Another IFR departure procedure question

[SbestCFII]

ATC will expect you to fly the clearance you were given until you can contact them and cancel IFR. The reasons are as follows:

You are required to fly it, regardless of the flight conditions until you cancel or receive an amended clearance;

If you have lost communication capability, ATC will know what to expect when your squawk appears in their scope;

If you squawk never appears after you have received your departure clearance, and you haven't communicated with them, they'll start SAR procedures.

So the bottom line is, you are required to follow the clearance until you have reached an altitude where you can contact ATC and amend the clearance or cancel IFR, or unless an emergency forces deviation from the clearance. Unfortunately, a sudden encounter with "severe clear" doesn't
meet the criteria.

 

[roncachamp]

It is a good point, though, that it is a way of conveying meaning and intentions though should not be used as a convenience to the pilot. It should probably be reserved when there is no other option and - as in Captain's example - maintaining IFR would actually be detrimental.

Changing to 1200 is a lousy way to get the attention of a busy controller. If you stray from the clearance but stay on the assigned code the controller will observe the discrepancy and call you. Change to VFR and the track goes into coast and the data block soon vanishes. Out of sight, out of mind. Eventually, your absence will be noticed as he's still got flight data on you. Now he's gotta find you.

 

[roncachamp]

Usually it's a frequency change and then maybe airport in sight, cancel flight following, sometimes it's request flight following, aircraft type, destination, beacon code...things of that nature...once or twice we even talked about the weather...

Lot's of class G airspace out this way and those nice folks with ATC will still talk to me when I'm in it. Most truly amazing.

We're discusing IFR operations.

 

[ChrisK]

Changing to 1200 is a lousy way to get the attention of a busy controller. If you stray from the clearance but stay on the assigned code the controller will observe the discrepancy and call you. Change to VFR and the track goes into coast and the data block soon vanishes. Out of sight, out of mind. Eventually, your absence will be noticed as he's still got flight data on you. Now he's gotta find you.

I think that an action like this should correspond to contacting the controller ASAP. Once again, though, if you lost a radio, lost comms procedure is the way to go I would think.

This is a nice theoretical conversation but I'd never change a code without a controller's guidance unless I was in an emergency / malfunctioning radio scenario. I'm also not carrying passengers so unless I'm low on fuel the only one I'm inconveniencing is me.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like you were in controlled airspace.

I don't see anything in what I wrote which makes it sound that way -- perhaps you can show us? In any event, to clarify absolutely and positively, while I have done that in controlled airspace, I've also done that in uncontrolled airspace many times.

 

[poadeleted20]

Squaking 1200 to cancel an IFR clearance is a poor practice

Nevertheless, as Steven points out, when you are having trouble getting through, it gets the controller's attention so you can confirm it verbally. BTDT.

 

[SbestCFII]

ATC can't differentiate between any aircraft flying VFR in their sector and YOUR aircraft once you change your code. All 1200s look alike. If you change to 1200, you became another 1200 blip on their scope, unless the controller was looking right at your return when the change occurred. Your code could have fallen out of the sky around the same time as another 1200 popped up in the same area. Changing the code doesn't convey a message, it only muddies the water.

If you can't contact ATC, you're a lost comm and you are required to follow a clearance until you're no longer lost comm and have obtained an amended clearance. The IFR rule for losing comm in VFR conditions it that you squawk 7600 and land "as soon as practicable" and then you contact ATC to close your IFR flight plan.

We can't extrapolate new rules for ourselves once we accept an IFR clearance. The rules exist for everyone's safety and need to be followed. Even in an environment where we are almost always under radar contact and ATC control, our flight plans, filed alternates and the like are important because it tell ATC what to expect from us when we can't communicate with them.

 

[poadeleted20]

Changing to 1200 is a lousy way to get the attention of a busy controller.

Maybe so, but it works, and sometimes you just have to do what works.

 

[roncachamp]

I don't see anything in what I wrote which makes it sound that way -- perhaps you can show us?

No problem, you wrote:

Dunno 'bout Clark, but I'm usually talking to them about things like cancelling IFR, or going missed approach, or getting a clearance, but sometimes just giving them a weather report.

You don't get IFR clearances for flights that aren't in controlled airspace. IAPs begin in controlled airspace.

 

[roncachamp]

Nevertheless, as Steven points out, when you are having trouble getting through, it gets the controller's attention so you can confirm it verbally. BTDT.

As Steven explained in message #42, it's a lousy way to get the attention of a busy controller.

 

[roncachamp]

Maybe so, but it works, and sometimes you just have to do what works.

It doesn't work.

 

[poadeleted20]

You don't get IFR clearances for flights that aren't in controlled airspace.

True, but you're often in uncontrolled airspace when you get the clearance.

IAPs begin in controlled airspace.

Also true, but one usually gets one's IFR clearance long before the IAP begins.

 

[poadeleted20]

It doesn't work.

I'm done feeding the troll.

 

[FORANE]

So we're all on the same page, here's the ODP from 0A9:

So, you take off on 24, start your climb, and at 3500 ATC says "turn south". Since you've passed 3300 MSL, per the ODP you are no longer restricted to heading 244, and you can comply with the turn, but per the takeoff minimums, you must maintain a climb gradient of 380 ft/nm to 7000 in order to assure obstruction clearance. While you can ask to maintain runway heading to 6000 for whatever reason you have, I see no requirement based on the ODP/takeoff mins to do that. If you cannot maintain 380 ft/nm all the way to 7000 MSL, you should not be climbing on runway heading initially, but rather be climbing visually over the airport to 4900 MSL before proceeding away from the airport.

Hey Ron
Yes, 24 is preferred, typically cleared on course about 3500, my typical course is about 180 degrees (directly toward mountains to the South), I can make 380 ft/nm through 7000 but even so if I turn south at 3500 climbing at just above 380 ft/nm will typically get a call from ATC requesting "best rate of climb" followed by ATC issuance of heading vector for climb. I find this can all be avoided by requesting runway heading vector for climb through 6 before turning South. Just wondering if I should be doing something differently, if the request for runway heading vector for climb is even required (after I pass 3300 and have been cleared on course but before I reach 6000), etc?
Thanks for the reply.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, 24 is preferred, typically cleared on course about 3500, my typical course is about 180 degrees (directly toward mountains to the South), I can make 380 ft/nm through 7000 but even so if I turn south at 3500 climbing at just above 380 ft/nm will typically get a call from ATC requesting "best rate of climb" followed by ATC issuance of heading vector for climb.

Clearly that is an ATC traffic issue, not an obstruction clearance issue.

I find this can all be avoided by requesting runway heading vector for climb through 6 before turning South.

From an obstruction clearance standpoint, there's nothing wrong with staying on runway heading all the way through 6000 as long as you keep your 380 ft/nm climb gradient all the way to 7000.

Just wondering if I should be doing something differently, if the request for runway heading vector for climb is even required (after I pass 3300 and have been cleared on course but before I reach 6000), etc?

No request is required as long as you stay on runway heading through 3300 and maintain the 380 ft/nm climb gradient through 7000. Other than that, the question of what to do after passing 3300 is a matter of what your clearance was.

 

[roncachamp]

True, but you're often in uncontrolled airspace when you get the clearance.

Also true, but one usually gets one's IFR clearance long before the IAP begins.

So do you now see what you wrote which makes it sound like you were in controlled airspace?

 

[roncachamp]

I'm done feeding the troll.

You won't learn anything with that attitude.

 

[Clark1961]

We're discusing IFR operations.

So? Airport in sight isn't part of an IFR operation? The reply was cleared for a visual approach to an airport with lots of Class G overhead.

 

[Velocity173]

Steven, say theoretically if you were a GRB approach controller and had a guy doing a VA into MTW. He's been cleared but hasn't canceled. You see a VFR squawk on a 4 mile final but no verbal. Obviously you believe it's not a confirmed cancellation but would you write him up for a pilot deviation?

 

[roncachamp]

So? Airport in sight isn't part of an IFR operation?

Sure, in controlled airspace. It's often followed by a clearance for a visual approach.

The reply was cleared for a visual approach to an airport with lots of Class G overhead.

JOOC where is this controlled airspace beneath lots of Class G airspace?

 

[roncachamp]

Steven, say theoretically if you were a GRB approach controller and had a guy doing a VA into MTW. He's been cleared but hasn't canceled. You see a VFR squawk on a 4 mile final but no verbal. Obviously you believe it's not a confirmed cancellation but would you write him up for a pilot deviation?

Nope.

 

[MarkZ]

It doesn't work.

Yes, squawking VFR does work.

But...(for the non-ATC peeps reading this)

Don't do it for normal operations. Don't do it if arriving at the primary airport. And don't leave the frequency until you confirm cancellation of IFR.

The arrival situation described works. The departure situation doesn't.

In the absence of a regulation, use common sense and fly the airplane.

 

[roncachamp]

Yes, squawking VFR does work.

But...(for the non-ATC peeps reading this)

Don't do it for normal operations. Don't do it if arriving at the primary airport. And don't leave the frequency until you confirm cancellation of IFR.

The arrival situation described works. The departure situation doesn't.

In the absence of a regulation, use common sense and fly the airplane.

Why not? If squawking VFR works for cancellation of IFR there's nothing to confirm.

 

[Captain]

Why not? If squawking VFR works for cancellation of IFR there's nothing to confirm.

Notice in my example I stayed on freq until a verbal was obtained.

But what's the option? You're in VMC and ATC gave you a vector that you don't want. You'd like to call on the radio but the freq is presently busy. VMC is running out. You have to go now if you're going to go.

So, either you turn to maintain VMC or you take the vector. Is it your position that I simply MUST comply with the vector into the weather in this situation due to a jammed up frequency? I think what I did is both safe and legal. Squak 1200 and stay with the freq. while letting down in the clear confirm the cancelation.

I'll give you another time I did the same;

On a training flight (instrument) and we were cleared the full VOR and told to fly the published missed. PT inbound they cut us loose to contact CTAF. The published missed is a hold on the VOR located on the field. It's CAVU. So far so good.

Comming up on the FAF a jump plane calls 'jumpers away' for my field. My clearance is to fly circles over the airport where the human beings are falling. I decided NOT to comply with that. We broke off the approach and squaked 1200 untill I could hook up with approach again. Obviously I was out of position when I called. But squaking 1200 let them know separation was not required.

Maybe it's not an 'official' cancelation, but it communicates that I'm on my own providing my own separation. In all cases I would follow it up with a call on the radio or telephone to confirm cancelation.

 

[roncachamp]

Notice in my example I stayed on freq until a verbal was obtained.

But what's the option? You're in VMC and ATC gave you a vector that you don't want. You'd like to call on the radio but the freq is presently busy. VMC is running out. You have to go now if you're going to go.

The option is to respond to the vector with "cancelling IFR" instead of with "roger" or with a readback of the heading.

So, either you turn to maintain VMC or you take the vector. Is it your position that I simply MUST comply with the vector into the weather in this situation due to a jammed up frequency? I think what I did is both safe and legal. Squak 1200 and stay with the freq. while letting down in the clear confirm the cancelation.

I'll give you another time I did the same;

On a training flight (instrument) and we were cleared the full VOR and told to fly the published missed. PT inbound they cut us loose to contact CTAF. The published missed is a hold on the VOR located on the field. It's CAVU. So far so good.

Comming up on the FAF a jump plane calls 'jumpers away' for my field. My clearance is to fly circles over the airport where the human beings are falling. I decided NOT to comply with that. We broke off the approach and squaked 1200 untill I could hook up with approach again. Obviously I was out of position when I called. But squaking 1200 let them know separation was not required.

No it didn't, and there is no required separation there.

Maybe it's not an 'official' cancelation, but it communicates that I'm on my own providing my own separation. In all cases I would follow it up with a call on the radio or telephone to confirm cancelation.

It isn't cancellation at all. It communicates only that you've changed to 1200, and then only if ATC observed the code change.

 

[Captain]

If I could have canceled on the radio I would have. Is that not obvious? We are not talking about the 10,000 times it's gone normally.

Is your position I should have just taken the vector into the weather?

Because if that's your position then it supposes ATC is in charge and that is not the case. Sorry if you're offended by that. The PIC (not ATC) is responsible for deciding how to fly the plane. There are rules we both must play by and me opting out of your service is within the rules (airspace, visibility, OpSpec not withstanding)

 

[roncachamp]

If I could have canceled on the radio I would have. Is that not obvious? We are not talking about the 10,000 times it's gone normally.

But you could have cancelled on the radio. All you had to do was respond to the vector instruction with "cancelling IFR" instead of with "roger" or with a readback of the heading.

Is your position I should have just taken the vector into the weather?

My position is you should have responded to the vector instruction with "cancelling IFR" instead of with "roger" or with a readback of the heading.

 

[Captain]

But you could have cancelled on the radio. All you had to do was respond to the vector instruction with "cancelling IFR" instead of with "roger" or with a readback of the heading.



My position is you should have responded to the vector instruction with "cancelling IFR" instead of with "roger" or with a readback of the heading.

You were not there. I was. PIC in a multi-crew cockpit. If I could have canceled on the radio...I would have. None of that is up for debate. Those are simply facts.

 

[roncachamp]

You were not there. I was. PIC in a multi-crew cockpit. If I could have canceled on the radio...I would have. None of that is up for debate. Those are simply facts.

I don't know that you were there. I don't know that you're a pilot at all. Much of what you post here suggests that you are not. What I do know is ATC must get a pilot's acknowledgement for an instruction and a pilot that can key a mic to say "roger" or with a readback of the instruction is a pilot that can key a mic and say "cancelling IFR".

 

[Captain]

Well there ya go.

Maybe I don't even really exist. Might not even be typing right now. Maybe you don't exist. Maybe you're not reading this. Maybe none of us exist. Deep.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please...

Thank you.

 

[Captain]

I don't know that you were there. I don't know that you're a pilot at all. Much of what you post here suggests that you are not. What I do know is ATC must get a pilot's acknowledgement for an instruction and a pilot that can key a mic to say "roger" or with a readback of the instruction is a pilot that can key a mic and say "cancelling IFR".

btw, you're introducing evidence. I didn't say we accepted the vector knowing we wanted to cancel. None of this is Germaine to the point. If you need to cancel and can't do it on the radio then a transponder code of 1200 can be used.

If you don't agree then all I can say is I've done it a couple times without issue. Everyone here knows I'm a pilot. They've looked up my types and ratings and others have vouched for photos of me I've posted here. Doubting I'm a pilot is as silly as me doubting you're human.

 

[Captain]

Please...

Thank you.

Sorry, couldn't stop myself.

 

[douglas393]

It was such a simple question and I did not realize it was going to start another version of WWIII POA style. Sorry.

 

[Captain]

It was such a simple question and I did not realize it was going to start another version of WWIII POA style. Sorry.

Nah, it was my fault. I should have just left my advice at, "cancel on top if you don't want to fly it."

 

[aterpster]

Nah, it was my fault. I should have just left my advice at, "cancel on top if you don't want to fly it."

I beg to differ. I wasn't your fault.

 

[roncachamp]

btw, you're introducing evidence. I didn't say we accepted the vector knowing we wanted to cancel. None of this is Germaine to the point. If you need to cancel and can't do it on the radio then a transponder code of 1200 can be used.

No it cannot. Well, in the real world it cannot.

If you don't agree then all I can say is I've done it a couple times without issue.

Doubtful.

Everyone here knows I'm a pilot.

Not everyone.

They've looked up my types and ratings and others have vouched for photos of me I've posted here. Doubting I'm a pilot is as silly as me doubting you're human.

You mean they've looked up info on a name you supplied? All that proves is a person having that name has the associated ratings, it doesn't prove you're that person. I doubt you're what you claim to be because the experience you claim to possess is not consistent with the knowledge and understanding expressed in what you post.

 

[aterpster]

You mean they've looked up info on a name you supplied? All that proves is a person having that name has the associated ratings, it doesn't prove you're that person. I doubt you're what you claim to be because the experience you claim to possess is not consistent with the knowledge and understanding expressed in what you post.

Steve,

You should join Pro Pilot World.

http://www.propilotworld.com

It costs a few bucks a year. It is run by two guys, one a UAL pilot and the other a biz jet pilot.

They welcome not only pilots but controllers. I am sure a recently retired controller would also be welcomed into the fold.

What's different about them is they verify pilot and controller certificates before they approve you for membership.

In this forum you would know the folks are what they claim to be. They may fudge hours but not ratings or certificate.

I am sure they would love having you aboard.

 

[Everskyward]

Steve,

You should join Pro Pilot World.

http://www.propilotworld.com

It costs a few bucks a year. It is run by two guys, one a UAL pilot and the other a biz jet pilot.

They welcome not only pilots but controllers. I am sure a recently retired controller would also be welcomed into the fold.

What's different about them is they verify pilot and controller certificates before they approve you for membership.

In this forum you would know the folks are what they claim to be. They may fudge hours but not ratings or certificate.

I am sure they would love having you aboard.

 

[Captain]

Nevertheless, as Steven points out, when you are having trouble getting through, it gets the controller's attention so you can confirm it verbally. BTDT.

Steve, are you gonna call this guy out too? Might not really be a pilot...