Doncaster Sheffield Rogag procedure - Vmc only?

[PBY]

Hi there, I would like to ask you for an opinion on the Rogag procedure in Doncaster. I have refused to fly it the other day due to Imc weather. The ATC was surprised and ask me why. I told them, that on the Rogag 02 departure I would have to turn at 560' to the right, but the MSA is 1900'. On the procedure plate it says, that this procedure is not assessed for obstacles and does not constitute a standard instrument departure.
I told them, that I could only fly it during the day and in VMC. I said, that in IMC my only option would be to climb straight ahead to 2000' feet (above MSA) and than to turn on course or fly Upton departure, which is a real SID. I am very surprised, that it is possible in UK to clear aircraft into the dark and cloudy night and follow a procedure that does not have obstacle clearance assessment.
Any suggestions and info would be appreciated.

[landedoutagain]

I don't have the books or plates to hand, but I can confirm its not a SID, its only a standard outbound clearance (probably because its likely you will leave CAS in the climb, esp off 20, and also perhaps because of the obstacle clearance assessment you mentioned!)

[PBY]

Landedoutagain, thanks for reply. I completely agree with you. But what is scary is, that aircraft are constantly cleared in IMC to fly this departure (for the last 6 months). ATC was surprised by my refusal of it, as I might have been the first guy to do it in the last 6 months. First they told me, that it is assessed for obstacles. When I quoted them from the plate, that it is not assessed for obstacles, they looked at their plates and found the same in Jeppessen (our company does not use Jeppessen). They said, they will take it to management, because they seemed to agree with my concerns.
But how is it possible, that we get such an IFR clearance in the first place, when Rogag is not a SID? They don't have approach plates in Brussels, when they plan the clearance? How come, ATC considers this a SID?
If somebody knows, how to attach a plate to pprune message, please, let me know and I am going to attach the plates for illustration.

[PBY]

I forgot to add, that what scares me the most about this departure is if I lost an engine. I don't know, what anthenas or chimneys are there close to the airport as I have never been there during day time.

[Dizzee Rascal]

You need to upload the file to an image hosting site such as photobucket (free to register) then use the 'insert image' when you type your reply here on PPRuNE.

[Abu Bebo]

Here's a link to the AIP; page 13 describes the Planned Departure Route
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu..._2_EGCN_en.pdf
What's the difference between a SID and a Planned Departure Route?

[PBY]

Dizzee Rascal, thanks for the info with the Photobucket. I have registered, but the file for the approach plates is in pdf and photobucket does not seem to have this option. Is there a way to post pdf file?

Abu Bebo, thanks for the plates, but yours are old. They are still from the times, when you did not have to turn at 560' right after departure. They have changed these plates in September.
What concerns the difference between a SID and a procedure. That is exactly a million dollar question. I will answer by what it is not. Procedure is not a SID and that's why it cannot be flown in instrument conditions. Procedure is designed to help the flow of the traffic, or to avoid noise sensitive, other control areas or overflying small airports at low altitudes atd.
But the danger lies in Doncaster airport, that they got used to using procedure as a SID and it got unnoticed by the system for a long time. Me as a pilot, I am responsible in IFR to take off, climb, cruise, descent, lend and not to hit anything while doing that. SID gets me above MSA or to MEA. STAR will take me safely to the final.
I think, that people, who are designing approach plates are responsible to design safe departures, which are assessed for obstacles, so we, as pilots can fly them safely. If they want to use Rogag as a SID, the people who design approach plates will have to assess it for obstacles for it to qualify as a SID

[Dizzee Rascal]

I am no computer expert (or expert in anything else for that matter!) but this might do it PDF to JPEG universal document converter

I am intrigued to see the charts you are referring to.

Does this ROGAG 'procedure' level take you to a level that coincides with the ATC Surveillance Minimum level (which may be below the MSA)?

I don't know about Doncaster, but at our unit, ATCOs only have access to the UK AIP and not any of the commercial ‘plates’.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Abu Bebo, thanks for the plates, but yours are old. They are still from the times, when you did not have to turn at 560' right after departure. They have changed these plates in September.

Who changed the plates ? A third party provider perhaps ?

The UK AIP is the legal source document which describes any procedure at a UK licenced airfield. The UK AIP contains the procedure linked by Abu Bebo.

The UK AIP can be amended by an AIRAC supplement or by a NOTAM. None of these exist to amend the procedure from that in the UK AIP dated 25 Sep 2009. So who has changed them for third party plates, and under what authority ?


As you cannot resolve the problem of making a departure to ROGAG a SID, since part of the route it appears lies outside Controlled Airspace, then it seems that if you are not prepared to follow the PDR, all ATC can do is clear you to leave any Doncaster Controlled airspace on a track of their choice, climbing on a safe profile to a safe level within their airspace and then leave you to work out how to get to ROGAG safely yourself for all the bits outside controlled airspace.

I forgot to add, that what scares me the most about this departure is if I lost an engine. I don't know, what anthenas or chimneys are there close to the airport as I have never been there during day time.

I do find this statement worrying. How do pilots cope with other airfields which they have not visited in daytime that don't have published departure procedures containing obstacle clearance guidance ? And what do pilots do if their best escape option is to come off the published procedure due to their reduced climb gradient and the prescence of terrain ? They are then entering the realms of unknown obstacles as well surely.

[bookworm]

The UK AIP is the legal source document which describes any procedure at a UK licenced airfield. The UK AIP contains the procedure linked by Abu Bebo.

True, and the issue PBY highlights is clear in the current AIP text, even if there's some confusion about plates:

02
Climb straight ahead to 500 ft or I-FNL D1.0,
whichever is later, turn right to intercept the
GAM VOR/DME 017R from GAM VOR/DME
(197R to GAM VOR/DME) and continue the
climb inbound towards GAM VOR/DME. At
GAM VOR/DME D5 or FL 80, whichever is
later, turn left to intercept the GAM
VOR/DME 099R to ROGAG. Climb not
above FL 80 initially. Climb when instructed
to cross ROGAG level or above FL 160

Notes
1 These routes are not assessed for obstacle clearance and do not constitute Standard Instrument Departure procedures.

So you climb straight ahead to 500 feet and then make a turn of 180 degrees (minus the intercept angle) to the right.

If the PANS-OPS criteria for an omnidirectional departure are met, why on earth not say so? If the criteria are not met, why on earth clear aircraft to fly it?!

How do pilots cope with other airfields which they have not visited in daytime that don't have published departure procedures containing obstacle clearance guidance ?

If the reciprocal runway has an IAP, climb straight ahead to MSA before turning. If not, don't depart in IMC! In such cases, wouldn't you expect the operator to develop suitable procedures to assure obstacle clearance?

I think there's a clear difference between controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Within controlled airspace, there is a reasonable expectation that any ATC clearance provides obstacle clearance.

[PBY]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies. I apologizes for the confusion about the plates. I have been flying in North America for a long time, hence talking about Jeppessen. Now I know, that they use AIP in UK.
But nevertheless, my question still lasts. Would you, guys, fly this procedure in IMC?

[Friio4]

Hi PBY

Have PM'd you

[Dumbledor]

If I remember rightly, 400AAL is the minimum for ICAO omni directional departures before turning. If elev is 55' then 560' is stated, then 100' is added by Doncaster.

There are many UK airfields without SID's where you routinely depart IMC and at night.

Is it the case that in this case as long as you climb at the assumed ICAO min 3.3% (around 2deg) your terrain clearance is assured. Otherwise there would be a SID with climb restrictions on it or visual dep only?

Interesting subject...

[ComJam]

3 Climb Performace Planning - Nominal climb gradient 8%

This is Note 3 from the AIP page, copied exactly including the spelling mistake.

8% is quite a high gradient, would you agree?

Would you fly this procedure in IMC if you were unable to maintain 8% with One Engine Inop?

As it isn't assessed for obstacles, i wouldn't be comfortable flying it in IMC at all.

[EastCoaster]

In case it's of any help to any of the contributors to this post, the DSA MSA's to the East of the airfield are based on the following:

• Northeast of FNY 1900' (referred to by PBY in the original post) is based on Drax power station which is 14NM North of FNY, maximum obstacle height 873ft AMSL; and
  
• Southeast of FNY 1700', based on another power station 8NM East of FNY at Gainsborough, maximum obstacle height 686ft AMSL.

The ROGAG 02 Planned Departure Route, as described by Bookworm, requires the departing aircraft to follow the GAM Radial 017 inbound to the Gamston VOR until 5NM north of Gamston, thereby almost 10NM South of the Southerly-most significant obstacle, or FL80 - over 7000ft above said obstacle; whichever the later!

Note: Should anyone wish to investigate where the GAM R017 runs in relation to any of the above, they will find that directly East of the FNY it lies at a distance of approximately 4.5NM from the NDB, thereby providing more than adequate separation from any of the significant obstacles in the area.


As PPrune Radar has already pointed out, the procedure cannot legally be described as a Standard Instrument Departure because containment in Controlled Airspace cannot be guaranteed for all aircraft flying that particular route; however, any pilot using EGCN may rest assured that the procedure is most definitely safe and has been carefully designed to make sure that you or your aircraft do not make any unwanted acquaintances whilst flying it!

So, less of the scaremongering please.