Takeoff minima yet no SID

[Dollehz]

Quick question,

Does anyone know why EGNS (Isle of man, UK) has published takeoff minima but no SID?

Vectors (directs) are given after departure but with the published takeoff minima of RVR = 150m and lowest MVA of 1600ft this seems odd to me...

How does this work? AIP says nothing about an omnidirectional departure

[galaxy flyer]

In the absence of a SID and the presence of IFR procedures; an omnidirectional departure is assumed and surveyed "clear" up to the lowest useable enroute altitude. See PANS-OPS Doc 8168.

[Dollehz]

Thanks for the reply GF,

Could you by any chance tell me where in the PANS-OPS as i'm unable to find it

[galaxy flyer]

Read Doc 8168, Chap 3, Omnidirectional Departures. It begins on page 666 in Jepp J-AID General section.

[Dollehz]

So i read it again, explains how these departures work but doesn't say that if nothing is published one can assume an omnidirectional dep is safe.

Don't get me wrong, your explanation makes perfect sense, I'd just feel a lot better about it if i could read it in an official document

[galaxy flyer]

And you're not going to find a statement like that. Omnidirectional departures are the DEFAULT way of flying the departure UNLESS a SID or other departure is depicted and required for obstacle clearance.

Here's the FAA Airman's Information Manual way of putting it:

a. Why are DPs necessary? The primary reason is to provide obstacle clearance protection information to pilots. A secondary reason, at busier airports, is to increase efficiency and reduce communications and departure delays through the use of SIDs. When an instrument approach is initially developed for an airport, the need for DPs is assessed. The procedure designer conducts an obstacle analysis to support departure operations. If an aircraft may turn in any direction from a runway within the limits of the assessment area (see paragraph 5-2-8b3) and remain clear of obstacles, that runway passes what is called a diverse departure assessment and no ODP will be published. A SID may be published if needed for air traffic control purposes. However, if an obstacle penetrates what is called the 40:1 obstacle identification surface, then the procedure designer chooses whether to:

1. Establish a steeper than normal climb gradient; or

2. Establish a steeper than normal climb gradient with an alternative that increases takeoff minima to allow the pilot to visually remain clear of the obstacle(s); or

3. Design and publish a specific departure route; or

4. A combination or all of the above.

Diverse Departure is TERPS language for "omnidirectional".

[Dollehz]

Must be an FAA regulation.

Found this in CAP 778:

Omnidirectional departures shall be promulgated in the UK IAIP Part 3
AERODROMES (AD) AD 2.22 in accordance with the following example:

Climb straight ahead MAG track 051° to 1500ft then
turn on track climbing to enroute safety altitude/ MSA.
PDG 3.3%



For Isle of man no such info is published.

[Dollehz]

Maybe someone with flight experience in the UK can clear this up as this is not the only case...

Omnidirectional departures outside the UK (the rest of Europe) all seem to have a publication that omni.dep are in use

[Intruder]

In the US, where there are no SIDs, an altitude and heading after takeoff are given in the IFR clearance or by Tower with the takeoff clearance. Is that not enough in Europe?

[galaxy flyer]

Dollehz,

If it's "omnidirectional" it means, well, it means OMINDIRECTIONAL after passing 400', except on the UK, where the end of Zone 1 (now initial climb area) is 500' AFE. By omnidirectional, it means, above 400', climb in any direction on course whilst maintaining 3.3% minimum climb gradient. If, an obstacle or ATC requirement costs to restrict the departure (hence, NOT omnidirectional), then a procedure is established.

I looked at a number of UK and EU airports and I see what you're asking, but, by definition, they are not omnidirectional departures, they are restrictions in place like our "obstacle departure procedures" in the US or "sector" departures in Doc 8168.

[galaxy flyer]

Dollehz,

Please reread the whole of Chapter 2, CAP 778 from 2010, extracted herein,

Purpose of an Omnidirectional Departure

1.1 An omnidirectional departure is a convenient and simple method of ensuring obstacle clearance for IFR departing aircraft. At many aerodromes, a departure route is not required for ATC purposes or to avoid particular obstacles, however, there may be obstacles in the vicinity of an aerodrome which could affect IFR departures.

2 Omnidirectional Departures Design Principles

2.1 An omnidirectional departure procedure is designed on the basis that an aircraft maintains runway direction to a minimum height of 500 ft above aerodrome level before commencing a turn. The 500ft is a UK safety requirement and supersedes the ICAO minimum permissible turn height of 394 ft unless required for obstacle avoidance.1

2.2 Where additional height is required for obstacle clearance the straight departure is continued until reaching the required turn altitude/height or a procedure design gradient (PDG) in excess of the standard 3.3% is promulgated.

2.3 On reaching the specified turn altitude/height a turn in any direction may be made to join the en-route phase of flight.

2.4 An omnidirectional departure may specify sectors with altitude or PDG limitations or sectors to be avoided.

2.5 Where an omnidirectional departure has a restriction, e.g. a PDG in excess of 3.3%, then an aerodrome is responsible for reflecting this restriction in any other departure procedure at that aerodrome.

3 Promulgation
3.1 Omnidirectional departures shall be promulgated in the UK IAIP Part 3 AERODROMES (AD) AD 2.22 in accordance with the following example:
Table 1

When neither a PDG or a sector is restricted, there is no need to promulgate a published "omnidirectional" departure, hence no published procedure.

[Dollehz]

Still not 100% convinced but yeah.. probably wont find anything better than that.

Thanks GF

@Intruder:

Same in Europe but rare, most of the airports here have published SIDs or published omnidirectional departures.
The reason for my question is that responsibility of obstacle clearance lies with the pilot. So i prefer to make sure rather than assume.
Better safe than sorry

[Dollehz]

Stumbled across this:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/198238-no-sid-omni-directional-departure.html

Same question, very different answers