airtraffic

Author Topic: Non-standard instrument departures  (Read 146 times)

Offline simslave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Non-standard instrument departures
« on: September 15, 2020, 04:17:33 PM »
Hello everybody,

I'm newly registered to the site and hoping for a bit of guidance from the professionals!

I spend a lot of my time training pilots in the sim. Part of that job involves playing the role of ATC but, like many of my simulator colleagues, I have no formal training in this regard. Nevertheless, we try our best to be as accurate and correct as we can.

One of our problems is giving a technically correct IFR departure clearance. The company doesn't hold an RNAV approval. This rules out every SID available at the airports we train from (the company operates VFR, but all pilots maintain IFR currency in the simulator).

So, we regularly need to give an IFR clearance without using a SID. One example I've found is:

Scandinavian 509, CLEARED to Stockholm Arlanda, CLIMB altitude 4000 feet, SQUAWK 3737, AFTER DEPARTURE maintain runway track, when passing 3000ft turn left direct Nicky VOR.

While this does seem to tick the boxes of what we need to achieve, it doesn't follow the format that many of our pilots are expecting (CRAFT, FAA style). They seem to expect something more along the lines of another example I've found:

Cleared to XXX Airport via fly heading 220, radar vectors SLI, direct, climb and maintain 3000', departure frequency 124.5, squawk 6543

So, with 2 very different formats which one is more common/more correct? It would be in an EASA context, if that makes any difference. And if both are incorrect, what would be a correct generic example?

Many thanks in advance for any pointers! :-)



Offline tyketto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
Re: Non-standard instrument departures
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2020, 08:17:21 PM »
Hello everybody,

I'm newly registered to the site and hoping for a bit of guidance from the professionals!

I spend a lot of my time training pilots in the sim. Part of that job involves playing the role of ATC but, like many of my simulator colleagues, I have no formal training in this regard. Nevertheless, we try our best to be as accurate and correct as we can.

One of our problems is giving a technically correct IFR departure clearance. The company doesn't hold an RNAV approval. This rules out every SID available at the airports we train from (the company operates VFR, but all pilots maintain IFR currency in the simulator).

So, we regularly need to give an IFR clearance without using a SID. One example I've found is:

Scandinavian 509, CLEARED to Stockholm Arlanda, CLIMB altitude 4000 feet, SQUAWK 3737, AFTER DEPARTURE maintain runway track, when passing 3000ft turn left direct Nicky VOR.

While this does seem to tick the boxes of what we need to achieve, it doesn't follow the format that many of our pilots are expecting (CRAFT, FAA style). They seem to expect something more along the lines of another example I've found:

Cleared to XXX Airport via fly heading 220, radar vectors SLI, direct, climb and maintain 3000', departure frequency 124.5, squawk 6543

So, with 2 very different formats which one is more common/more correct? It would be in an EASA context, if that makes any difference. And if both are incorrect, what would be a correct generic example?

Many thanks in advance for any pointers! :-)

Hey there.

This would depend on the country or region you are wanting to concentrate on for the training you are giving your pilots. Here in the US, most airports have (or should have) a non-RNAV equivalent departure that non-RNAV equipped aircraft can use. A good example I can think of right off the top of my head is Las Vegas (KLAS) I'll list the RNAV departure in red, and the non-RNAV departure equivalent in green, and links to those charts so you can see the difference:

STAAV8 (RNAV)   LAS5
TRALR9 (RNAV)  LAS5
COWBY8 (RNAV) HOOVR6
PRFUM4 (RNAV) HOOVR6
BOACH8 (RNAV) MCCRN5
SHEAD1 (RNAV) MCCRN5

If you look at those charts there, especially at the lateral segments of the charts, you'll see that they are nearly equivalent, and leading to the same transitions outside of KLAS airspace. So check for those charts at the airport in question (again, I can only reference what I know, which is in the US).

If there are no non-RNAV applicable procedures, then you could use, if available and applicable, is the ODP (Obstacle Departure procedure) for the airport in question. Those should be available in the Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures chart for the airport in question, located here.

Using that, and looking at the formats you have above (the former looks to be close to ICAO standard, while the latter is CRAFT/FAA standard), both look to be correct. In fact, the latter one is given all the time for those who are not RNAV-equipped and departing from Long Beach (KLGB). In fact, here is what the ODP for runways 26L and 26R at KLGB says:

Quote
Rwys 26L, 26R, climb on heading 256° to 800, then climbing left turn on heading 200 and LAX VORTAC R-145 to PADDR INT.

So for your clearance, you could give:

Cleared to the Yuma Airport. On departure turn left heading 200, radar vectors SLI, direct. maintain 5000. departure frequency 124.5, squawk 7311.

The format you've used matches up to clearances given nearly every day that don't use a SID. So you're fairly good to go there. But be sure to have a look at the ODP and minimums if the airport in question doesn't have any non-RNAV charts available.

BL.

Offline simslave

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Non-standard instrument departures
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2020, 11:52:25 AM »
Hi tyketto, many thanks for the comprehensive reply (and my apologies for the tardy response).
It's very much appreciated, and has given me more food for thought.
Thanks again!