it's a minimum like you said. Turning not long after passing 400 ft does help with making things predicable on the ATC side of the house though. I'd at least keep it within 2 miles.

The OP seemed to be worried about traffic in the area prior to turning. ATC has already gotten that traffic out of the way. If they didn't, he wouldn't have been released on a 280 along with whatever altitude he was assigned. Look at it like turbojet / turboprop "tactical" aircraft. They get switched to departure while on the ground. Tower is done with any runway sep or traffic advisories at that point. They, with departure have cleared the way for the aircraft. Any traffic advisories on departure are either a heads up call or most likely, they'll be trying to work out visual sep with the aircraft. Either way, the path has been cleared. Unless the op believes the 280 will put him in direct conflict with another aircraft, follow the clearance.

 

[flyingron]

ATC has already gotten that traffic out of the way.

Only if the other traffic was IFR is that guaranteed.

 

[Velocity173]

Only if the other traffic was IFR is that guaranteed.

Just because there is no separation responsibility doesn't mean they operate haphazardly either. They're not going to issue a clearance that creates a collision hazard, regardless of IFR or VFR.

If there was VFR traffic that was a factor then ATC would have issued a traffic advisory. Even with the traffic advisory, you stick to the clearance given.

 

[luvflyin]

........At 400 AGL, should I have turned to the assigned heading regardless of other traffic? Previous IFR departures from the same airport under same conditions, the tower has issued left turn approved in takeoff clearance.

Regardless of other traffic? No.

 

[flyingron]

That was my thinking at the time. See and avoid. I knew someone "could" be there, but didn't know for sure due to low wing and comms were UHF. The compounding factor was turning left from 6R into 6L's pattern. Wasn't there a similar situation a few years ago at Frederick, Md where a fixed wing ran into a helo in the traffic pattern? I guess the tone in Ms. Congeniality's voice was her way of having a teaching moment with me without having to call her. Clearly, it worked.

Again the issue was not that you didn't turn, but the fact that you appeared ignorant about your clearance. Absent being given a "fly runway heading" or similar instruction from the tower, you are responsible for your own navigation from the time your wheels leave the ground.

You are right about the FDK crash. Towers don't separate VFR (or VFR from IFR) traffic.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...v_id=20141023X01333&ntsbno=ERA15FA025B&akey=2

 

[flyingron]

If there was VFR traffic that was a factor then ATC would have issued a traffic advisory. Even with the traffic advisory, you stick to the clearance given.

Sticking to the clearance doesn't mean flying into a VFR target.

The pilot here did nothing CONTRARY to his clearance. His only fault is not understanding his clearance fully.

 

[azure]

Airport is VFR with several aircraft in the pattern.

IFR clearance is: turn to heading 280, radar vectors to an intersection, then as filed

Tower clears me for departure on runway 6 with no other instructions.

At this point, given the potential for traffic conflicts, I think I would have asked which direction they wanted me to turn. With respect, unlike what others here have said, I would not assume that ATC has gotten everyone else out of the way unless the field was IFR. If there is VFR traffic, at a Class D field I always assume the possibility exists for conflicting traffic.

 

[Velocity173]

Sticking to the clearance doesn't mean flying into a VFR target.

The pilot here did nothing CONTRARY to his clearance. His only fault is not understanding his clearance fully.

??? Where did I said that? And where did the OP say he was on a collision course with a "VFR target." Since tower didn't issue a traffic call, I take it the helo wasn't a factor.

Never said the OP did anything contrary to his clearance either. Only said that when he reaches 400 AGL off the end of the runway, to turn to 280. If he does it at 600 or 700 ATC isn't going to throw a fit but 400 does make things predicable in their end.

 

[azure]

Apologies...my IFR clearance stated LEFT turn to heading 280. I failed to mention that, but I think it was implied. My navigation responsibility was never in question, traffic conflicts were. I do my best not to be chatty on the radio, so I didn't feel a need to explain myself to the controller at the time. She issued a curt reply which I followed without comment.

Okay, that's a little different, but I still think I would probably have asked the tower to confirm the left turn, especially if I was aware of VFR traffic on the parallel runway. A little extra caution never hurts.

 

[Everskyward]

Just because there is no separation responsibility doesn't mean they operate haphazardly either. They're not going to issue a clearance that creates a collision hazard, regardless of IFR or VFR.

This. Tower is aware of the traffic in the other pattern. They will either point it out or send you straight out before the turn if traffic is a factor. My home airport is like this.

 

[Palmpilot]

The OP seemed to be worried about traffic in the area prior to turning. ATC has already gotten that traffic out of the way. If they didn't, he wouldn't have been released on a 280 along with whatever altitude he was assigned. Look at it like turbojet / turboprop "tactical" aircraft. They get switched to departure while on the ground. Tower is done with any runway sep or traffic advisories at that point. They, with departure have cleared the way for the aircraft. Any traffic advisories on departure are either a heads up call or most likely, they'll be trying to work out visual sep with the aircraft. Either way, the path has been cleared.

Rumor has it that controllers are human, and therefore not infallible.

Unless the op believes the 280 will put him in direct conflict with another aircraft, follow the clearance.

Requiring a belief that it "will" put him in conflict is putting it too strongly, IMO. The definition of "urgency," which is one of the types of emergency, only requires being "concerned" about safety. That would seem to justify delaying the turn long enough to inquire about the location of the traffic.

 

[Velocity173]

Rumor has it that controllers are human, and therefore not infallible.



Requiring a belief that it "will" put him in conflict is putting it too strongly, IMO. The definition of "urgency," which is one of the types of emergency, only requires being "concerned" about safety. That would seem to justify delaying the turn long enough to inquire about the location of the traffic.

And you're assuming that the controller is in the wrong. We always go down this path on POA. Well the controller could make a mistake. They're human. I assume, based on the information given, that the controller didn't make a mistake and is operating IAW their guidelines.

It's like when we get pilots on here that say tower can't clear you to land with another aircraft on the runway. Tower messed up. No, tower didn't mess up. They were applying their rules for same runway separation and it doesn't required a clear deck.

By all means though, if a pilot believes an ATC instruction puts them in harm, then exercise emergency authority. I just don't see it in this case.

 

[luvflyin]

Again the issue was not that you didn't turn, but the fact that you appeared ignorant about your clearance. Absent being given a "fly runway heading" or similar instruction from the tower, you are responsible for your own navigation from the time your wheels leave the ground.

You are right about the FDK crash. Towers don't separate VFR (or VFR from IFR) traffic.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...v_id=20141023X01333&ntsbno=ERA15FA025B&akey=2

That link doesn't have the probable cause. This one does.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20141023X01333&key=2

From that:
Review of the airport procedures, tower capabilities, and the controller's actions revealed no specific departure from proper procedures. Because the tower was not equipped with radar equipment, all of the sequencing and obtaining of traffic information had to be done visually. This would have been especially difficult at the accident airport due to the local terrain and tree lines that extend above the pattern altitudes from the tower controllers' view, which can cause aircraft to easily blend in with the background. Further, the controller spent a lengthy amount of time on the task of issuing the IFR clearance to the business jet while handling multiple aircraft in the traffic pattern. It is likely that the lack of radar equipment in the tower and the controller's inadequate task management also significantly reduced the potential for positive traffic conflict resolution.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of the helicopter pilots and the airplane pilot to maintain an adequate visual lookout for known traffic in the traffic pattern, which resulted in a midair collision. Contributing to the accident were the airplane pilot's descent below the published airplane traffic pattern altitude (TPA) and the helicopter pilot's climb above the proper helicopter TPA as prescribed in the Federal Aviation Administration's Aeronautical Information Manual for airports without published helicopter TPAs. Also contributing to the accident were the lack of a published helicopter TPA, the absence of radar equipment in the tower, and the controller's inadequate task prioritization.

 

[Palmpilot]

And you're assuming that the controller is in the wrong.

No, I'm assuming the controller could be wrong. That's not the same thing.

We always go down this path on POA. Well the controller could make a mistake. They're human. I assume, based on the information given, that the controller didn't make a mistake and is operating IAW their guidelines.

For pilots, making assumptions like that can be fatal. And 91.3 puts the responsibility squarely on our shoulders. If a pilot is uncertain of the safety of a clearance, he/she needs to do what's necessary to satisfy that concern.

 

[Everskyward]

But if you read the first few posts, the OP assumed the tower would call his turn, which was an incorrect assumption, because he had been given the turn in the IFR clearance. Then he queried the tower without asking anything about the possible traffic. If traffic was his concern, he should have mentioned it. Otherwise he is doing something the tower doesn't expect.

 

[Palmpilot]

But if you read the first few posts, the OP assumed the tower would call his turn, which was an incorrect assumption, because he had been given the turn in the IFR clearance. Then he queried the tower without asking anything about the possible traffic. If traffic was his concern, he should have mentioned it. Otherwise he is doing something the tower doesn't expect.

I agree.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just because there is no separation responsibility doesn't mean they operate haphazardly either. They're not going to issue a clearance that creates a collision hazard, regardless of IFR or VFR.

If there was VFR traffic that was a factor then ATC would have issued a traffic advisory. Even with the traffic advisory, you stick to the clearance given.

No, they are not haphazard. But they do make mistakes. I have, for example, been turned into the path of traffic. @Everskyward's comment is a propos since it was at that airport.

Ultimately, we are responsible for separation in visual conditions.

.

 

[Velocity173]

No, they are not haphazard. But they do make mistakes. I have, for example, been turned into the path of traffic. @Everskyward's comment is a propos since it was at that airport.

Ultimately, we are responsible for separation in visual conditions.

.

Of course they make mistakes. Never said that. You follow their clearances but if it puts you in conflict with another aircraft, you either query the traffic, or you exercise your emergency authority. In the OPs example, nothing that I've read puts him in conflict with the helo. Just because an aircraft is on another runway, doesn't mean they're a factor or require a traffic call. The helo could have been doing slopes or quick stops for all we know. If the OP had issues with the helo then ask "XYZ tower, is the helo on rwy 6 any factor for me?"

Tower isn't going to INTENTIONALLY send an IFR in conflict with a VFR aircraft. Doesn't matter about the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid. If the OP was to deviate from the 280 because of tower's poor spacing, that could be a factor for departure, who probably assigned the heading for a reason.

 

[Palmpilot]

If the OP had issues with the helo then ask "XYZ tower, is the helo on rwy 6 any factor for me?"

And that would be an appropriate means of resolving the pilot's concerns, IMO.

Tower isn't going to INTENTIONALLY send an IFR in conflict with a VFR aircraft.

I don't think anyone said they would.

 

[Shawn]

ATC is expecting you to turn at or near 400 ft unless there is a departure procedure that says to do otherwise.

For IFR departures thought it was 400' AGL minimum but NOT before the departure end of runway for turns.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's part of what AIM 5-2-8b1 says in relation to published departure procedures. I've always assumed that this applies to non-published departure instructions that ATC gives as well, unless they tell you otherwise, but I'm not totally sure about that.

"Unless specified otherwise, required obstacle
clearance for all departures, including diverse, is
based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the
runway at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway
elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the
departure end of runway elevation before making the
initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient
of 200 feet per nautical mile (FPNM), unless
required to level off by a crossing restriction, until the
minimum IFR altitude. A greater climb gradient may
be specified in the DP to clear obstacles or to achieve
an ATC crossing restriction. If an initial turn higher
than 400 feet above the departure end of runway
elevation is specified in the DP, the turn should be
commenced at the higher altitude. If a turn is specified
at a fix, the turn must be made at that fix..."​

 

[Velocity173]

Here's part of what AIM 5-2-8b1 says in relation to published departure procedures. I've always assumed that this applies to non-published departure instructions that ATC gives as well, unless they tell you otherwise, but I'm not totally sure about that.

"Unless specified otherwise, required obstacle
clearance for all departures, including diverse, is
based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the
runway at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway
elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the
departure end of runway elevation before making the
initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient
of 200 feet per nautical mile (FPNM), unless
required to level off by a crossing restriction, until the
minimum IFR altitude. A greater climb gradient may
be specified in the DP to clear obstacles or to achieve
an ATC crossing restriction. If an initial turn higher
than 400 feet above the departure end of runway
elevation is specified in the DP, the turn should be
commenced at the higher altitude. If a turn is specified
at a fix, the turn must be made at that fix..."​

Radar Departures 5-8-3

1. FAAO 8260.46, Departure Procedure (DP) Program, and FAAO 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), Volume 4, establishes guidelines for IFR departure turning procedures which assumes a climb to 400 feet above the departure end of runway (DER) elevation before a turn is commenced. TERPS criteria ensures obstacle clearance with a climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile from the DER. “Immediately after departure” is considered to be any turn that provides at least 15 degrees of divergence that commences no later than 2 miles from the DER.