Takeoff minimums, are you sure?

PPC1052 said:
That is the altitude to which you must* maintain the increased rate of climb in the event that the weather minimums are less than 300-2 but the weather meets the standard minimum for your aircraft. Once you have achieved that altitude, you may decrease your rate of climb to 200 ft/nm. If you can't maintain that rate of climb to that altitude, you can't depart IFR. Aircraft climb performance generally degrades with altitude, so it isn't out of the question that a particular aircraft can make that necessary climb gradient down low but can't at altitude. It makes sense that the FAA let's the pilot know the altitude at which they can safely reduce their climb so they can calculate based on conditions that whether they can make the necessary climb to that required altitude. But that 1300 number has nothing to do with making your turn.

The altitude that you may turn depends on your direction of turn. If to the right, its 1400. Otherwise, its the standard of 400 feet. You could get the clearance to depart 17, and turn left to heading 150. You would climb to 400, turn to 150, but you would want to keep your rate of climb up until you pass 1300, even though you made that turn at 400, so that you clear that power line and the towers to the south and to the east depicted on the VFR chart.




(*Of course, part 91 is not required to follow the alternative take-off minimums. So, from a legal requirement, we are only talking 135/121, etc. That being said, obstacles don't care if you are part 91, so it probably makes sense to observe these minimums, required or not. )
Click to expand...

This the point of the intial post.....

Take two examples.

1. A standard cg of 200 fpnm to 400 feet, and
2. A non-standard cg of 512 to 1300 feet

AIM..."...
climbing to 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making the initial turn. ..."

The AIM clearly explains the 400 as a the minimum altitude (as far as standard minimums are concerned) before a turn on course should be started; in this case a diverse departure. If 400 means that in a standard minimum then logic follows that 1300 means the same thing in this non-standard minimum. Yes, it all serves as a minimum requirement for IFR departure as I stated in the original post. In other words, before I can start the takeoff roll I must have 1 mile viz (Im in a Baron) and my Baron must be capable of 200fpnm up to an altitude of 400 feet. Or, if I use the non-standard minimum here, my baron must have the performance capability to climb at 512fpnm all the way up to 1300 feet before I can start my roll. My Baron might be able to do that but my 172 may not in which case I would have to consider the other alternatives. This is a minimum requirement for departure BUT it is also a control requirement which states 'now that you have departed you must actually fly your airplane at the numbers used in the minimum, 512 and 1300'.

Clearly the 1300 is a turn altitude or an altitude, once reached, which allows for a turn. AND, unless otherwise indicated, that turn can be a diverse turn in any direction.

Now let's add the DP which says to fly heading 165 to 1400 BEFORE TURNING RIGHT. Let's to to the AIM once again...

"...A greater climb gradient may be specified in the DP to clear obstacles [the 1400 in our example] or to achieve an ATC crossing restriction. If an initial turn higher than 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation is specified in the DP [and it is...1400], the turn should be commenced at the higher altitude. ..."

This explains the need to use 1400 instead of 1300 for our altitude to commence a turn. The rub is that it applies only to right turns!!! Putting it all together how do we interpret the entire departure process? Can we turn at 1300 unless it's a right turn then we must go to 1400?

Here's a better question. If 1300 represents the altitude to which we must be able to climb at 512fpnm and thereafter 200fpnm (as you assume)...then at what rate of cg do we climb after 1300 up to 1400? 512? 200? And if 200 what of the obstacle? Has it been cleared sufficiently that climbing at only 200 will suffice as we go from 1300 to 1400. Remember, Im still runway heading at 1300 and have presumably cleared the obstacle. If I cant turn (if Im going right) until 1400 then I continue runway heading until 1400. But wait!!! I cleared SOME controlling obstacle at 1300 and would be able to reduce to 200 fpnm if I continued straight out. So how fast I go from 1300 to 1400 should be irrelevant.

I believe the answer lies in the purpose of the takeoff minimum and the DP. The takeoff minimum gives us a brake release minimum AND includes a couple of control instructions. Those being 1) how fast to climb your airplane and 2) when you may turn your airplane (control instructions are not normally thought of as a "minimum"). The DP gives us nothing but control instructions and uses the cg rates specified in the TO minimum to do so. When TO and DP exist together the DP supersedes the TO minimum to the degree it intends. For example, you could turn on course in any direction at 1300 were it not for the DP which requires that if you intend to turn right then wait until 1400. Since all of that couldn't be wrapped up in a tidy TO minimum description then a DP must be used to clarify.

I'm picking on 50F only because it's a simple example. The reason this needs to be clearly understood is that there are hundreds of other examples where differences between non-standard minimums and DP requirements are equally or more confusing and with greater differences. So let's not get hung up on Bourland for the sake of Bourland.

And let me remind you again, a FSDO 135 POI and the gentlemen that builds these very minimums didn't agree and the interpretation. Although I gave more credence to the person in operations group his answers were sometimes iffy and didn't address any of the other issues I have brought up. It was like I stumped him on some of them.

And we used Bourland as the example.

tex

"
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
If 400 means that in a standard minimum then logic follows that 1300 means the same thing in this non-standard minimum.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. You are conflating the minimum altitude for when to turn with the minimum altitude for maintaining the increased climb gradient. Apples and oranges.
 
Dave S. said:
This the point of the intial post.....

Take two examples.

1. A standard cg of 200 fpnm to 400 feet, and
2. A non-standard cg of 512 to 1300 feet

AIM..."...
climbing to 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making the initial turn. ..."

The AIM clearly explains the 400 as a the minimum altitude (as far as standard minimums are concerned) before a turn on course should be started; in this case a diverse departure. If 400 means that in a standard minimum then logic follows that 1300 means the same thing in this non-standard minimum. Yes, it all serves as a minimum requirement for IFR departure as I stated in the original post. In other words, before I can start the takeoff roll I must have 1 mile viz (Im in a Baron) and my Baron must be capable of 200fpnm up to an altitude of 400 feet. Or, if I use the non-standard minimum here, my baron must have the performance capability to climb at 512fpnm all the way up to 1300 feet before I can start my roll. My Baron might be able to do that but my 172 may not in which case I would have to consider the other alternatives.

Clearly the 1300 is a turn altitude, or an altitude, once reached allows for a turn. AND, unless otherwise indicated, that turn can be a diverse turn in any direction.

Now let's add the DP which says to fly heading 165 to 1400 BEFORE TURNING RIGHT. Let's to to the AIM once again...

"...A greater climb gradient may be specified in the DP to clear obstacles [the 1400 in our example] or to achieve an ATC crossing restriction. If an initial turn higher than 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation is specified in the DP [and it is...1400], the turn should be commenced at the higher altitude. ..."

This explains the need to use 1400 instead of 1300 for our altitude to commence a turn. The rub is that it applies only to right turns!!! Putting it all together how do we interpret the entire departure process? Can we turn at 1300 unless it's a right turn then we must go to 1400?

Here's a better question. If 1300 represents the altitude to which we must be able to climb at 512fpnm and thereafter 200fpnm (as you assume)...then at what rate of cg do we climb after 1300 up to 1400? 512? 200?

I'm picking on 50F only because it's a simple example. The reason this needs to be clearly understood is that there are hundreds of other examples where differences between non-standard minimums and DP requirements are equally or more confusing and with greater differences. So let's not get hung up on Bourland for the sake of Bourland.

tex

"
Click to expand...
TL;DR (sorry), but I did read enough to think you keep using "diverse turn" in a way I'm not comfy with. "Diverse" means with respect to the procedure design, not a reference to the pilot's actions. When they layout their gradients, "diverse" means in any direction from some indicated location, say 400' AGL on the runway centerline. It doesn't mean a turn in any direction from some other location the pilot may be located, say 1300' MSL. Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
In other words, before I can start the takeoff roll I must have 1 mile viz (Im in a Baron) and my Baron must be capable of 200fpnm up to an altitude of 400 feet.
Click to expand...

No. Assuming you are 121/135, etc., if the weather is only 1 mile visibility, you have to be able to make 512 ft/nm until 1300.

If you can only make 200ft/nm, then you need weather to be at least 300-2.
 
Dave S. said:
Clearly the 1300 is a turn altitude or an altitude, once reached, which allows for a turn. AND, unless otherwise indicated, that turn can be a diverse turn in any direction.
Click to expand...

No. See my post above. That's the altitude at which you can reduce the climb gradient.
 
Dave S. said:
Now let's add the DP which says to fly heading 165 to 1400 BEFORE TURNING RIGHT. Let's to to the AIM once again...

"...A greater climb gradient may be specified in the DP to clear obstacles [the 1400 in our example]
Click to expand...
No, the ODP in this case says nothing about a climb gradient. It only says to maintain runway heading until 1400 before turning right. The climb gradient is only in the the alternate take off minimums.
 
Dave S. said:
Here's a better question. If 1300 represents the altitude to which we must be able to climb at 512fpnm and thereafter 200fpnm (as you assume)...then at what rate of cg do we climb after 1300 up to 1400? 512? 200?
Click to expand...
(Not assume. That what the take off minimums say, but ok.) 200ft/nm after you get to 1300 works. Then at 1400, you could turn right.
 
This whole exercise is rather silly, even at 100 kts, the rate of clime is <900 fpm. Who’s flying a commercial aircraft with performance below that value.
 
Dave S. said:
Can we turn at 1300 unless it's a right turn then we must go to 1400?
Click to expand...

Yes. You can also turn to the left as low as 400 agl, which is 1273 msl, not too much lower than you can make your left turn if you wanted to.
 
PPC1052 said:
No, it doesn't. You are conflating the minimum altitude for when to turn with the minimum altitude for maintaining the increased climb gradient. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is precisely what I am NOT doing.

Every cg solution includes two things...1) a climb gradient and 2) an "to xxxx" altitude.

We have been shown in the AIM that in the case of 400 (notice that it gives no other examples, which is part of my original problem) you may begin your turn. Since with a standard departure 200fpnm is used to 400 and 200 fpnm is the minimum used as a standard cg and at 400 we may begin our turn. Yet you insist that with the non-standard cg solution with its two parts 1) 512 and 2) to 1300 the altitude DOES NOT represent a turn altitude but only reflects the point at which the 512 can go to 200. You are getting confused because of the associated DP. Let's use a simpler example.

MOUNT VERNON, TX
FRANKLIN COUNTY (F53)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 1 11013 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 13, 400-2½ or std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900.
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES: Rwy 13.........

Here there is no DP. I will ask the original question of you. If you use the std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900....what happens at 900? What cg may you now use? Can I go to 200 fpnm? Can I turn on course now? How much on course? Is this a diverse departure (any direction)? If, as you say, 900 only refers to the point where you can reduce to the standard 200 fpnm then when can I turn?

Try to put this in a way that a new student IFR pilot can understand. Because I have 42 years of CFII and 37 years of ATC and I can't find a clear rule about some of this that I can understand. Alot of this is stuff we deduce or assume and even the ASW operation group designer and FSDO don't agree on some of it.
 
Clip4 said:
This whole exercise is rather silly, even at 100 kts, the rate of clime is <900 fpm. Who’s flying a commercial aircraft with performance below that value.
Click to expand...
under Part 135, jets need to make a net flight path that clears obstacles by 35 feet...that net flight path is OEI, and 512 ft/mile is often going to be a struggle. They’ll either need to reduce weight or ave an alternate procedure in the event of an engine failure.

In the case of a light twin, it’s almost never going to make that kind of gradient single engine, but my experience is that most pilots count on the fact that engine failures only happen to somebody else.
 
Dave S. said:
Actually, that is precisely what I am NOT doing.

Every cg solution includes two things...1) a climb gradient and 2) an "to xxxx" altitude.

We have been shown in the AIM that in the case of 400 (notice that it gives no other examples, which is part of my original problem) you may begin your turn. Since with a standard departure 200fpnm is used to 400 and 200 fpnm is the minimum used as a standard cg and at 400 we may begin our turn. Yet you insist that with the non-standard cg solution with its two parts 1) 512 and 2) to 1300 the altitude DOES NOT represent a turn altitude but only reflects the point at which the 512 can go to 200. You are getting confused because of the associated DP. Let's use a simpler example.

MOUNT VERNON, TX
FRANKLIN COUNTY (F53)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 1 11013 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 13, 400-2½ or std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900.
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES: Rwy 13.........

Here there is no DP. I will ask the original question of you. If you use the std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900....what happens at 900? What cg may you now use? Can I go to 200 fpnm? Can I turn on course now? How much on course? Is this a diverse departure (any direction)? If, as you say, 900 only refers to the point where you can reduce to the standard 200 fpnm then when can I turn?

Try to put this in a way that a new student IFR pilot can understand. Because I have 42 years of CFII and 37 years of ATC and I can't find a clear rule about some of this that I can understand. Alot of this is stuff we deduce or assume and even the ASW operation group designer and FSDO don't agree on some of it.
Click to expand...
Yes, at 400 ft you can turn...if no routing is specified for the DP, it’s a diverse departure area with turns allowed at 400 feet. The altitude becomes simply the top of the climb gradient requirement, and you can reduce to 200 ft per mile unless you’re already at the minimum IFR altitude. The AIM only gives the 400 ft example because anything else would be nonstandard and published in an ODP.
 
MauleSkinner said:
under Part 135, jets need to make a net flight path that clears obstacles by 35 feet...that net flight path is OEI, and 512 ft/mile is often going to be a struggle. They’ll either need to reduce weight or ave an alternate procedure in the event of an engine failure.

In the case of a light twin, it’s almost never going to make that kind of gradient single engine, but my experience is that most pilots count on the fact that engine failures only happen to somebody else.
Click to expand...

Except the minimum was 512 or 300-2, which does assure any performance.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Yes, at 400 ft you can turn...if no routing is specified for the DP, it’s a diverse departure area with turns allowed at 400 feet. The altitude becomes simply the top of the climb gradient requirement, and you can reduce to 200 ft per mile unless you’re already at the minimum IFR altitude. The AIM only gives the 400 ft example because anything else would be nonstandard and published in an ODP.
Click to expand...
I agree it is not any more complicated than that. I'm confused by the confusion.

Dave S. said:
Try to put this in a way that a new student IFR pilot can understand.
Click to expand...
There is a standard departure profile. It is a 200 FPMN climb beginning at 400' AGL in any direction. There are airports where the standard will not keep you clear of obstacles. It may need a change to the climb gradient. It may need restrictions on the direction you turn. It may need both. They only change what they talk about. For example, "min. climb of 238' per NM to 900" means exactly that and nothing more. It changes the 200 FPMN standard to 238 for the initial climb to 900. If it meant to change anything else, it would say so.
 
Clip4 said:
Except the minimum was 512 or 300-2, which does assure any performance.
Click to expand...
300-2 only assures obstacle clearance by visual avoidance. It won’t clear procedurally. Only the 512 ft/mile clears procedurally.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe Russ can explain this, because I am not certain. I suppose that they let you fly with standard climb gradient under the 300-2 minimuns, which potentially puts you closer to obstacles than the 1300 with the increased climb gradient, because you are see and avoid rather than relying on TERPS standards for clearance.
Click to expand...

Correct. You are allowed in this case to takeoff and visually avoid the obstacles.
 
Dave S. said:
MOUNT VERNON, TX
FRANKLIN COUNTY (F53)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 1 11013 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 13, 400-2½ or std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900.
TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES: Rwy 13.........

Here there is no DP. I will ask the original question of you. If you use the std. w/ min. climb of 238' per NM to 900....what happens at 900? What cg may you now use? Can I go to 200 fpnm? Can I turn on course now? How much on course? Is this a diverse departure (any direction)? If, as you say, 900 only refers to the point where you can reduce to the standard 200 fpnm then when can I turn?

Try to put this in a way that a new student IFR pilot can understand. Because I have 42 years of CFII and 37 years of ATC and I can't find a clear rule about some of this that I can understand. Alot of this is stuff we deduce or assume and even the ASW operation group designer and FSDO don't agree on some of it.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what the confusion is. In this example, you either have 400-2 1/2 in which case you can take off and climb at 200 ft per nm and visually avoid obstacles, OR if the weather is worse than that, you have to be able to climb at 238 ft per nm through 900. Passing 900, you may resume a normal climb of 200 ft per nm. Since there is no route specified, in either case you may turn and go on your way at 400 ft above the airport elevation. As long as you climb as specified, you won't hit anything.

The reference is the previously stated AIM paragraph. If you tell us which part of that paragraph is confusing, I can try to help better.
 
Let’s see if we can reduce this down. Take Mt Vernon, F53. It has Ry 13/31.

Assuming a ceiling of 100 and 1 mile viz the non standard TO minimum is 238 to 900.

Please answer the following questions without any explaining. We’ll discuss it later.

1. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 300 feet? Yes no
2. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 400 ft? Yes no
3. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 600 ft? Yes no

And finally

4. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 900 ft? Yes no.

Now two more...

5. Can I reduce my climb to 200 fpnm at 400 feet? Yes no. And
6. Can I reduce my climb to 200 at 900 feet? Yes no

I say
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

Please just do that for the moment.

Tex
 
Dave S. said:
Let’s see if we can reduce this down. Take Mt Vernon, F53. It has Ry 13/31.

Assuming a ceiling of 100 and 1 mile viz the non standard TO minimum is 238 to 900.

Please answer the following questions without any explaining. We’ll discuss it later.

1. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 300 feet? Yes no
2. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 400 ft? Yes no
3. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 600 ft? Yes no

And finally

4. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 238 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 900 ft? Yes no.

Now two more...

5. Can I reduce my climb to 200 fpnm at 400 feet? Yes no. And
6. Can I reduce my climb to 200 at 900 feet? Yes no

I say
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

Please just do that for the moment.

Tex
Click to expand...
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Well, technically #4 is a yes, because if you can turn at 400’, you can also turn at 900’. ;)
 
Better yet, let's make one change and you can answer it again.
Dave S. said:
Let’s see if we can reduce this down. Take Mt Vernon, F53. It has Ry 13/31.

Assuming a ceiling of 100 and 1 mile viz and standard takeoff minimums

Please answer the following questions without any explaining. We’ll discuss it later.

1. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 200 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 300 feet? Yes no
2. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 200 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 400 ft? Yes no
3. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 200 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 600 ft? Yes no

And finally

4. After departure off 13 as I am climbing at 200 per nautical mile can I turn on course, whatever that is, at 900 ft? Yes no.
Click to expand...
The answers are no different changing 200 to 238 until reaching 900 ft because that is the one and only thing which has changed.
 
RussR said:
I'm really not sure what the confusion is.
Click to expand...

I am glad I am not the only one. When discussing with someone of his level of credentials, it makes really question what I am missing.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am glad I am not the only one. When discussing with someone of his level of credentials, it makes really question what I am missing.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately none of the credentials of anyone the OP mentioned is enough to determine expertise in performance. Most of the FAA Ops people I’ve asked have said they don’t know, and to buy commercially available airport analysis.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Unfortunately none of the credentials of anyone the OP mentioned is enough to determine expertise in performance. Most of the FAA Ops people I’ve asked have said they don’t know, and to buy commercially available airport analysis.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I'd expect a CFII to know more than me on this subject. Of course, we can't all know everything about everything. So not knowing one thing doesn't necessarily mean a person isn't very knowledgeable in general.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe. But I am comparing to my level of knowledge, not to yours.
Click to expand...
The best you’ll ever do is figure out who’s full of **** and who’s not. Finding source documents (in this case, the AIM and Instrument Procedures Handbook suffice for me.)
 
Last edited:
So we have some answers that say that even with a non standard TO minimum which requires a 238 climb to 900 that a pilot can turn on course at 400.

And one that says even once we get to 900 we can’t turn on course.

Who believes that with a minimum of 238 to 900 that you can turn on course to any heading at 400? Please give your authority for that.

And what is the authority for not being able to turn at 900.
 
Dave S. said:
So we have some answers that say that even with a non standard TO minimum which requires a 238 climb to 900 that a pilot can turn on course at 400.

And one that says even once we get to 900 we can’t turn on course.

Who believes that with a minimum of 238 to 900 that you can turn on course to any heading at 400? Please give your authority for that.

And what is the authority for not being able to turn at 900.
Click to expand...
You’re even misreading the yes or no answers to your own yes-or-no questions...NOBODY is saying you can’t turn at 900’.
 
Dave S. said:
So we have some answers that say that even with a non standard TO minimum which requires a 238 climb to 900 that a pilot can turn on course at 400.

And one that says even once we get to 900 we can’t turn on course.

Who believes that with a minimum of 238 to 900 that you can turn on course to any heading at 400? Please give your authority for that.
Click to expand...
The English language. Going to a "red shirt only" party does not tell me anything about the color pants to wear. Telling me I need a 238 FPNM climb rate to 900 does not tell me anything about when to make turns. "Climb on course 130 to 900 ft at 238 FPNM" does, but it doesn't say that.

Don't be so committed to "it's confusing" that you can't see."
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
Who believes that with a minimum of 238 to 900 that you can turn on course to any heading at 400? Please give your authority for that.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that a nonstandard minimum climb gradient automatically requires a higher altitude before turning? Please give your authority on which you base your belief.
 
dmspilot said:
Why do you believe that a nonstandard minimum climb gradient automatically requires a higher altitude before turning? Please give your authority on which you base your belief.
Click to expand...

As I said before every non stand climb gradient has a “to xxxx” with it. Simple question....what is that altitude for? What does it represent? What does it mean to the departing pilot?


Second question... does it have anything to do with when I may turn on course and be sure that I have cleared the controlling obstacle?

What is the rule of thumb that tells me a when I may turn on course after departing with a non standard TO minimum?

In other words tell me what 238 to 900 means to me as a departing pilot. What must I do or not do with my plane regarding cg and turns with 238 and 900?
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
As I said before every non stand climb gradient has a “to xxxx” with it. Simple question....what is that altitude for? What does it represent? What does it mean to the departing pilot?
Click to expand...
It represents the altitude above which the nonstandard gradient no longer applies.


Second question... does it have anything to do with when I may turn on course and be sure that I have cleared the controlling obstacle?
Click to expand...
not if a heading or track is not specified.
What is the rule of thumb that tells me a when I may turn on course after departing with a non standard TO minimum?
Click to expand...
There is no rule of thumb. You may turn at the standard 400 feet unless something higher is specified for turns.

In other words tell me what 238 to 900 means to me as a departing pilot. What must I do or not do with my plane regarding cg and turns with 238 and 900?
Click to expand...
you must not turn below the standard 400 AGL.

You asked for references for what everybody else says...they’ve been provided. @dmspilot asked you for references regarding your interpretation. Please provide more than “as I said before”, which has no documentation.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
300-2 only assures obstacle clearance by visual avoidance. It won’t clear procedurally. Only the 512 ft/mile clears procedurally.
Click to expand...

How does that work for a Cessna Caravan in a 135 op. You lose an engine that gradient is worthless and impossible during OEI.
 
Clip4 said:
How does that work for a Cessna Caravan in a 135 op. You lose an engine that gradient is worthless and impossible during OEI.
Click to expand...
300-2 doesn’t procedurally clear without an engine, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top