DP Climb Gradient

[avbug]

WRONG!!!

A specific exemption, as noted in the paragraph you quoted out of context, is required for VFR departures. Not VMC departures. VFR...that's visual flight rules. Regulations. Rules. Not conditions of flight.

An exemption is specifically required for VFR departures.

ATC may allow a pilot of a turbojet aircraft operated under FAR 135, to depart under IFR with a VMC climb, as indicated previously. No question about it. You asked for the specific reference, and there you have it. C077(d).

On an individual basis, operators may be approved to operate IFR in class G airspace, or to uncontrolled airports, or airports without approved proceedures, and execute visual approaches. Operators may be individually approved for visual departures under IFR, maintaining their own obstacle separation.

However, FAR 135 OpSpecs do approve a VMC climb with ATC authorization, as part of a takeoff clearance, while operating under IFR, without need for a specific exception.

You keep falling back to VFR. VFR has no place in the discussion. VFR means flight rules, which is not the same as VMC, or visual conditions. We're talking a visual departure on an instrument flight plan. Nothing remotely to do with VFR. VFR issues are entirely separate. Again, VFR and IFR refer to regulation. "vmc" and "imc" refer to conditions of flight. We are discussing a departure under IFR, with a VMC climb, as spelled out in the previously quoted statements. Don't confuse this with VFR. It's not at all the same.

 

[profile]

Ah, ah, ah, not so fast!

While the Ops Specs *may* say that (and I am not that familiar with part 135), show me where in the .65 there is talk about "VMC climbs". Point being that VMC is a flight condition and has NOTHING to do with anything else. While ATC may approve it, you can bet your bottom dollar that what that controller is thinking is "VFR climb" (which IS listed in the .65 as well as the AIM), and is issuing the clearance based on that.

Furthermore, VFR climbs are, in fact, legally considered a type of "on-top" clearance, whether you want to think that they are or not. I do not know what your background is, but I'll take the word of Wally Roberts (who helped write TERPs) and Jerry Davis (who wrote the New Standard Ops Specs). I will NOT take the word of anyone who cannot speak for AFS-200 on this matter, and that means you need to be working at FAA hq and show me the legal interp!

I will say this to the lurkers on this thread: Take my word for it and you can be sure that the Administrative Law Judge will uphold it, as that opinion is stated in a Letter of Interp approved by the Chief Counsel. Do anything else and you're taking a chance. Make your own choice!

 

[avbug]

As you wish. I quoted you the OpSpec verbatim. Forget who wrote it...that's what is written. This is much like speaking with a rock. The fact is that a controller doesn't issue a "VMC climb, but will ask if an operator can maintain his own terrain separation. This is not a VFR clearance, but is done on an IFR flight plan, in conjunction with an IFR clearance. Perhaps the most common form of this clearance is simply "Cleared for takeoff, turn left on course." If one were to look at the DP, one might find an entirely different proceedure, with specific climb gradients applicable to THAT proceedure. Of course, on course means that applicable obstacle protection must be made in accordance with 135.379(d), which provides that within the airport boundaries you must achieve a minimum vertical separation from obstacles of 35', and a minimum horizontal separation of 200'. Once outside the airport boundaries, the minimum horizontal separation is 300'.


I'm done with this topic. For the nonbelievers, look it up, and don't worry about passing about names or pissing over credentials. It's a simp0le matter of viewing the printed material, and reading your opspecs. Out.