Remote airport, and you departed without activating your clearance

[aterpster]

Yup. Correct me if I'm wrong, DVA's are predicated on starting at the runway. Not popping up out yonder after departing and starting from some point in space

Correct. It is a radar form of an ODP. Can only be started once airborne off the runway for which the DVA applies.

 

[dtuuri]

That's a well done lesson on rock avoidance during departure and living through it.

Thank you. I hope my tutorials help students more easily understand what's written in the FAA's handbooks. Slides force conservation of language. Nice to know the "Donate" button works, btw. Thanks again for that.

If I was writing that I wouldn't have limited it to "in the form of radar vectors." Getting "via direct" [first fix] then....... could lead a pilot down the primrose path.

A "direct" clearance isn't a radar vector, it's an assigned track. If the controller can't identify the aircraft because it's below MVA I don't see how they can give that clearance, but if they do a pilot should still know the words "radar contact" weren't uttered and the direction flown is still the pilot's choice.

 

[Palmpilot]

My emphasis--

5-2-8.c Who is responsible for obstacle clearance?

1. ...
2. ATC may assume responsibility...

(a) ...
(b) ...In all cases, the minimum 200 FPNM climb gradient is assumed unless a higher climb gradient is specified on the departure, and obstacle clearance is not provided by ATC until the controller begins to provide navigational guidance in the form of radar vectors.
NOTE−​

As is always the case, when used by the controller during departure, the term “radar contact” should not be interpreted as relieving pilots of their responsibility to maintain appropriate terrain and obstruction clearance which may include flying the obstacle DP.​

dtuuri

​

That appears in a section that is devoted to DVAs. A more general reference is AIM 4-4-9. In any case, inclusion in the AIM does not seem to be sufficient, given the reports in this thread of pilots going "Huh?" when they hear the question. And although you cover the subject, it suggests that not all CFIIs do.

 

[dtuuri]

That appears in a section that is devoted to DVAs.

I thought you might say that. The words we're talking about predate the existence of DVAs and their mention in the AIM. My 1990 AIM has them, no mention of DVAs. Both are in my 2005 version. The paragragh also mentions being vectored off a DP (doesn't have a thing to do with a DA) and says, "in all cases", so I don't agree it's just about DVAs.

A more general reference is AIM 4-4-9.

While that's certainly pertinent, I think the words "radar contact" and "radar vectors" have a ring like a bell. You don't hear the bells, you're on your own. (And if you hear them, cross your fingers they don't screw up.)

In any case, inclusion in the AIM does not seem to be sufficient, given the reports in this thread of pilots going "Huh?" when they hear the question. And although you cover the subject, it suggests that not all CFIIs do.

They might need to give more instruction on learning the magic words, but that doesn't mean they don't teach what their responsibilities are. I certainly knew mine, but couldn't figure out what the heck they were trying to get at when I was first asked. My mindset was on getting higher before I had to make a 180 because of approaching unfamiliar territory--an operational mindset. The controller was on a different page, no in a different book--Black's Law Dictionary.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

The words we're talking about predate the existence of DVAs and their mention in the AIM. My 1990 AIM has them, no mention of DVAs. Both are in my 2005 version. The paragragh also mentions being vectored off a DP (doesn't have a thing to do with a DA) and says, "in all cases", so I don't agree it's just about DVAs.

When the AIM first mentioned DVAs, they were only at some USAF bases. Their civil use was held up because ATC didn't want climb-gradient DVAs at civilian airports. They finally relented perhaps four or five years ago.

 

[Palmpilot]

I thought you might say that. The words we're talking about predate the existence of DVAs and their mention in the AIM. My 1990 AIM has them, no mention of DVAs. Both are in my 2005 version. The paragragh also mentions being vectored off a DP (doesn't have a thing to do with a DA) and says, "in all cases", so I don't agree it's just about DVAs.

I'm not saying it's only about DVAs. I'm saying that placing it in the DVA section made it easier for its general applicability to be overlooked. Fortunately, its scope is unambiguous in Chapter 4, but pilots are still apparently being taken by surprise by the question.

 

[aterpster]

Speaking of DVAs, they can create their own set of terrain clearance/performance issues for light airplanes.

Note DVA climb gradient for Runway 25 at Santa Barbara: 500 ft/nm to 4,600. Yet, neither the ODP nor the FLOUT SID require such a gradient. The pilot needs to be aware of varying requirements like this and perhaps refuse vectors and state the need for one of the other departure options.

 

[Palmpilot]

Speaking of DVAs, they can create their own set of terrain clearance/performance issues for light airplanes.

Note DVA climb gradient for Runway 25 at Santa Barbara: 500 ft/nm to 4,600. Yet, neither the ODP nor the FLOUT SID require such a gradient. The pilot needs to be aware of varying requirements like this and perhaps refuse vectors and state the need for one of the other departure options.

I don't have any experience with DVAs, but I can see that it behooves us to read carefully before takeoff!

 

[luvflyin]

Speaking of DVAs, they can create their own set of terrain clearance/performance issues for light airplanes.

Note DVA climb gradient for Runway 25 at Santa Barbara: 500 ft/nm to 4,600. Yet, neither the ODP nor the FLOUT SID require such a gradient. The pilot needs to be aware of varying requirements like this and perhaps refuse vectors and state the need for one of the other departure options.

That doesn't seem to pass the logic check, especially when you compare it to the HABUT departure at 385 ft/nm. They probably have the 500 on the DVA to allow giving a little bit of right turn off of 25 towards that terrain to the north to get em started on their way northwest bound.

 

[aterpster]

That doesn't seem to pass the logic check, especially when you compare it to the HABUT departure at 385 ft/nm. They probably have the 500 on the DVA to allow giving a little bit of right turn off of 25 towards that terrain to the north to get em started on their way northwest bound.

I was an industry participant in the conference call that discussed the SBA DVA when it was being proposed. I brought up the same point and was advised that it was for vectors to the north to (apparently) provide ATC more flexibility than that provided by the ODP or any of the SIDs. It was also made clear that it was the pilot's responsibility to review the DVA prior to departure and to request a different departure than diverse vectors if the climb gradient couldn't be complied with. I then mentioned that 500 per mile for a Runway 25 departure to the west, to the south, or to the southeast was excessive. They repeated that the pilot can refuse the vector. Obviously, the climb gradient makes no sense except for a turn towards the mountain although the turn is limited to a 271 heading, but that's the way the FAA wanted it. It's up to pilots based at SBA to complain at this point, provided they have an operational issue.

The DVA documentation that the Santa Barbara TRACON received is attached.

 

[luvflyin]

I was an industry participant in the conference call that discussed the SBA DVA when it was being proposed. I brought up the same point and was advised that it was for vectors to the north to (apparently) provide ATC more flexibility than that provided by the ODP or any of the SIDs. It was also made clear that it was the pilot's responsibility to review the DVA prior to departure and to request a different departure than diverse vectors if the climb gradient couldn't be complied with. I then mentioned that 500 per mile for a Runway 25 departure to the west, to the south, or to the southeast was excessive. They repeated that the pilot can refuse the vector. Obviously, the climb gradient makes no sense except for a turn towards the mountain although the turn is limited to a 271 heading, but that's the way the FAA wanted it. It's up to pilots based at SBA to complain at this point, provided they have an operational issue.

The DVA documentation that the Santa Barbara TRACON received is attached.

I doubt if it causes to much concern amongst the local slow climbers. The Santa Barbara Four works just fine to get them out. Being able to give the fast climbers 270 right off the runway would help in running the ol' 25 departure/7 arrival squeeze play a little more efficiently.

 

[aterpster]

I doubt if it causes to much concern amongst the local slow climbers. The Santa Barbara Four works just fine to get them out. Being able to give the fast climbers 270 right off the runway would help in running the ol' 25 departure/7 arrival squeeze play a little more efficiently.

My interpretation: The Santa Barbara Four is a radar vector SID. Departing Runway 25 on a heading of 255 degrees doesn't negate the climb gradient specified for the DVA. The DVA isn't a procedure, it specifies what is required for performance if accepting radar vectors.

 

[luvflyin]

My interpretation: The Santa Barbara Four is a radar vector SID. Departing Runway 25 on a heading of 255 degrees doesn't negate the climb gradient specified for the DVA. The DVA isn't a procedure, it specifies what is required for performance if accepting radar vectors.

So if an airport has vector SID and a DVA, and they give you the SID, you need to read the DVA also before you accept and fly the SID. I'm having trouble getting my head wrapped around that.

 

[aterpster]

So if an airport has vector SID and a DVA, and the give you the SID, you need to read the DVA also before you accept and fly the SID. I'm having trouble getting my wrapped around that.

Me too. I've forwarded the question to my expert. It appears from the documentation that the 500/nm to 4,600 applies only if they turn you to a heading of 271. But, the pilot has no way of knowing that.

 

[luvflyin]

Me too. I've forwarded the question to my expert. It appears from the documentation that the 500/nm to 4,600 applies only if they turn you to a heading of 271. But, the pilot has no way of knowing that.

Yeah. And the controller has no requirement to know the pilots ft/nm. All they gotta do is not assign an initial heading to fly further right than 270. After that, once Radar identified they have to vector below the MVA according to local directives. They're probably pretty close, but a little tighter, than the basic stay 3 miles away from obstructions displayed on the scope or if closer, on a vector that diverges away from it, that can be done even without a DVA.

 

[aterpster]

Yeah. And the controller has no requirement to know the pilots ft/nm. All they gotta do is not assign an initial heading to fly further right than 270. After that, once Radar identified they have to vector below the MVA according to local directives. They're probably pretty close, but a little tighter, than the basic stay 3 miles away from obstructions displayed on the scope or if closer, on a vector that diverges away from it, that can be done even without a DVA.

According to the expert the climb gradients on the Santa Barbara Four stand-alone. Since there is no climb gradient specified for Runway 25 on a heading of 255 it would be 200 ft/nm. I checked the MVAs west of the airport and they can indeed level off a Runway 25 departure at 3,000, but not further right than 255 degrees.