IFR departures - SID, Omnidirectional, ATC clearance

[Aucky]

Hi all,

I'm trying to better understand the compliance of IFR departures for CAT operations, where no published SID or omnidirectional departure exists in the aerodrome's AIP (i.e. there is no notified IFR departure).

CAT.OP.MPA.125(a) states - The operator shall ensure that instrument departure and approach procedures established by the State of the aerodrome are used.
CAT.OP.MPA.125(c) goes on to state - Notwithstanding (a), the operator may use procedures other than those referred to in (a) provided they have been approved by the State in which the aerodrome is located and are specified in the operations manual.

CAA CAP 778 Chapter 1 Section 3.2 (IFR Departure Procedures) states - At many aerodromes, a prescribed departure route is not required for ATC purposes...
CAA CAP 778 Chapter 1 Section 3.3 (IFR Departure Procedures) states - PANS-OPS criteria for omnidirectional departures are not currently applied in the UK. Consequently, omnidirectional departure procedures are not published in the UK Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).
CAA CAP 778 Chapter 2 Section 3.1 then goes on to contradict this and state - Omnidirectional departures shall be promulgated in the UK IAIP Part 3 AERODROMES (AD) AD 2.22 in accordance with the following example:


I may be overcomplicating this, but my question is, if there is no SID, and no omnidirectional departure (or minimum climb gradient) notified in the AIP for a given aerodrome regularly used for CAT IFR departures, such as Cambridge or Gloucester, is it sufficient to simply have received an ATC clearance? And what of a departure from an unlicenced aerodrome such as Dunsfold? In such cases, where compliance with CAT.OP.MPA.125(a) cannot be met (no instrument departures are established by the state of the aerodrome), are operators required to have a section in their OM for IFR departures from aerodromes without a notified instument departure?

In nearly all cases the helicopters we are flying would easily outclimb any published climb criteria at most UK locations, but where no SID/omnidirectional procedure is published I'm not sure what must be in place for an IFR departure to be compliant.

Any ideas?

[TeeS]

Hi Aucky
I'm afraid I can't answer your question because I've been asking myself the same one for ages. I don't really understand why the UK don't have published departures at places like Gloucester and Cambridge as PANS-OPS volume 2 states:

Chapter 2
GENERAL CONCEPTS FOR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEPARTURE PROCEDURE
2.1.1 For each runway at aerodromes where instrument departures are expected to be used, a departure procedure
shall be established and promulgated.

....and they seem to have plenty of IFR departures.

Cheers
TeeS

[HershamBoys]

Because in the UK there was no real push to implement them, and, furthermore, they have to be designed by an Approved IFP Design Agency and put through the CAA regulatory process, and the last time I heard it took ages because CAA DAP were snowed under and short staffed. Also, unless someone actually flags up the requirement to airfield operators, they turn a blind eye to avoid the cost of having them designed.

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by TeeS

I don't really understand why the UK don't have published departures at places like Gloucester and Cambridge as PANS-OPS volume 2 states:

Chapter 2
GENERAL CONCEPTS FOR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
2.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEPARTURE PROCEDURE
2.1.1 For each runway at aerodromes where instrument departures are expected to be used, a departure procedure
shall be established and promulgated.

....and they seem to have plenty of IFR departures.

Cheers
TeeS

Thanks TeeS, I suspect one of the reasons they don’t have a SID is that a SID has to remain wholly within controlled airspace. Easier done in the continent where they use Class D/E airspace extensively, but I would have thought that in place of a SID the simple solution for most IFR aerodromes in the UK would be to publish the omnidirectional departure information for each of their instrument runways?

[212man]

Originally Posted by HershamBoys

Because in the UK there was no real push to implement them, and, furthermore, they have to be designed by an Approved IFP Design Agency and put through the CAA regulatory process, and the last time I heard it took ages because CAA DAP were snowed under and short staffed. Also, unless someone actually flags up the requirement to airfield operators, they turn a blind eye to avoid the cost of having them designed.

Surely the airfield license and inspection process should flag it? Maybe it’s because they are in benign obstacle/terrain environments?

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by 212man

Maybe it’s because they are in benign obstacle/terrain environments?

I thought that might be the reason for the statement in CAP 778 that ‘At many aerodromes, a prescribed departure route is not required for ATC purposes...’ but then I haven’t found any way to qualify that statement with any critera.

[BizJetJock]

I think this is a case of the CAA just carrying on doing things the way they did before EASA, when there was no requirement for a procedure to be published. It was all down to the operator to make sure their OM procedures were safe.

[Apate]

Bottom line is that you are responsible for obstacle clearance. The easiest way to do this would be to follow any published missed approach procedure until MSA is reached for the sector you are departing in.

[TeeS]

Originally Posted by Apate

Bottom line is that you are responsible for obstacle clearance. The easiest way to do this would be to follow any published missed approach procedure until MSA is reached for the sector you are departing in.

Hi Apate
Although that seems like a sensible choice and I might well be guilty of having taken that approach (departure!) in the past when no published departure was available, it doesn't really give you protection. The missed approach procedure generally starts before or at the runway threshold at a significant altitude, whilst a departure (unless designed for helicopters only ) starts at a point 5m above the departure end of runway (which includes any clearway), so the protections for both procedures are very different.

Cheers
TeeS

[TeeS]

Originally Posted by Aucky

Thanks TeeS, I suspect one of the reasons they don’t have a SID is that a SID has to remain wholly within controlled airspace. Easier done in the continent where they use Class D/E airspace extensively, but I would have thought that in place of a SID the simple solution for most IFR aerodromes in the UK would be to publish the omnidirectional departure information for each of their instrument runways?

Hi Aucky
I have never heard of that and with a quick search of PANS, I can't find any reference to a requirement for controlled airspace (that obviously doesn't mean anything except that I probably don't know what I'm talking about), please can you point me to where that is laid down?
Thanks
TeeS

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by TeeS

Hi Aucky
I have never heard of that and with a quick search of PANS, I can't find any reference to a requirement for controlled airspace (that obviously doesn't mean anything except that I probably don't know what I'm talking about), please can you point me to where that is laid down?
Thanks
TeeS

I’m certainly no authority on it, and it may be outdated, but CAP 778 (which still shows as current on the CAA website) Chapter 1 Section 1.3 states “Within the UK, the term Standard Instrument Departure (SID) is the sole term to be used in the context of routes providing designated IFR departure procedures that remain wholly within CAS and permit direct connectivity with the en-route ATS system.”

Chapter 3 sections 1.1 & 1.2 go on to say “ICAO defines a SID as a designated IFR departure route linking an aerodrome, or a specified runway at an aerodrome, with a specified significant point, normally on a designated ATS route, at which the en-route phase of a flight commences. The UK additionally requires that all SIDs must be wholly contained within CAS.”

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by Aucky

Hi all,

I'm trying to better understand the compliance of IFR departures for CAT operations, where no published SID or omnidirectional departure exists in the aerodrome's AIP (i.e. there is no notified IFR departure).

From memory: The initial climb segment is to 400’ above the ehhr, DER? Departure End of Runway, and after this a turn can be made?

If no SID or Omnidirectional, it is 400’ above DER.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by TeeS

Hi Aucky
I'm afraid I can't answer your question because I've been asking myself the same one for ages. I don't really understand why the UK don't have published departures at places like Gloucester and Cambridge as PANS-OPS volume 2 states:

TeeS

The two places named are in Class G airspace and as far as I'm aware, you can't have a published SID in Class G.

[albatross]

Fly the instrument approach for your departure runway backwards. Check that OEI performance will allow you to do it even if, heavens forfend, one of the hamsters dies.

Just a suggestion.

[TeeS]

Originally Posted by Aucky

I’m certainly no authority on it, and it may be outdated, but CAP 778 (which still shows as current on the CAA website) Chapter 1 Section 1.3 states “Within the UK, the term Standard Instrument Departure (SID) is the sole term to be used in the context of routes providing designated IFR departure procedures that remain wholly within CAS and permit direct connectivity with the en-route ATS system.”

Chapter 3 sections 1.1 & 1.2 go on to say “ICAO defines a SID as a designated IFR departure route linking an aerodrome, or a specified runway at an aerodrome, with a specified significant point, normally on a designated ATS route, at which the en-route phase of a flight commences. The UK additionally requires that all SIDs must be wholly contained within CAS.”

Thanks for the pointer Aucky, I’ve had a look through CAP 778 and I see what you mean. I’m not surprised by the fact that it was last updated in 2012, talks about P-RNAV etc. but it does get bloody annoying when you put hours of work in trying to keep up to date with PANS-OPS and then have to wind your clock back ten years to find out how the CAA want you to do it!! :-)

Cheers
TeeS

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by TeeS

It does get bloody annoying when you put hours of work in trying to keep up to date with PANS-OPS and then have to wind your clock back ten years to find out how the CAA want you to do it!! :-)

Cheers
TeeS

or do not want you to do it… Don’t get me started on PinS (or lack thereof) .

[First.officer]

I think at least in FAA land, it's known as an "diverse departure assessment" - see the link below, usually in EASA (UK CAA?) land the rules follow in fairly similar format even if the naming etc. is different;

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._Chapter_1.pdf

[Aucky]

Interesting, so “When an instrument approach is initially developed for an airport, the need for an ODP (Obstacle Departure Procedure) is assessed. If an aircraft may turn in any direction from a runway within the limits of the assessment area and remain clear of obstacles that runway passes what is called a diverse departure assessment, and no ODP is published. A diverse departure assessment ensures that a prescribed, expanding amount of required obstacle clearance (ROC) is achieved during the climb-out until the aircraft can obtain a minimum 1,000 feet ROC in non-mountainous areas or a minimum 2,000 feet ROC in mountainous areas. Unless specified otherwise, required obstacle clearance for all departures, including diverse, is
based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the runway (DER) at least 35 feet above the DER elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the DER elevation before making the initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient of 200 ft/ NM, unless required to level off by a crossing restriction, until the minimum IFR altitude is reached. Following ODP assessment, a SID may still be established for the purposes of ATC flow management, system enhancement, or noise abatement.”

So I guess my next question is as a pilot, how does one know if the runway passes a diverse departure assessment, unless they publish Omnidirectional departure criteria (call it what you will) in their AIP plate as this seems to be what is described procedurally in the FAA document (although the UK adopt 500ft climb on runway track superseding ICAOs 394ft, or the FAAs 400ft).

[First.officer]

Sadly Aucky, I don't have the answer .... in absence of a SID or ODP, I would suggest that for an commercial operator - there would be a performance analysis done (in office) and brief to crew published - to require some form of departure procedure for said airfield, and ensuring obstacle clearance, gradients etc. are ensured. I stand to be corrected naturally.

[Aucky]

Originally Posted by First.officer

Sadly Aucky, I don't have the answer .... in absence of a SID or ODP, I would suggest that for an commercial operator - there would be a performance analysis done (in office) and brief to crew published - to require some form of departure procedure for said airfield, and ensuring obstacle clearance, gradients etc. are ensured. I stand to be corrected naturally.

I agree that this pragmatic approach would seem acceptable, but it would require some statement based on Obstacle data or OS analysis, and I can’t see the CAA accepting this done as an ‘in-house’ analysis, when essentially it is the same process which would be required to develop a SID or ODP, but that would require independent consultants approved by the CAA, and take 2 years with an ACP application.