Why are ODPs not required in IMC?

[Llewtrah381]

That would be fine, IF it were the established procedure. The problem is that AUS has implemented a non-standard local procedure which has conditioned at least one of their controllers, and likely a number of pilots, into thinking that it is a standard procedure.

…and given my experience, how would I know that? Include knowledge of what is AND ISN’T in the .65 for a PPL? That would seem to be the only way.

Seriously - please provide a non-judgmental way one is to distinguish “ATC standard” from local practice on the GA pilot end. I don’t ALWAYS get asked if I have the NOTAMS but very often do. Is that a requirement? I’m not really sure. Doesn’t matter: I always check them. And, more to your focus, is that building dependency on my part? Not in the least, for me. But if I hear it and I don’t recall any relevant ones, I do go back and check my homework in case I overlooked something, because it can feel like there’s a significant one I should know of when they ask. And, given that they ask if we have the NOTAMs and weather, how would asking/telling/reminding re the ODP engender a risk not engendered in these other things, especially since, by their nature (and as shown by the OP accident), ODPs are there because of serious risk?

And circling back to the OP and title of this thread, what would YOU suggest be done, if anything, to make use of ODPs, especially in mountainous areas like the subject accident, reliably considered/followed? Do we just accept people will drive into mountains, like airliners drove into microbursts before procedures were changed?

I accept this post may be mistaken as argumentative. It’s not. I’m seriously interested in hearing ideas about how to reliably stop these types of completely preventable accidents. Thanks

Add: I’m not saying the KAUS practice would have prevented this accident. It clearly would not have, since he didn’t apparently pick up his clearance on the ground. Some other/additional fixes, such as requiring all clearances to be picked up on the ground in addition to the KAUS procedure, would seem to be done universally - pretty onerous.

 

[luvflyin]

This is a great example of the authors point. I looked hard for the ODP in the FAA charts on foreflight.you have to read through the alternate minimums and ODP text which is alphabetized and not based on the airport name. So it takes some work to get there. It would help if foreflight and others would at least link direct to that airports information rather than going to the beginning of he alphabet. Jeppensen does a much better job in this respect.

Yeah. That having to know the City instead of just the Airport name can be a pain. The Gov has followed Jepps lead in the past. Like terrain contours and colors on Charts. And briefing strip formats. Probably time for them to follow on this departure stuff to. Hey, anyone want some cheap flight training. I'm not a CFI but I'm really good. There, that might get their attention. I'll take one for the team.

 

[Llewtrah381]

I looked hard for the ODP in the FAA charts on foreflight.you have to read through the alternate minimums and ODP text which is alphabetized and not based on the airport name. So it takes some work to get there.

I’m a cheapskate who uses Avare instead of Foreflight. After this thread started I went to see how easy it is to find this in Avare. They actually do a really good job: it’s in with the approach plates for the field and they even separate the Alternate Mins from the DP stuff. And it’s just the page(s) for that field - not the whole area. VERY easy to get to it quickly for your start, destination, or any other field you may consider as a future fuel stop.

 

[aterpster]

AFAIK ODPs have never been mandatory for plain vanilla Part 91 ops.

Never been required. When I started they were called IFR Departure Procedures.

 

[aterpster]

I looked too since my last comment. You are correct. ODPs are first mentioned in Part 91 in 2007 when the takeoff minimums paragraph was amended to add them. I was surprised it was that late! And like the takeoff minimums going back to at least 1980, they only applied to Part 121, 125, 129, and 135.

That's because the airlines lobbied for the option to design their own ODPs to comply with 121.189.

It takes a careful read to see that none of it applies to Part 91 operators.

 

[aterpster]

How many years ago was that? That doesn't sound like an ODP. I'm going to guess it was more than about 20 years ago when IFR Departure Procedures were renamed to Obstacle Departure Procedures. And it still doesn't sound like one of those. @aterpster , do you remember any that were that vague? Just plan to avoid a particular obstruction?

No.

 

[Larry in TN]

How many years ago was that?

It was more than 35 years ago.

…and given my experience, how would I know that? Include knowledge of what is AND ISN’T in the .65 for a PPL?

Read what the AIM and Instrument Procedures Handbook (IPH) say about ODPs.

When you encounter a question, look for an answer in the FAA's source materials; FARs, AIM, IPH, ACs, etc.

If you are, or ever become, a CFI, teach your instrument students the AIM and IPH procedures and how to use those tools to find the answers to their questions.

Relying on ATC to give a reminder that is neither required, nor commonly given, isn't an effective plan.

 

[aterpster]

If there was a requirement prior to that, I don't know where it was.

There wasn't.

 

[aterpster]

Ok. Seemed to me that if it passed the Diverse Departure Assesment, that would be the end of it. No OPD required. But I see the logic now. Raise the Minimums from Standard and you can still get away with no Departure Procedure.

The first order of business is a diverse departure area. The second order of business is to provide a restriction or a full route ODP to avoid a climb gradient. Doesn't mean its always done that way. Procedure design has weak oversight. It's weaker today than, say, 20 years ago.

 

[Velocity173]

…and given my experience, how would I know that? Include knowledge of what is AND ISN’T in the .65 for a PPL? That would seem to be the only way.

Seriously - please provide a non-judgmental way one is to distinguish “ATC standard” from local practice on the GA pilot end. I don’t ALWAYS get asked if I have the NOTAMS but very often do. Is that a requirement? I’m not really sure. Doesn’t matter: I always check them. And, more to your focus, is that building dependency on my part? Not in the least, for me. But if I hear it and I don’t recall any relevant ones, I do go back and check my homework in case I overlooked something, because it can feel like there’s a significant one I should know of when they ask. And, given that they ask if we have the NOTAMs and weather, how would asking/telling/reminding re the ODP engender a risk not engendered in these other things, especially since, by their nature (and as shown by the OP accident), ODPs are there because of serious risk?

And circling back to the OP and title of this thread, what would YOU suggest be done, if anything, to make use of ODPs, especially in mountainous areas like the subject accident, reliably considered/followed? Do we just accept people will drive into mountains, like airliners drove into microbursts before procedures were changed?

I accept this post may be mistaken as argumentative. It’s not. I’m seriously interested in hearing ideas about how to reliably stop these types of completely preventable accidents. Thanks

Add: I’m not saying the KAUS practice would have prevented this accident. It clearly would not have, since he didn’t apparently pick up his clearance on the ground. Some other/additional fixes, such as requiring all clearances to be picked up on the ground in addition to the KAUS procedure, would seem to be done universally - pretty onerous.

There’s no need for a pilot to have an understanding of the .65. Other publications extrapolate what’s important on the ATC end for pilots to reference.

 

[Velocity173]

Hard to find an ODP for an airport??? Tap Fore Flight-Airport (RHP)-Procedure-Departure-(page 2 Andrews Murphy). Took like 10 seconds.

 

[Llewtrah381]

When you encounter a question, look for an answer in the FAA's source materials; FARs, AIM, IPH, ACs, etc.

I think you’re missing my point here. If I have a question, sure. But having AUS remind me about the ODP (or however we want to phrase this), in my mind, doesn’t raise a question. Any more than if “confirm you have the NOTAMs” warrants me looking in the .65 to see if that’s required. Both seem plausible as part of their procedures, not onerous, and somewhat expected.

Can you show me where in any document, other than the .65, there’s any mention of the controller referencing the ODP? Not whether or not we need to adhere to it - the specific “unusual procedure” at AUS that has people here so energized. It may be in the part that says “ATC will confirm you have the NOTAMS, if there are any”

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's because the airlines lobbied for the option to design their own ODPs to comply with 121.189.

It takes a careful read to see that none of it applies to Part 91 operators.

Yeah, you have to read the beginning of the paragraph

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

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is a great example of the authors point. I looked hard for the ODP in the FAA charts on foreflight.you have to read through the alternate minimums and ODP text which is alphabetized and not based on the airport name. So it takes some work to get there.

A number of people have raised the issue with ForeFlight. I did just three weeks ago and they said it had been requested. a number of times. When you go to the AFD link, FF brings yo to the specific page. But if you got to the Alternate Minimums or the Takeoff Minimums link, it brings you to page one even if your airport is on page 40. They don't even give you a search box like they do in just about every other document in the app.

If I were cynical, I'd probably say it's to get you to spend the extra $200 to buy the Jepp charts (Jepp puts the information on the 10-9 airport page).

 

[PaulS]

Hard to find an ODP for an airport??? Tap Fore Flight-Airport (RHP)-Procedure-Departure-(page 2 Andrews Murphy). Took like 10 seconds.

Agreed, not hard, but sometimes a pain in the butt. Try kteb...... 45 pages in, .

 

[Llewtrah381]

There’s no need for a pilot to have an understanding of the .65. Other publications extrapolate what’s important on the ATC end for pilots to reference.

View attachment 103260

Let me preface my reply by saying I'm not trying to come across as obstinate, hurt, defensive, arrogant, or anything else and am aware there is a risk of doing so despite this disclaimer. I really want to learn - which is why I joined PoA.

I'm genuinely confused by the hubbub over what AUS is doing. Let's take your citation. "ODPs are not assigned by ATC unless absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation." Let's say, as I've said I've experienced, the ODP is mentioned every time. In fact, let's say my clearance actually includes the requirement to "fly the 3R9 ODP then...". It seems completely plausible that departures from 16 "absolutely need" compliance with the ODP every time it's IMC because of traffic arriving from and departing to the west. It seems unlikely, given how simple it is, but I'm not a controller. It seems unwarranted for me to stop them during the phone call and ask if I really need to do this or something. How am I to distinguish between an ODP "assignment" that's as per the guidance you cite (and done every time) and one not actually required of the controller but given as a "courtesy", for lack of a better word? The only way I know the latter is apparently the case is because of my conversation with them, prompted by this thread.

And let's say, indeed, AUS's interpretation is that the 3R9 rwy 16 ODP is absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation and pilots departing 16 get that clearance every time. Is that building "dependence" on ATC? I don't think so. And even if it was, they're obligated by what you cite to do so.

Again, this is all pretty moot. If AUS's procedures were universal this accident would still have happened: he never called from the ground, as best we can tell.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think you’re missing my point here. If I have a question, sure. But having AUS remind me about the ODP (or however we want to phrase this), in my mind, doesn’t raise a question. Any more than if “confirm you have the NOTAMs” warrants me looking in the .65 to see if that’s required. Both seem plausible as part of their procedures, not onerous, and somewhat expected.

Maybe I'm misreading but I don't think anyone even remotely suggested you question whether the AUS reminder of the ODP should have you running to any reference material.

I think the only point being made by those who have been arguing has been to not assume that what happens at your airport happens everywhere - and pointing to the Controller's handbook to show it is not standard. I don't know if you have been saying that or not but if so, anyone who says it never happens are making the exact same mistake.

I haven't been to even one in the 30+ years I've been flying but but there are (or at least used to be) Class C airports where aircraft departing VFR did not call Clearance Delivery for departure instructions. Some airports regularly combine frequencies; others almost never do. How many of us have been to the Class C airport where GA airplanes don't talk to Ground? And, of course, the towered airports when you call Ground, rather than Tower, when ready to take the runway for departure.

(And, BTW, I also know an airport which always issues an ODP )

 

[Velocity173]

I think you’re missing my point here. If I have a question, sure. But having AUS remind me about the ODP (or however we want to phrase this), in my mind, doesn’t raise a question. Any more than if “confirm you have the NOTAMs” warrants me looking in the .65 to see if that’s required. Both seem plausible as part of their procedures, not onerous, and somewhat expected.

Can you show me where in any document, other than the .65, there’s any mention of the controller referencing the ODP? Not whether or not we need to adhere to it - the specific “unusual procedure” at AUS that has people here so energized. It may be in the part that says “ATC will confirm you have the NOTAMS, if there are any”

 

[Velocity173]

Let me preface my reply by saying I'm not trying to come across as obstinate, hurt, defensive, arrogant, or anything else and am aware there is a risk of doing so despite this disclaimer. I really want to learn - which is why I joined PoA.

I'm genuinely confused by the hubbub over what AUS is doing. Let's take your citation. "ODPs are not assigned by ATC unless absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation." Let's say, as I've said I've experienced, the ODP is mentioned every time. In fact, let's say my clearance actually includes the requirement to "fly the 3R9 ODP then...". It seems completely plausible that departures from 16 "absolutely need" compliance with the ODP every time it's IMC because of traffic arriving from and departing to the west. It seems unlikely, given how simple it is, but I'm not a controller. It seems unwarranted for me to stop them during the phone call and ask if I really need to do this or something. How am I to distinguish between an ODP "assignment" that's as per the guidance you cite (and done every time) and one not actually required of the controller but given as a "courtesy", for lack of a better word? The only way I know the latter is apparently the case is because of my conversation with them, prompted by this thread.

And let's say, indeed, AUS's interpretation is that the 3R9 rwy 16 ODP is absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation and pilots departing 16 get that clearance every time. Is that building "dependence" on ATC? I don't think so. And even if it was, they're obligated by what you cite to do so.

Again, this is all pretty moot. If AUS's procedures were universal this accident would still have happened: he never called from the ground, as best we can tell.

There is no hubbub over the way AUS does that if indeed it’s due to traffic. Now, if they’re doing it out of habit, then that’s a problem. 1) A part 91 pilot isn’t required to do an ODP and 2) ATC directive explicitly states to issue it only for separation (traffic) purposes.

Now, the question of ATC making a pilot aware that an ODP exists? Well that not required either but necessary for safety? I really don’t think so. It would be like flying into a non towered field and ATC advising a pilot of all the IAPs that exist for the field. They’re simply options and it’s incumbent on a competent pilot to be aware of those options during preflight planning.

Personally, I didn’t go through civilian IFR training but was thoroughly taught DPs and the differences between ODPs and SIDs in the military. If this training is lacking in the civilian world then there needs to be a revamping of training and not a change in ATC procedures.

 

[Llewtrah381]

View attachment 103262

Yes, I saw that, thanks. What I'm really curious about, though, is the part it obliquely references with the "have the NOTAMS" quote. Is there any language regarding ATC procedures for the "confirm you have the (weather and) NOTAMS" call? I seem to get asked that frequently but with some inconsistency: sometimes it's the first controller I contact, sometimes the next-to-last, sometimes the last. There seems to be some variety, suggesting "local practice" again. BTW: this is in the .65 and I was wondering if there was anything in the documents a GA pilot would be expected to be familiar with that would "answer the question" (per Larry) about what is and isn't a standardized ATC practice for ODPs and this.

Now, the question of ATC making a pilot aware that an ODP exists? Well that not required either but necessary for safety? I really don’t think so. It would be like flying into a non towered field and ATC advising a pilot of all the IAPs that exist for the field. They’re simply options and it’s incumbent on a competent pilot to be aware of those options during preflight planning.

I respectfully disagree. To my knowledge (and perhaps I'll learn something new here), whereas there may be multiple IAPs even to a runway, there is only one ODP for any given runway. Even if not true, ODPs are designed specifically for obstacle clearance, as has been noted. They're created to safely avoid specific, local hazards to safe flight. Even Part 91 pilots don't follow them at their own risk and possible peril. In the OP, it seems easy to imagine that, had the pilot picked up his clearance on the ground and ATC had made comment of the ODP, he may have realized he had overlooked that part in his rush to fuel up and press on. He may not have: it sounds like he also flew the wrong Downwind - twice - on his arrival, so his trip planning was clearly not thorough.

This has all been very helpful to me personally and I'm glad for the learnings.

 

[luvflyin]

I think you’re missing my point here. If I have a question, sure. But having AUS remind me about the ODP (or however we want to phrase this), in my mind, doesn’t raise a question. Any more than if “confirm you have the NOTAMs” warrants me looking in the .65 to see if that’s required. Both seem plausible as part of their procedures, not onerous, and somewhat expected.

Can you show me where in any document, other than the .65, there’s any mention of the controller referencing the ODP? Not whether or not we need to adhere to it - the specific “unusual procedure” at AUS that has people here so energized. It may be in the part that says “ATC will confirm you have the NOTAMS, if there are any”

AIM 5-2-9 f. 4.
....As a general rule, ATC will only assign an ODP from a non−towered airport when compliance with the ODP is necessary for aircraft to aircraft separation. Pilots may use the ODP to help
ensure separation from terrain and obstacles....

I have still have not found anything about this calling the pilots attention to the fact that an ODP exists thing. A craft beer of your choice to whoever finds it first. I'll probably have to mail it. Let it sit for awhile before opening

 

[Larry in TN]

I'm genuinely confused by the hubbub over what AUS is doing.

The problem is that AUS TRACON has, apparently, made up their own procedure. Having things done differently at different facilities creates threats, than can lead to errors, when pilots go to other facilities expecting the procedure will be in use there, too. This is why we have standard phraseology and standardized procedures which should be applied regardless of the facility.

The lack of standardization in ATC procedures and phraseology is a contact threat for those of use who fly internationally and the US is one of the bigger offenders when it comes to deviation from ICAO standards.

let's say my clearance actually includes the requirement to "fly the 3R9 ODP then...". It seems completely plausible that departures from 16 "absolutely need" compliance with the ODP every time it's IMC because of traffic arriving from and departing to the west.

No, it only means that compliance with the ODP is necessary during the release window for your specific departure. They don't have to separate you unless there is conflicting IFR traffic.

How am I to distinguish between an ODP "assignment" that's as per the guidance you cite (and done every time) and one not actually required of the controller but given as a "courtesy"

The distinction is whether or not the ODP is part of your IFR clearance. If it is, it will come after "Cleared to [clearance limit] via ...". If it is not part of your IFR clearance then, as a part 91 pilot, it is your decisions whether to do the ODP or not.

This is an important distinction for any instrument rated pilot to understand and it has been muddled by AUS's use of a local procedure.

 

[Velocity173]

Yes, I saw that, thanks. What I'm really curious about, though, is the part it obliquely references with the "have the NOTAMS" quote. Is there any language regarding ATC procedures for the "confirm you have the (weather and) NOTAMS" call? I seem to get asked that frequently but with some inconsistency: sometimes it's the first controller I contact, sometimes the next-to-last, sometimes the last. There seems to be some variety, suggesting "local practice" again. BTW: this is in the .65 and I was wondering if there was anything in the documents a GA pilot would be expected to be familiar with that would "answer the question" (per Larry) about what is and isn't a standardized ATC practice for ODPs and this.


I respectfully disagree. To my knowledge (and perhaps I'll learn something new here), whereas there may be multiple IAPs even to a runway, there is only one ODP for any given runway. Even if not true, ODPs are designed specifically for obstacle clearance, as has been noted. They're created to safely avoid specific, local hazards to safe flight. Even Part 91 pilots don't follow them at their own risk and possible peril. In the OP, it seems easy to imagine that, had the pilot picked up his clearance on the ground and ATC had made comment of the ODP, he may have realized he had overlooked that part in his rush to fuel up and press on. He may not have: it sounds like he also flew the wrong Downwind - twice - on his arrival, so his trip planning was clearly not thorough.

This has all been very helpful to me personally and I'm glad for the learnings.

Nothing I know of requiring that specific phraseology. At least there wasn’t 20 years ago when I did ATC. I know a change was made to the .65 a few years back but nothing requiring that phraseology. Then again, there are policy letters and GENOTs that come down from the FAA clarifying procedures in the.65. Might be one out there.

As far as telling a pilot an ODP exists, well there could be multiple ODPs for a particular airport just like multiple IAPs for a particular airport. Just like doing SVFR to a class D. Inform the pilot that the field is IFR, what the pilot requests is completely up to them. I’m a believer in letting the pilot act as a PIC and not do their planning for them.

 

[luvflyin]

Let me preface my reply by saying I'm not trying to come across as obstinate, hurt, defensive, arrogant, or anything else and am aware there is a risk of doing so despite this disclaimer. I really want to learn - which is why I joined PoA.

I'm genuinely confused by the hubbub over what AUS is doing. Let's take your citation. "ODPs are not assigned by ATC unless absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation." Let's say, as I've said I've experienced, the ODP is mentioned every time. In fact, let's say my clearance actually includes the requirement to "fly the 3R9 ODP then...". It seems completely plausible that departures from 16 "absolutely need" compliance with the ODP every time it's IMC because of traffic arriving from and departing to the west. It seems unlikely, given how simple it is, but I'm not a controller. It seems unwarranted for me to stop them during the phone call and ask if I really need to do this or something. How am I to distinguish between an ODP "assignment" that's as per the guidance you cite (and done every time) and one not actually required of the controller but given as a "courtesy", for lack of a better word? The only way I know the latter is apparently the case is because of my conversation with them, prompted by this thread.

And let's say, indeed, AUS's interpretation is that the 3R9 rwy 16 ODP is absolutely necessary to achieve aircraft separation and pilots departing 16 get that clearance every time. Is that building "dependence" on ATC? I don't think so. And even if it was, they're obligated by what you cite to do so.

Again, this is all pretty moot. If AUS's procedures were universal this accident would still have happened: he never called from the ground, as best we can tell.

You don't distinguish between an ODP they assign or one given for courtesy, or some other reason. Like local 'tribal knowledge.' If they assign it, you gotsa do it. Even if they did it for a reason that didn't 'require' them to. I am sure many places do it routinely. One reason to do it is now they know what yer gonna do. In between the time they release you and you takeoff, some other traffic may become a factor that wasn't when they gave you the Clearance. Things can change between the time you get your Clearance and actually depart. Maybe it's an airborne pop up requesting a Clearance. Maybe it's someone wanting a deviation around some weather. It could make a difference in how soon they could accommodate that traffic. Especially in busy airspace. There is no Controllers rule that says never do it unless absolutely necessary.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is no hubbub over the way AUS does that if indeed it’s due to traffic. Now, if they’re doing it out of habit, then that’s a problem. 1) A part 91 pilot isn’t required to do an ODP and 2) ATC directive explicitly states to issue it only for separation (traffic) purposes.

I can't seem to find the explicit "only" language.

 

[Llewtrah381]

I appreciate the conversations overall and have learned more about ODPs and especially .65 than I ever thought I would.

I'd like to circle back to the OP and the accident cited and, especially for the (former and active) ATC people following this, get your thoughts about the scenario that caused this, especially in the context of what we've learned above.

Let's say you're manning the phone at Atlanta Center and the pilot calls from the ground to pick up his clearance to KLNS, to the northeast. You're familiar with the ODP, know it's not authorized at night, know that it requires a climb within 3NM to 4,900 MSL (3,200ft AGL) in visual conditions before proceeding southwest bound and climbing another 2,000 feet before being able to complete the ODP. You know it's night (actually, past civil twilight), the AWOS reports a broken layer at 3,200 (RIGHT AT the minimum for the climb-in-visual-conditions part), and that he's a Part 91, so not required to fly the ODP. You also know mentioning the ODP isn't required and it's not required for this particular flight for separation.

There are no recent or FAA preferred routes on 1-800-WxBrief for this pairing. Looking at Skyvector, it looks like they suggest a route whose first waypoint is KNITS, almost directly north, over the 2,500-3,000ft ridge 5 miles to the north. Let's say that's the route he filed. Or he filed direct (which he apparently did, and which resulted in the CFIT, and is probably the clearance he would have gotten, I think, since the Snowbird MOA is intermittent) - either way.

How do you handle that clearance and release? Do you "Cleared Direct/As Filed" and release "Fly on-course heading"? Do you mention the ODP at all (which would be "outside the procedures")? Even more "non-standard", do you observe to the pilot that the ODP can't be performed at night and the ceiling is right at the mins, so ask for intentions? Do you just hope for the best? Would the clearance not be granted because the ODP couldn't be flown? (Given this is a Part 91, I suspect denying the clearance isn't possible but I'd like to understand the rules here)

And after the CFIT, when the tapes are run, how would the conversation with the investigators go? Would there be any adverse repercussions for not mentioning the (unauthorized) ODP and/or giving a clearance that resulted in a CFIT?

I'm HONESTLY trying to understand this - not trying to set a trap or anything else. The "status quo" seems to make this seemingly avoidable disaster very preventable with some ATC collaboration.

 

[luvflyin]

There’s no need for a pilot to have an understanding of the .65. Other publications extrapolate what’s important on the ATC end for pilots to reference.

View attachment 103260

Where’s that from. AIM, PHAK, IFH, IPH….

 

[Velocity173]

Where’s that from. AIM, PHAK, IFH, IPH….

IPH

 

[Tarheelpilot]

According to the FAA's historical CFR page, the requirement to fly an ODP if published was not even introduced to paragraph 91.175(f) until 2007. However, the opening of that paragraph says that it only applies to operations under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

If there was a requirement prior to that, I don't know where it was.

Well crap. I just figured they were required. Why wouldn’t they be?

Hey bob whatcha going to do after you take off?

I dunno i guess I’ll just head to my destination and hope I don’t hit anything.

 

[Velocity173]

I can't seem to find the explicit "only" language.

“and pilot compliance is necessary to insure separation.” If seperation isn’t an issue, then the ODP shouldn’t be assigned. The IPH clarifies it further.

 

[Velocity173]

Let’s stop beating around the bush here and get back to the crux of the article. Should pilots be REQUIRED to be informed that an ODP exists for their departure field? Should ALL pilots be forced to comply with an ODP regardless of separation or type operation (Part 91)?

 

[PaulS]

Let’s stop beating around the bush here and get back to the crux of the article. Should pilots be REQUIRED to be informed that an ODP exists for their departure field? Should ALL pilots be forced to comply with an ODP regardless of separation or type operation (Part 91)?

No

 

[MauleSkinner]

and given my experience, how would I know that? Include knowledge of what is AND ISN’T in the .65 for a PPL? That would seem to be the only way.

I’m going to circle back to this…
The knowledge level expected for a brand new instrument pilot (or any certificate/rating, for that matter,) is fairly minimal. The expectation is that you’ll continue studying in your own. It’s the old “license to learn” thing.

so how do you do that? Read applicable FAA and airplane-specific publications. When you run across something that seems to contradict normal practice in your experience, like the IPH section on ODPs does, dig further. Problem is, you can read something several times and not have the questions jump out at you until you’re in the exact frame of mind required.

Another good way is to join a forum like this. See the questions that are asked, and find the references for the correct answer. As often as not, it’s a question that you’ve either previously asked, should ask, or already know the answer to because you use it. That’ll have you going through those same books, but with more of a purpose.

Just like you, I learned about 7110.65 here. And while I don’t dig in it often, I have it in my list of available resources.

I train professional pilots for a living, and they’re not immune from the need to learn more, either. If everyone read their AFM and supplements, I’d probably still have a job, but it would look WAY different. I tell my clients they need to spend 15 minutes, three times a week in the AFM. It’s not a lot…But you have to MAKE it happen, and very few pilots do (including myself). But if you realize the documentation is important, and you commit to doing some form of continued education, you’ll be a lot better off than the guys who are offended at the thought that studying and/or talking about the airplane and procedures should happen outside of a flight review or recurrent training.

 

[Velocity173]

Knowing the .65 is like knowing the TERPS manual. It’s not necessary for a basic instrument pilot or even professional pilot. If you’re a pilot who’s in a position to teach basic ATC procedures, TERPS or even in the rare case design an approach, then those pubs are critical. Outside of that, it’s just nice to know info but for the most part, is covered in common (AIM, IPH, etc) pilot publications.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Let’s stop beating around the bush here and get back to the crux of the article. Should pilots be REQUIRED to be informed that an ODP exists for their departure field?

Well, yeah - I think we all agree on that. They're published and a pilot is expected to review all available material prior to flight, etc. "It is the pilot's responsibility to determine if there is an ODP published for that airport", as you quoted above, so box checked. What's in disagreement seems to be if a controller issuing a clearance and release (on the ground) should be required to confirm the pilot has the ODP (similar to "confirm you have the NOTAMS") or issue it as part of the clearance. Personally, I think at least confirming I have it is of far more value than confirming I have the obstruction-lights-out NOTAMs but I accept there may be different opinions.

Should ALL pilots be forced to comply with an ODP regardless of separation or type operation (Part 91)?

If we're interested in improving safety, I think this is a no-brainer "yes". They exist specifically because of a local, physical hazard. A pilot is expected to adhere to an approach or go missed. And why do they need to adhere to the approach? So they don't run into something. If a controller saw a pilot deviating significantly from an approach, repeatedly and despite "coaching", could the controller give them a number to call for a possible pilot deviation? If so, then why would an ODP be different?

Another "let's stop beating around the bush": the "what if" I asked about a few posts above is not a purely hypothetical; it is as close to what actually happened as I think we can get right now. I'm curious how even past controllers would handle that. I have a hard time believing they'd release this clearance for a wreck and not be dealing with it for the rest of their lives. I wanna believe otherwise but I can totally see myself getting into something like this: a change in gas stops, an urge to get home, a 3,000ft broken ceiling. "I have 3,000 feet to pick up the clearance". (And before I get jumped on for "you can really see yourself doing this?!?", let me say the chances are microscopic for me personally: first, I wouldn't pick a gas stop in the hills, especially near sunset and in the weather. Second, I'd read, re-read, and re-re-read the ODP and map it out beforehand because I'd be scared s#!tless of departing in the weather danger-close to hills at a strange field. But I'm honest with myself).

I’m going to circle back to this…
The knowledge level expected for a brand new instrument pilot (or any certificate/rating, for that matter,) is fairly minimal. The expectation is that you’ll continue studying in your own. It’s the old “license to learn” thing.

so how do you do that? Read applicable FAA and airplane-specific publications. When you run across something that seems to contradict normal practice in your experience, like the IPH section on ODPs does, dig further. Problem is, you can read something several times and not have the questions jump out at you until you’re in the exact frame of mind required.

Another good way is to join a forum like this. See the questions that are asked, and find the references for the correct answer. As often as not, it’s a question that you’ve either previously asked, should ask, or already know the answer to because you use it. That’ll have you going through those same books, but with more of a purpose.

Just like you, I learned about 7110.65 here. And while I don’t dig in it often, I have it in my list of available resources.

I train professional pilots for a living, and they’re not immune from the need to learn more, either. If everyone read their AFM and supplements, I’d probably still have a job, but it would look WAY different. I tell my clients they need to spend 15 minutes, three times a week in the AFM. It’s not a lot…But you have to MAKE it happen, and very few pilots do (including myself). But if you realize the documentation is important, and you commit to doing some form of continued education, you’ll be a lot better off than the guys who are offended at the thought that studying and/or talking about the airplane and procedures should happen outside of a flight review or recurrent training.

Thanks. But please remember, we've identified an expected time when ATC will include the ODP in a clearance: it's when it's also needed for separation. As I've said elsewhere, it is completely plausible that runway has been identified as always needing separation by including the ODP and that's why we always get the message. Even so, it's just such a "non-thing" with no downside to it happening that I never thought it was unusual and warranted looking in a book. But I appreciate the advice and will start getting the background on more "new learnings"

 

[Velocity173]

Well, yeah - I think we all agree on that. They're published and a pilot is expected to review all available material prior to flight, etc. "It is the pilot's responsibility to determine if there is an ODP published for that airport", as you quoted above, so box checked. What's in disagreement seems to be if a controller issuing a clearance and release (on the ground) should be required to confirm the pilot has the ODP (similar to "confirm you have the NOTAMS") or issue it as part of the clearance. Personally, I think at least confirming I have it is of far more value than confirming I have the obstruction-lights-out NOTAMs but I accept there may be different opinions.

If we're interested in improving safety, I think this is a no-brainer "yes". They exist specifically because of a local, physical hazard. A pilot is expected to adhere to an approach or go missed. And why do they need to adhere to the approach? So they don't run into something. If a controller saw a pilot deviating significantly from an approach, repeatedly and despite "coaching", could the controller give them a number to call for a possible pilot deviation? If so, then why would an ODP be different?

Another "let's stop beating around the bush": the "what if" I asked about a few posts above is not a purely hypothetical; it is as close to what actually happened as I think we can get right now. I'm curious how even past controllers would handle that. I have a hard time believing they'd release this clearance for a wreck and not be dealing with it for the rest of their lives. I wanna believe otherwise but I can totally see myself getting into something like this: a change in gas stops, an urge to get home, a 3,000ft broken ceiling. "I have 3,000 feet to pick up the clearance". (And before I get jumped on for "you can really see yourself doing this?!?", let me say the chances are microscopic for me personally: first, I wouldn't pick a gas stop in the hills, especially near sunset and in the weather. Second, I'd read, re-read, and re-re-read the ODP and map it out beforehand because I'd be scared s#!tless of departing in the weather danger-close to hills at a strange field. But I'm honest with myself).


Thanks. But please remember, we've identified an expected time when ATC will include the ODP in a clearance: it's when it's also needed for separation. As I've said elsewhere, it is completely plausible that runway has been identified as always needing separation by including the ODP and that's why we always get the message. Even so, it's just such a "non-thing" with no downside to it happening that I never thought it was unusual and warranted looking in a book. But I appreciate the advice and will start getting the background on more "new learnings"

Well I guess agree to disagree then because I believe the current system in place is fine. Comparing an IAP to an ODP are two different things and honestly, any competent pilot should be able to depart and determine if they need an ODP or not. Also, when I’m talking about required to be informed, I’m not referring to published procedures. I’m talking about ATC. There is no requirement currently. It’s left to the pilot. The author of the article states ATC “could” inform a pilot of an ODP. Could and must are two different things.

The published ODP (FAA) is only one way of getting out of the airport. The particular airport (RHP) in question actually has a whole separate ODP that my company uses for departure with far less mins than published. So there is a way of departing an airport without executing the FAA published ODP. If you want to do it, fine but I don’t believe in making it mandatory. You could have an aircraft that can’t comply wit it it due to FPNM restrictions. On the opposite end, an aircraft (jet) could easily exceed the requirements of FPNM and not need the ODP. If they’re Part 91, I say let them decide. To me, that should be a no brainer.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Even so, it's just such a "non-thing" with no downside to it happening that I never thought it was unusual and warranted looking in a book.

That’s where the forums come in.

the topic came up, and you know more than you did before.

 

[Llewtrah381]

The particular airport (RHP) in question actually has a whole separate ODP that my company uses for departure with far less mins than published.

Just curious: does the company get FAA review/concurrence/approval of the ODP? I’m assuming it was made by someone other than the FAA - possibly your company.

And how does your company ensure its pilots adhere to it? Anything different than the fairly lax “process” for the published ODP and Part 91 pilots?

 

[luvflyin]

Just curious: does the company get FAA review/concurrence/approval of the ODP? I’m assuming it was made by someone other than the FAA - possibly your company.

And how does your company ensure its pilots adhere to it? Anything different than the fairly lax “process” for the published ODP and Part 91 pilots?

Their ODP's are fly straight up vertically for awhile and then go somewhere

 

[Velocity173]

Just curious: does the company get FAA review/concurrence/approval of the ODP? I’m assuming it was made by someone other than the FAA - possibly your company.

And how does your company ensure its pilots adhere to it? Anything different than the fairly lax “process” for the published ODP and Part 91 pilots?

It has to be flight checked on a regular basis (I believe annually) but it’s proprietary information so it’s not available to everyone. We paid for it. Since one of my bosses is a POA member, I won’t post it here. This is the company that makes our ODPs and IAPs. If we (Part 135) went by FAA procedures, we’d hardly ever get airborne during IFR. Yes, pilots are required to comply with their ODP procedures.

https://hughesaerospace.com/