Why are ODPs not required in IMC?

[Larry in TN]

Having ATC remind us before launching into IMC seems like a good added safety measure, but it shouldn't substitute for us doing our homework.

That will condition pilots to expect ATC to tell them if an ODP is needed. Someday they'll be departing an airport, outside of AUS TRACON's airspace, where the controllers don't routinely add the extra reminder, and the chances of them missing the ODP will be increased.

 

[Llewtrah381]

That will condition pilots to expect ATC to tell them if an ODP is needed. Someday they'll be departing an airport, outside of AUS TRACON's airspace, where the controllers don't routinely add the extra reminder, and the chances of them missing the ODP will be increased.

Maybe. But that feels akin to saying if I get flight following I may stop looking out the window and at my ADS-B for other planes, so ATC providing FF increases my risks because I’m dependent on them. We all know we should keep looking outside for traffic even with FF or IFR but their services add to safety, as I personally think happens here. It’s my azz that hits the tower or hill if I don’t know of and follow the ODP, so that’s part of my flight planning whether they remind me or not.

And to clarify: this isn’t a local AUS procedure: he made it clear it’s “deep in an ATC book”, so it sounds like other sites should be doing the same.

 

[luvflyin]

OK - have had a little time to do some homework (which may have been better than just responding right away...)

First, yes, as Larry just posted, ODPs are only for terrain and obstacle clearance (which is what I always understood) - not aircraft separation. Per the Instrument Procedures Handbook, "The term ODP is used to define procedures that simply provide obstacle clearance. ODPs are only used for obstruction clearance and do not include ATC-related climb requirements. In fact, the primary emphasis of ODP design is to use the least restrictive route of flight to the en route structure or to facilitate a climb to an altitude that allows random (diverse) IFR flight, while attempting to accommodate typical departure routes."

I just called the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures at AUS TRACON to get some clarification. He said they're required (by something "deep in a book") to state PRIOR to issuing a clearance that we're reminded to fly the ODP when there is one (there are apparently only two cases in their area, so they only do it for two runways; not even the reciprocal of ours). It's not actually part of the clearance but is more of a reminder right before issuing one. "We don't want to assume the pilot read it" and "it's easier to explain why we were being redundant vs. why we didn't say it if something bad happened" were his comments. They hadn't always been doing it but, when someone came from another site where it was done, a research of their procedures resulted in the change. The statement is only made when giving a clearance on the ground, from what I gather.

Back to the accident in the OP, my guess is the pilot was going to try and pick up the clearance in the air. Had he picked it up on the ground, at least if the controller issuing the clearance had followed the guidance cited by the AUS TRACON, he would have at least been reminded there was an ODP in play. That may not have happened but there's no indication in the story that the clearance was picked up on the ground and didn't include the pre-clearance statement.

We're all obligated as IFR pilots to know about an ODP before departing, no question. Having ATC remind us before launching into IMC seems like a good added safety measure, but it shouldn't substitute for us doing our homework. In fact, the other accident discussed here recently in Medford, OR shows that even having a tower repeatedly tell the pilot to fly the SID won't solve everything (Navajo crash - Medford OR | Pilots of America).

It's not buried 'deep in the book.' Here's what it says and it's right there in the Section on Departure Procedures.
2. Where an obstacle departure procedure (ODP) has been published for a location and pilot compliance is necessary to ensure separation, include the procedure as part of the ATC clearance.

Also, the concept of issuing an ODP after take off simply does not exist. And if an aircraft on an ODP is taken off of it, they cannot be put back on it. They are plotted out from the runway, not some point in space. In your example above where they gave you the ODP and told you when entering Controlled Airspace fly heading ###, the ODP ceases to exist for you and them at that point.

(1) Departure Procedures (DP). If an aircraft is vectored off a published Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP), that vector cancels the DP and ATC becomes responsible for separation from terrain and /or obstructions. IFR aircraft must be assigned an altitude.

 

[midlifeflyer]

But, if all full-route ODPs had to be charted, the system would be safer. No new regulation is required, just more diligence on the part of the FAA's procedures designers. The author is spot-on on that aspect.

I tend to agree. There isn't to much reason not to chart them at this point. At the same time, there's also no too much reason for Jepp or Garmin to take the lead and put them in a database, even with no charting.

This very morning, I answered someone's Facebook question about setting up an ODP in ForeFlight. No reason it could not be in the database to begin with.

 

[Llewtrah381]

2. Where an obstacle departure procedure (ODP) has been published for a location and pilot compliance is necessary to ensure separation, include the procedure as part of the ATC clearance.

That's a "both-and": both an ODP exists and compliance is necessary to ensure separation. In that case, it would make sense to include it in the clearance since ensuring separation is now added to the equation - a key requirement of an IFR clearance. But if ensuring separation isn't necessary for the circumstances, both criteria aren't met.

The ODP in question is dead simple, actually: "RWY 16, climb heading 165 to 1700 before proceeding on course." (3R9). No distance, no climb gradient. And there is no ODP for 34.

The controller's the one who said it was "deep in a book" - we were on an impromptu phone call and he didn't know the specific chapter and verse to cite and it didn't matter. But he made it clear this was outside of the situation you cite (ensuring separation is necessary) and they state it and don't technically include it in the clearance per se.

Also, the concept of issuing an ODP after take off simply does not exist. And if an aircraft on an ODP is taken off of it, they cannot be put back on it. They are plotted out from the runway, not some point in space. In your example above where they gave you the ODP and told you when entering Controlled Airspace fly heading ###, the ODP ceases to exist for you and them at that point.

I agree and probably shouldn't have added the remark about it only being for clearances picked up on the ground.

And, for the ODP I deal with, I'm probably being inaccurate and/or incomplete in describing what I'm getting. My recollection is, when I call in, it goes something like "N12345, Cleared to XXXX as filed, climb and maintain 3,000, (etc.), hold for release." "N12345, you're released to depart 3R9 via the Runway 16 ODP, fly heading (typically runway heading or 180), (etc.)". In hindsight, I'm not sure they actually say "upon entering controlled airspace..." because following the ODP actually puts me into the Class E, so I'm in controlled airspace once completing (this very simple) ODP. I may still have the wording and sequence wrong here (they may actually say it during the clearance part rather than the release part) but the point is they "remind" me of the ODP. I'll pay closer attention to the details next time.

 

[Llewtrah381]

I tend to agree. There isn't to much reason not to chart them at this point. At the same time, there's also no too much reason for Jepp or Garmin to take the lead and put them in a database, even with no charting.

This very morning, I answered someone's Facebook question about setting up an ODP in ForeFlight. No reason it could not be in the database to begin with.
View attachment 103196

A crucial thing I don't see depicted on your FF graphic is the need to remain within 3NM of the field until crossing the field westbound at 4900ft (3000ft AGL) before following the path your graphic shows. At least for this one, it seems both horizontal and vertical depictions (like for an approach plate) are essential.

 

[luvflyin]

That's a "both-and": both an ODP exists and compliance is necessary to ensure separation. In that case, it would make sense to include it in the clearance since ensuring separation is now added to the equation - a key requirement of an IFR clearance. But if ensuring separation isn't necessary for the circumstances, both criteria aren't met.

The ODP in question is dead simple, actually: "RWY 16, climb heading 165 to 1700 before proceeding on course." (3R9). No distance, no climb gradient. And there is no ODP for 34.

The controller's the one who said it was "deep in a book" - we were on an impromptu phone call and he didn't know the specific chapter and verse to cite and it didn't matter. But he made it clear this was outside of the situation you cite (ensuring separation is necessary) and they state it and don't technically include it in the clearance per se.


I agree and probably shouldn't have added the remark about it only being for clearances picked up on the ground.

And, for the ODP I deal with, I'm probably being inaccurate and/or incomplete in describing what I'm getting. My recollection is, when I call in, it goes something like "N12345, Cleared to XXXX as filed, climb and maintain 3,000, (etc.), hold for release." "N12345, you're released to depart 3R9 via the Runway 16 ODP, fly heading (typically runway heading or 180), (etc.)". In hindsight, I'm not sure they actually say "upon entering controlled airspace..." because following the ODP actually puts me into the Class E, so I'm in controlled airspace once completing (this very simple) ODP. I may still have the wording and sequence wrong here (they may actually say it during the clearance part rather than the release part) but the point is they "remind" me of the ODP. I'll pay closer attention to the details next time.

I'd be interested in hearing from you when you do remember in detail. To give you the ODP and assign you a heading all in one transmission does not pass the logic check.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A crucial thing I don't see depicted on your FF graphic is the need to remain within 3NM of the field until crossing the field westbound at 4900ft (3000ft AGL) before following the path your graphic shows. At least for this one, it seems both horizontal and vertical depictions (like for an approach plate) are essential.

The part about remaining close to the runway for the initial visual climb before entering the clouds?

Sure, in a perfect world, sure. We can sit back and let out FMS/autopilot combo fly it with only monitoring from us. But in out imperfect world SIDs have text descriptions of applicable takeoff minimums. Full route clearances which we enter into our Garmin and Avidyne units can also also include segments like "turn left heading XXX within 1 mile of the runway," which are not charted and we don't typically program. We just fly them.

I don't have an issue with it being "critical" for me to actually read the ODP - charted or not - and digest its meaning while getting the benefit of situational awareness from an EFB and positive course guidance if programmed into a certified unit.

 

[Velocity173]

OK - have had a little time to do some homework (which may have been better than just responding right away...)

First, yes, as Larry just posted, ODPs are only for terrain and obstacle clearance (which is what I always understood) - not aircraft separation. Per the Instrument Procedures Handbook, "The term ODP is used to define procedures that simply provide obstacle clearance. ODPs are only used for obstruction clearance and do not include ATC-related climb requirements. In fact, the primary emphasis of ODP design is to use the least restrictive route of flight to the en route structure or to facilitate a climb to an altitude that allows random (diverse) IFR flight, while attempting to accommodate typical departure routes."

I just called the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures at AUS TRACON to get some clarification. He said they're required (by something "deep in a book") to state PRIOR to issuing a clearance that we're reminded to fly the ODP when there is one (there are apparently only two cases in their area, so they only do it for two runways; not even the reciprocal of ours). It's not actually part of the clearance but is more of a reminder right before issuing one. "We don't want to assume the pilot read it" and "it's easier to explain why we were being redundant vs. why we didn't say it if something bad happened" were his comments. They hadn't always been doing it but, when someone came from another site where it was done, a research of their procedures resulted in the change. The statement is only made when giving a clearance on the ground, from what I gather.

Back to the accident in the OP, my guess is the pilot was going to try and pick up the clearance in the air. Had he picked it up on the ground, at least if the controller issuing the clearance had followed the guidance cited by the AUS TRACON, he would have at least been reminded there was an ODP in play. That may not have happened but there's no indication in the story that the clearance was picked up on the ground and didn't include the pre-clearance statement.

We're all obligated as IFR pilots to know about an ODP before departing, no question. Having ATC remind us before launching into IMC seems like a good added safety measure, but it shouldn't substitute for us doing our homework. In fact, the other accident discussed here recently in Medford, OR shows that even having a tower repeatedly tell the pilot to fly the SID won't solve everything (Navajo crash - Medford OR | Pilots of America).

Just to clarify, ATC assigned ODPs are for aircraft separation. The .65 quote that @luvflyin provided states that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

...followed by half a page of obstacle notes.

From which the ODP doesn’t necessarily protect you.

 

[tspear]

When I used to fly out of KSCX, if I picked up the clearance on the ground (this was six plus years ago), there was a controller when giving ground clearances always started with two questions. Do you have applicable NOTAMs? and Do you know the ODP? Afterwards it always went with the normal clearance, upon reaching XXXX, turn left/right to heading ZZZ.....

Now that ODP was very basic, avoid the trees and the other things around the airport

Tim

 

[Larry in TN]

And to clarify: this isn’t a local AUS procedure: he made it clear it’s “deep in an ATC book”, so it sounds like other sites should be doing the same.

It is a local AUS procedure. There is no requirement for ATC to ever mention an ODP unless they need to assign it to ensure separation or they need to know if you are going to fly it for separation purposes.

Instrument pilots need to understand that ATC is not providing terrain and obstacle separation unless ATC is providing positive course guidance (i.e. vectors). That can be a very dangerous misconception to hold.

 

[Llewtrah381]

It is a local AUS procedure. There is no requirement for ATC to ever mention an ODP unless they need to assign it to ensure separation or they need to know if you are going to fly it for separation purposes.

Are you stating that as a controller? As I said, the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures at AUS said otherwise. He said it’s an ATC thing nationwide. I can’t prove he’s right - but have no reason to believe a guy in his position is wrong.

Kinda doesn’t matter: that’s what I’ve experienced for a while and, regardless, I like the belt-and-suspenders of reminding me to review the ODP, basically. Up there with “Confirm you have the weather and NOTAMs”, IMHO.

 

[Velocity173]

Are you stating that as a controller? As I said, the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures at AUS said otherwise. He said it’s an ATC thing nationwide. I can’t prove he’s right - but have no reason to believe a guy in his position is wrong.

Kinda doesn’t matter: that’s what I’ve experienced for a while and, regardless, I like the belt-and-suspenders of reminding me to review the ODP, basically. Up there with “Confirm you have the weather and NOTAMs”, IMHO.

So you’re saying that because an ODP exists at your field and AUS always issues it, it must be standard nationwide? The reference for ATC issuing ODP was already posted above. When “pilot compliance is necessary to insure separation.” If there isn’t any traffic, then there’s no need to issue the ODP on ATC’s end. If AUS wants to issue an ODP simply because there’s one at the field is their prerogative but that’s not required nationwide.

 

[aterpster]

I tend to agree. There isn't to much reason not to chart them at this point. At the same time, there's also no too much reason for Jepp or Garmin to take the lead and put them in a database, even with no charting.

This very morning, I answered someone's Facebook question about setting up an ODP in ForeFlight. No reason it could not be in the database to begin with.

Database providers won't do that unless they get the route and leg-types from the FAA on the prescribed 8260 form.

 

[Llewtrah381]

So you’re saying that because an ODP exists at your field and AUS always issues it, it must be standard nationwide? The reference for ATC issuing ODP was already posted above. When “pilot compliance is necessary to insure separation.” If there isn’t any traffic, then there’s no need to issue the ODP on ATC’s end. If AUS wants to issue an ODP simply because there’s one at the field is their prerogative but that’s not required nationwide.

No, that’s not what I said and was not said by AUS. They don’t “always issue it”: they categorically don’t include it in the clearance, as I stated earlier. The mention of the ODP (when not part of separation and therefore made part of the clearance) appears to be part of ATC procedures, as I was told.

I’m happy to provide a phone number if you’d really like to get the straight story and get me out of the middle.

I’m surprised at how this has all played out. I started off by saying I may be missing something obvious. Apparently I am - still.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Database providers won't do that unless they get the route and leg-types from the FAA on the prescribed 8260 form.

Not saying they would. Just that they could.

OTOH, which 8260 does LNAV+V or Jepp's Sensor Final Approach Fix come from?

 

[Larry in TN]

Are you stating that as a controller?

It would be an appeal-to-authority fallacy for me to base an argument on my job or experience. (My avatar can give a clue as to my profession) The verbage I've used is based on the wording from the AIM.

As I said, the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures at AUS said otherwise. He said it’s an ATC thing nationwide. I can’t prove he’s right - but have no reason to believe a guy in his position is wrong.

The applicable sections from 7110.65 have been posted in the thread. There is nothing in 7110.65 which tells controllers to remind pilots of an applicable ODP prior to issuing a departure clearance.

Controllers often stay at a single facility for many years, if not their entire career. That sometimes blurs the line between a local technique and an established procedure.

 

[Llewtrah381]

The verbage I've used is based on the wording from the AIM.

The reference he inferred regarded controllers, not the AIM

Controllers often stay at a single facility for many years, if not their entire career.

That may be true but as I stated he indicated this came up when a new arrival brought in the concept.

This doesn’t change what I’ve experienced. That experience doesn’t seem to add to the conversation (which is fine with me) so I should probably stop now.

 

[Larry in TN]

The reference he inferred regarded controllers, not the AIM

AIM is the pilot reference. Velocity posted the ATC reference from 7110.65.

The AUS controller told you it was a national procedure. If it were, it would be in .65 and would likely also be referenced in the AIM.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I can’t prove he’s right - but have no reason to believe a guy in his position is wrong.

Regardless of the position one holds, merely saying that it’s written somewhere that he can’t and won’t identify makes a statement suspect.

 

[Llewtrah381]

AIM is the pilot reference. Velocity posted the ATC reference from 7110.65.

The AUS controller told you it was a national procedure. If it were, it would be in .65 and would likely also be referenced in the AIM.

Are y’all saying what they’re doing is illegal, immoral, or fattening? Unsafe? I’ll pass you the phone number if you want. Otherwise I’m not sure where all of this is headed. If they advise me of the ODP or clear me for the ODP, I don’t really care: I’ll do the ODP for my own safety. Had the OP pilot known of the ODP and flown it, regardless of the requirements, he and his pax would likely be alive today.

I’ve just been passing in my experiences and conversations.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Regardless of the position one holds, merely saying that it’s written somewhere that he can’t and won’t identify makes a statement suspect.

I never said he “can’t and won’t identify” where it’s written. What I said was it was an impromptu, informal call.
OK. I give up. This is getting surprisingly silly. Good night, y’all! Fly safely! And heed those ODPs!

 

[MauleSkinner]

OK. I give up. Good night, y’all! Fly safely!

It’s not about giving up. It’s about identifying what’s real and what’s not so that you’re not hamstrung by what people tell you is real but isn’t, or overconfident because you believe something is supposed to happen to help you that isn’t going to happen.

 

[Llewtrah381]

It’s not about giving up. It’s about identifying what’s real and what’s not so that you’re not hamstrung by what people tell you is real but isn’t, or overconfident because you believe something is supposed to happen to help you that isn’t going to happen.

Given the choice between SGOTI and the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures for my local TRACON, with whom I’ve spoken by phone several times about several things, who would you give priority to on this kind of issue? No offense.

This all seems kinda fruitless. I’m still going to heed an ODP “noted” by ATC and will still review them as part of flight planning. I personally will still appreciate ATC’s help with them, required by regs/policy or not. I won’t depend on them doing so for my awareness of said ODPs. I was simply sharing my experiences and honestly asking what I was missing here. Box checked.

 

[MauleSkinner]

who would you give priority to on this kind of issue?

I’ve been told enough lies that I’ll give priority to the documentation, in this case, provided by SGOTI.

 

[Velocity173]

I don’t get the comments in the article about how hard it is to find ODPs. Just took me 15 secs to find takeoff mins for RHP on FF. If you’re old school paper, take even less than that.

Author states what ATC could do or should do. That’s great and all but it’s not regulatory. Like saying ATC should offer SVFR when the field is IFR. How much leading by the hand is necessary from ATC?

 

[luvflyin]

When I used to fly out of KSCX, if I picked up the clearance on the ground (this was six plus years ago), there was a controller when giving ground clearances always started with two questions. Do you have applicable NOTAMs? and Do you know the ODP? Afterwards it always went with the normal clearance, upon reaching XXXX, turn left/right to heading ZZZ.....

Now that ODP was very basic, avoid the trees and the other things around the airport

Tim

KSCX does not have an ODP now. Are you sure there was one there 6 years ago? The only thing there now is ‘take off obstacle notes.’ No ‘take off minimums.’ No ‘departure procedure.’ It doesn’t make sense that there once was one, but now it’s gone.

 

[tspear]

KSCX does not have an ODP now. Are you sure there was one there 6 years ago? The only thing there now is ‘take off obstacle notes.’ No ‘take off minimums.’ No ‘departure procedure.’ It doesn’t make sense that there once was one, but now it’s gone.

From what I recall, it was just the same obstacle notes. In any case, SCX is located in a plateau with a three thousand foot higher mountain range blocking the direction to the nearest major city. And no radar coverage until you climbed the three thousand feet.
I was there for two years, and it was the only place I have ever had those questions and I got them on a regular basis when getting a clearance on the ground. This surprised me and why it stuck with me. Note: I have limited exposure to ODPs in general and outside of training where my instructor liked to use KHGR, I really have not been to many locations with an ODP.

Tim

 

[Llewtrah381]

I’ve been told enough lies that I’ll give priority to the documentation, in this case, provided by SGOTI.

And what does that change? Zip.

But I’m totally with you re following the documentation/science instead of the lies in this day and age

 

[midlifeflyer]

Are y’all saying what they’re doing is illegal, immoral, or fattening? Unsafe?

Duh. I've kept out if this conversation but literally no one has even slightly suggested it is wrong for a controller to remind a pilot there is an available ODP, to ask whether a pilot has an obstacle in sight, or the hundreds of other things controllers say and do to assist pilots which are not in the .65.

Thinking a local procedure is universal, OTOH...

 

[PaulS]

I got my "Damn this is important" realization on my instrument cross country flight into KRUT. We were late, it was dark, and it was snowing (unforecast). We landed, fueled up, I filed, then looked up the ODP, got my clearance, talked about the ODP with my instructor, then programmed it into the FMS. We lifted off, it was pitch black as I got off the ground, I knew that terrain and mountain were out there, it was an eerie feeling, get this right or bad things might happen. The only screw up I had was I didn't tell ATC (Center) I was flying the ODP when I got my clearance, when I called up, she asked me if I was flying the ODP, I told her yes, I can't see my hand in front of my face. ATC did not mention an ODP nor did I, I would never rely on ATC for something like that. I check for ODPs on every instrument departure, day or night, and for every night departure.

 

[Llewtrah381]

It's not buried 'deep in the book.' Here's what it says and it's right there in the Section on Departure Procedures.
2. Where an obstacle departure procedure (ODP) has been published for a location and pilot compliance is necessary to ensure separation, include the procedure as part of the ATC clearance.

I BELIEVE this may be what he was referencing (the “second”/bottom #3, below the part you quoted):

Right or wrong, I suspect it MAY be a local interpretation and practice to verify we can comply with the ODP and, right or wrong (and I’d say without any meaningful difference) that has morphed from “can you comply with the ODP” to something like “fly the ODP - OK, then here’s your clearance”. Just guessing.

This is my home base and 16 is the predominant runway, especially IMC, so I hear the ODP comment a lot when picking up IFR clearances on the ground. Obviously my grave error to think this was the norm. For that I am truly sorry. I did start in this thread by saying I may be missing something obvious

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just to tie in the regulatory reference from 91.175…

Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, no pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs or an alternative procedure or route assigned by air traffic control.

The exceptions in (f)(4) apply to 121, 129, and 135 ops.

edit…apparently the Instrument Procedures Handbook writer didn’t read the reg.

If a Part91 pilot is not given a clearance containing an ODP, SID, or radar vectors and an ODP exists, compliance with such a procedure is the pilot’s choice.

 

[luvflyin]

I BELIEVE this may be what he was referencing (the “second”/bottom #3, below the part you quoted):
View attachment 103211
Right or wrong, I suspect it MAY be a local interpretation and practice to verify we can comply with the ODP and, right or wrong (and I’d say without any meaningful difference) that has morphed from “can you comply with the ODP” to something like “fly the ODP - OK, then here’s your clearance”. Just guessing.

This is my home base and 16 is the predominant runway, especially IMC, so I hear the ODP comment a lot when picking up IFR clearances on the ground. Obviously my grave error to think this was the norm. For that I am truly sorry. I did start in this thread by saying I may be missing something obvious

No grave error. Your first post, #7, you said they assigned you the ODP. You have since clarified that was probably not the case, but were 'mentioning' it. Like maybe a reminder to let you know there was an ODP for the airport and maybe to remind you there are 'takeoff obstacle notes' you may be interested in looking at. @tspear said something about this in his post #51. In that case there are no Takeoff Minimums or Departure Procedure, just the takeoff obstacle notes. I can't find anything in the Controllers Rule's, the 7110.65, that requires Controllers make this notification to pilots. But maybe is buried somewhere deep in there that I haven't found yet.
The excerpts from the 7110.65 you posted above are not from the current 7110.65, but I see no operational differences. Here's the current one concerning when a Controller must issue an ODP and the obtaining pilots concurrence thing.

2. Where an obstacle departure procedure (ODP) has been published for a location and pilot compliance is necessary to ensure separation, include the procedure as part of the ATC clearance.
EXAMPLE−
“Depart via the (airport name)(runway number) departure procedure.” Or “Depart via the (graphic ODP name) obstacle departure procedure.”
NOTE−
Some aircraft are required by 14 CFR 91.175 to depart a runway under IFR using the ODP absent other instructions from ATC.
NOTE−
IFR takeoff minimums and obstacle departure procedures are prescribed for specific airports/runways and published in either a textual, or graphic form with the label (OBSTACLE) in the procedure title, and documented on an appropriate FAA Form 8260. To alert pilots of their existence, instrument approach procedure charts are annotated with a symbol:
3. Do not solicit use of the Visual Climb over Airport (VCOA) option.
NOTE−
Pilots will specifically advise ATC of their intent to use the VCOA option.
4. Compatibility with a procedure issued may be verified by asking the pilot if items obtained/ solicited will allow him/her to comply with local traffic pattern, terrain, or obstruction avoidance.
PHRASEOLOGY−
FLY RUNWAY HEADING.
DEPART (direction or runway).
TURN LEFT/RIGHT.
WHEN ENTERING CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (instruction), FLY HEADING (degrees) UNTIL REACHING (altitude, point, or fix) BEFORE PROCEEDING ON COURSE.

 

[aterpster]

Not saying they would. Just that they could.

OTOH, which 8260 does LNAV+V or Jepp's Sensor Final Approach Fix come from?

Advisory vertical guidance comes from the 8260.3 for the IAP under additional flight data. Example: KUDD RNAV Rwy 10 under addition flight data: JANEN TO RW10: 3.08/40.

Sensor FAFs were part of the directives for the overlay program.

 

[Palmpilot]

Just to tie in the regulatory reference from 91.175…

The exceptions in (f)(4) apply to 121, 129, and 135 ops.

edit…apparently the Instrument Procedures Handbook writer didn’t read the reg.

Or perhaps the handbook writer noticed that the scope of that regulatory reference is set by the opening statement of paragraph (f):

"Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter."​

 

[MauleSkinner]

Or perhaps the handbook writer noticed that the scope of that regulatory reference is set by the immediately preceding statement:

"Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter."​

That could be, too.

I stand corrected.

 

[Larry in TN]

Are y’all saying what they’re doing is illegal, immoral, or fattening? Unsafe? I’ll pass you the phone number if you want. Otherwise I’m not sure where all of this is headed.

I am saying that it is not a national procedure, as the AUS controller told you, and that it isn't something that is normally done.

The local technique has apparently conditioned at least that one AUS controller to think that this is a national procedure. Its regular use at your home airport conditioned you to think so as well. What happens when such a pilot is departing from an airport somewhere else where the controllers don't routinely remind pilots of the ODP? Will he know that it's his responsibility?

I've seen this conditioning affect many times over my career. It is very common on all sorts of topics. Pilots tend to "do what my CFI did" without thinking about why it is being done. That student "grows up" to be a CFI and teaches his students the same thing, still not knowing why. It becomes "tribal knowledge".

There's a great story that the late "Bad Chaz" Harrell (sp?) told in his Effective Mental Conditioning lecture, back in the 1980s/90s, about an examiner who kept getting private pilot applicants who would taxi at a high RPM dragging the brakes to control their speed. When asked why, they'd say, "Because it's good for the motor" but they couldn't explain it any further. I won't ruin the punchline but it was something that had been passed from CFI to student down the chain for many years without any of them know why. When he traced is back to the old, retired CFI who originated the chain, it was for something that no longer applied to modern aircraft.

Here's the whole lecture. It's very good. I don't remember how far into it the "because it's good for the motor" story is.

In the late 1980s I was a flight instructor at a very busy towered airport that had an aviation university flight program plus three additional busy flight schools. It wasn't unusual for 10, or more, aircraft to be in the pattern at the same time. Some of the controllers had developed the habit of instructing each airplane to report downwind abeam the tower on each circuit. "Make left closed traffic, report downwind abeam the tower on each pass". It wasn't all of the controllers who used that technique, though. Others, in my opinion better, controllers considered it a crutch and would only use it when there was a good reason for it; not routinely. Afterall, when you have 10 or 12 airplanes in the VFR pattern, do you really need extra radio calls tying up the frequency?

Pretty soon, everyone had been conditioned to make that report regardless of whether or not the controller had asked for it. Since everyone was making it anyway, many of the controllers who relied on the report would often leave out the instruction to make it. Didn't matter, right?, as everyone's making it anyway. Now what happens when a transient pilot comes in and doesn't know that the controller is expecting a report that he was never told to make?

Another affect was that many of the pilots would fly their upwind, crosswind, and first half of downwind with the expectation that they wouldn't be interacting with ATC until they made their "abeam" report as that's how it had always worked. That's were the controllers would usually give them their sequence. The result was a higher rate of missed calls for pilots who hadn't reached the mid-field abeam point in the pattern. Many simply weren't listening yet.

Lastly, I'd take my students to a nearby non-towered field for landing practice and you'd have other airplanes, based at the same towered field, making position reports of, "[airport] traffic, [callsign], left downwind, abeam, touch-and-go". Abeam what? There is no tower to be 'abeam' of. "Abeam" had become a synonym of "midfield". A midfield downwind report isn't even one of the recommended reports to make at a non-towered field.

Given the choice between SGOTI and the head of QA, Plans, and Procedures for my local TRACON, with whom I’ve spoken by phone several times about several things, who would you give priority to on this kind of issue?

That's the appeal-to-authority fallacy. Just because he should know, doesn't mean that he does. His position still has to be backed up with facts and, in this case, it is not.

Always track it back to the source. The FARs, AIM, ACs, 7110.65, etc. Those are the real authorities. Those of us with more experience can often be helpful in pointing you in the right direction, even if we are wrong ourselves. But never accept our opinions just because the person giving it 'should know'.

 

[luvflyin]

I am saying that it is not a national procedure, as the AUS controller told you, and that it isn't something that is normally done.

The local technique has apparently conditioned at least that one AUS controller to think that this is a national procedure. Its regular use at your home airport conditioned you to think so as well. What happens when such a pilot is departing from an airport somewhere else where the controllers don't routinely remind pilots of the ODP? Will he know that it's his responsibility?

I've seen this conditioning affect many times over my career. It is very common on all sorts of topics. Pilots tend to "do what my CFI did" without thinking about why it is being done. That student "grows up" to be a CFI and teaches his students the same thing, still not knowing why. It becomes "tribal knowledge".

There's a great story that the late "Bad Chaz" Harrell (sp?) told in his Effective Mental Conditioning lecture, back in the 1980s/90s, about an examiner who kept getting private pilot applicants who would taxi at a high RPM dragging the brakes to control their speed. When asked why, they'd say, "Because it's good for the motor" but they couldn't explain it any further. I won't ruin the punchline but it was something that had been passed from CFI to student down the chain for many years without any of them know why. When he traced is back to the old, retired CFI who originated the chain, it was for something that no longer applied to modern aircraft.

Here's the whole lecture. It's very good. I don't remember how far into it the "because it's good for the motor" story is.

In the late 1980s I was a flight instructor at a very busy towered airport that had an aviation university flight program plus three additional busy flight schools. It wasn't unusual for 10, or more, aircraft to be in the pattern at the same time. Some of the controllers had developed the habit of instructing each airplane to report downwind abeam the tower on each circuit. "Make left closed traffic, report downwind abeam the tower on each pass". It wasn't all of the controllers who used that technique, though. Others, in my opinion better, controllers considered it a crutch and would only use it when there was a good reason for it; not routinely. Afterall, when you have 10 or 12 airplanes in the VFR pattern, do you really need extra radio calls tying up the frequency?

Pretty soon, everyone had been conditioned to make that report regardless of whether or not the controller had asked for it. Since everyone was making it anyway, many of the controllers who relied on the report would often leave out the instruction to make it. Didn't matter, right?, as everyone's making it anyway. Now what happens when a transient pilot comes in and doesn't know that the controller is expecting a report that he was never told to make?

Another affect was that many of the pilots would fly their upwind, crosswind, and first half of downwind with the expectation that they wouldn't be interacting with ATC until they made their "abeam" report as that's how it had always worked. That's were the controllers would usually give them their sequence. The result was a higher rate of missed calls for pilots who hadn't reached the mid-field abeam point in the pattern. Many simply weren't listening yet.

Lastly, I'd take my students to a nearby non-towered field for landing practice and you'd have other airplanes, based at the same towered field, making position reports of, "[airport] traffic, [callsign], left downwind, abeam, touch-and-go". Abeam what? There is no tower to be 'abeam' of. "Abeam" had become a synonym of "midfield". A midfield downwind report isn't even one of the recommended reports to make at a non-towered field.


That's the appeal-to-authority fallacy. Just because he should know, doesn't mean that he does. His position still has to be backed up with facts and, in this case, it is not.

Always track it back to the source. The FARs, AIM, ACs, 7110.65, etc. Those are the real authorities. Those of us with more experience can often be helpful in pointing you in the right direction, even if we are wrong ourselves. But never accept our opinions just because the person giving it 'should know'.

Well put.