IFR departure without SID or Omnidirectional.

[donpedro]

I know this has been brought up before and reading through the old threads (several years old) I thought it would be nice to hear what you folks think about the matter, as the rulebook does not provide much help.

Imagine you are departing out of Wroclow or similair airfield that holds no SID or omni directional departure instructions.

1. If ATC clears you direct to a waypoint, do they give you any terrain consideration in the clearance and are you then expected to follow standard turning departure, i e 394 feet and turn.

2. In Pans-ops it states the runway should have a procedure and if it does not you have to consider ceiling and visibility to visually identify obstacles.

3. As suggested previously: Fly arrival to opposite runway backwards or follow missed approach procedure for ILS into the runway you depart. There are many places with approach only to 1 runway and:

4. shouldn't every runway cater for engine failure case, climbing straight ahead to MSA without hitting obstacles, or if not possible then provide an escape route.

If number 4 is correct then you should be able to climb out straight ahead to MSA even in bad weather and still be safely above all obstacles.

I would really like to now any thoughts you have on this matter :)

I know its asking a lot but any help would be appreciated! Cheers

[bfisk]

I don't know the particulars of Wroclow, but here goes for questions 2, 3 and 4:

2) Given that you don't have an instrument procedure, you would have to be able to visually avoid obstacles up to where you are safe, typically MSA. Nothing wrong with a visual departure.

3) Don't do it. The protected airspace of an IAP does not (unless it's cat3) touch the runway, so you would not have protection. Especially with nonprecision approaches you would have to catch up to the OAS before going IMC, and while the approach/missed approach track may be the most desirable, you need to make a bunch of performance calculations before going.

4) Maybe they should -- but the responsibility for ensuring this lies with the operator, not the state. Ie, if you need an escape route/contingency procedure, that is YOUR responsibility.

[ehwatezedoing]

Everything is there for us Canadians:

From our AIM (RAC 7.7)
RAC – 7.0 INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES – DEPARTURE PROCEDURES (http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publications/tp14371/rac/7-0.htm)
7.7 Obstacle and Terrain Clearance

Aerodromes that have an instrument approach procedure published in CAP also have a procedure referred to as an IFR departure procedure. IFR departure procedures are expressed in the form of “Takeoff Minima” on the aerodrome chart, and meet obstacle and terrain clearance requirements. These procedures are based on the premise that on departure an aircraft will:

(a) cross at least 35 feet above the departure end of the runway;

(b) climb straight ahead to 400 feet AAE before commencing any turns; and

(c) maintain a climb gradient of at least 200 feet per NM throughout the climb to a minimum IFR altitude for en route operations. Climb gradients greater than 200 feet per NM may be published. In this case, the aircraft is expected to achieve and maintain the published gradient to the specified altitude or fix, then continue climbing at a minimum of 200 feet per NM until reaching a minimum IFR altitude for en route operations.

For flight planning purposes, departure procedures assume normal aircraft performance in all cases

IFR departure procedures in the “Takeoff Minima” box are shown as either:

(a) 1/2 – This indicates that IFR departures from the specified runway(s) will be assured of obstacle and terrain clearance in any direction if the aircraft meets the previously stated premise. Pilots may consider this procedure as “Takeoff, climb on course”. The minimum visibility (unless otherwise approved by the appropriate approving authority) for takeoff in these circumstances is 1/2 SM. IFR takeoffs for rotorcraft are permitted when the takeoff visibility is one-half the CAP value, but no less than 1/4 SM.

(b) * – The asterisk (*) following all or specific runways refers the pilot to the applicable minimum takeoff visibility (1/2 or SPECVIS) and corresponding procedures which, if followed, will ensure obstacle and terrain clearance. Procedures may include specific climb gradients, routings, visual climb requirements, or a combination thereof. Where a visual climb or manœuvre is stated in the departure procedure, pilots are expected to comply with the Specified Takeoff Minimum Visibility (SPEC VIS) corresponding to the appropriate speed associated with the aircraft category listed in the following table:


AIRCRAFT CATEGORY: A, B, C, D
Specified Takeoff Minimum Visibility 1, 1 1/2, 2, 2
(SPEC VIS) in SM

A-->1 SM
B-->1 1/2 SM
C-->2 SM
D-->2 SM


(c) NOT ASSESSED – IFR departures have not been assessed for obstacles. Pilots-in-command are responsible for determining minimum climb gradients and/or routings for obstacle and terrain avoidance.

In absence of a published visibility for a particular runway, a pilot may depart IFR by using a takeoff visibility that will allow avoidance of obstacles and terrain on departure. In no case should the takeoff visibility be less than 1/2 SM (1/4 SM for rotorcraft).

Where aircraft limitations or other factors preclude the pilot from following the published procedure, it is the pilot-in-command’s responsibility to determine alternative procedures which will take into account obstacle and terrain avoidance.

ATC terms such as “on departure, right turn climb on course” or “on departure, left turn on course” are not to be considered specific departure instructions. It remains the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that terrain and obstacle clearance has been achieved by conforming with the IFR departure procedures.

SIDs incorporate obstacle and terrain clearance within the procedure. Pilots should note that SIDs published only in textual form at military aerodromes do not incorporate obstacle and terrain clearance. At these aerodromes, it is the pilot’s responsibility to ensure appropriate obstacle and terrain clearance on departure.

You to make sure that your aircraft will still meet these minimums climb gradient criteria even with an engine out (if a twin) or two engines out (Dash 7/ C-130, etc..)
If not, just wait for the weather to clear up enough and take a VFR departure.

[OzExpat]

In terms of Pans Ops, if an aerodrome has an instrument approach procedure but no instrument departure procedure, the pilot has 2 options :-

1. Wait for 8/8ths blue conditions; or
2. Become your own procedure designer cum performance engineer.

Clearly, option 1 is likely to be useless. That just leaves option 2 and you probably won't have time to run the necessary calculations. Thus, if your company hasn't already provided a procedure, you better have the phone number for someone like john_tullamarine - or wait for option 1.

The fact is that, if there's no published instrument departure procedure, it's due to terrain that significantly infringes the SID protection areas. That's not the sort of place where you want to be making your own rules on the fly, as it were! :eek:

[no sig]

Even if you elect to depart VMC, if terrain or obstacales are a consideration you still need to consider your eng inop climb performance and establish a procedure. If you haven't already the Poland AIP is the place to start with repect to any given airfield regarding aerodrome obstacles.

If you're in a commercial operation your company take off analysis will have considered the climb out and eng inop escape routes. Regarding your question no. 4 - no, there is no assumption that a straight out climb to MSA can be acheived, hence the need for every runway to be assessed and a procedure for your aircraft established if needed. The SID does not guarantee eng inop terrain clearance.