Guest rvr1200 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 On the Lester 7 (Non Jet) off 23....if given a turn to the northwest when cleared for takeoff, do you want that done as soon as safely able or at 1.9 DME from YTP?? I'm assuming it's for faster traffic to depart behind. Thanking you in advance.... RVR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSkyGuy Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yes; it is for faster traffic behind, and the sooner you turn, the faster the jet gets his(her) takeoff clearance. Just for background, as long as your assigned hdg deviates from the jet's(SID) by at least 30 degrees, then as soon as you start the turn, the jet gets launched. If it's IMC, then often you will be asked to report the turn because it's more expedient than waiting for track divergence to become apparent on the tower controller's radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rvr1200 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Thanks...1.9 DME seemed too long to wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YAM Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I think there is still no turns below 1100' as per the SID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 This is a great question. We left YYZ this morning off 23 on the Lester 7, in a 737. The controller said, heading 250 when airborne, stay with me, cleared take-off. When should(could) you start the turn to 250 according to the Lester 7?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 This is a great subject to bring up. We left YYZ this morning off 23 on the Lester 7, in a 737. The controller said, heading 250 when airborne, stay with me, cleared take-off. When should (could) you start the turn to 250 according to the Lester 7?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 This has been an issue in Calgary as well. Calgary 9 SID off of 16, no right turns below 4300, yet tower asks for heading 190 after take off with faster traffic to depart behind. Is it best rate to 4300 then turn to 190, or risk a violation just to keep the traffic moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 ATC cannot instruct you to violate a published noise abatement procedure. Only for reasons of flight safety can the PIC knowingly violate noise abatement procedures. And if you think NAP's are draconian in Canada, don't even think about coming to Europe. The fines are enormous and you don't even know you're busted 'til your CP gives you a call well after the fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Heading 250 cancels the lateral portion of the SID, until and if, further lateral clearance is received. With the vector, it remains the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that terrain and obstacle clearance has been achieved with the IFR departure procedures. As for when? When you are satisfied that your aircraft can safely complete the manoeuvre and the climb to your cleared altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 and, if that’s an AC '37, no turns are permitted below 400' AGL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 "ATC cannot instruct you to violate a published noise abatement procedure." Speaking within Canada, are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSkyGuy Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Yeah we sure can. Only in the interest of flight safety. Which means in order to achieve or maintain separation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Thats what I thought as well, seems to happen all the time. Anyway, good discussion. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Go read 602.105. Both parts. Short of declaring an emergency, you can't. I don't think anyone is disputing that a loss of separation is an emergency, and that a controller does indeed have a right and a responsibility to instruct an aircraft out of a situation, if he/she has the time, especially with the Big Picture in hand. The kind of instruction my post addresses is the "turn left as soon as possible after departure" - too many pilots can and have busted NAP's like the one in Vancouver for turbo-jets. No turns below 3,000'. In that instance, "as soon as possible" means as soon as possible after reaching 3,000'. Does that sound better? And yes, a good discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Only because I am interested, but with reference to all of Toronto’s SIDs how does; ”UNLESS OTHERWISE ASSIGNED BY ATC” [Only CAPS because that is the way it is printed on our charts] Fit into the CAR and, fit into real life? Also, why is it that I can only find this prefix on Toronto charts and yet I can recall a turn after departure happening at many Canadian and American airports? Also, if they want the turn after noise, don't they often [always] say "after noise, or after leaving 3600 feet turn left 210, climb to 7000", particularily in Toronto and Vancouver?.. again, just wondering myself.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest james Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 I know "SIDS" are supposed to speed things up and keep the "verbage" to a minimum, but, when the controllers decide to add a change to the departure, they should emphasize. You know what, the next time I get a deviation from the norm, I am going to ask when, and where I should turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 The link should be easy to find, try searching for "noise abatement" on the TC aviation website. You'll see a great many NAP violations. SIDs or DPs by design incorporate NA requirements. It's those last second changes administered by the tower controller or the omission of the "following noise, turn..." advice given by the departure controller that will get the PIC into hot water. One of our brethern in ATC would have to quote from their MANOPS on the phrase "after noise abatement". That's my understanding and experience. At least Canada doesn't have noise monitoring microphones scattered about the noise sensitive areas like they do in Europe (YET!) If you're as much as 100 feet laterally off your track at the departure end of the runway and/or not doing the equivalent of VNAP A, you're busted. It's automatic. If anyone wants to discuss the "merits" of noise abatement requirements, that could prove an interesting again discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 I see that the fines for busting the YYZ noise rules go as high as $20,000.00 per occurance. http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/regserv/Enforcement/offenders/menu.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 It's good to have a question like this periodically. There are so many "gotcha"s in this silly business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 MTL I don’t think that anyone is denying that noise violations occur, the question is why? It is too bad that the TC Violation summary does not provide a detailed description of the particular violation. Of course, there are as many opportunities to violate noise abatement as there are violations.. missed the turn from 240 to 245 at 1.9 YTP or from 057 to 047 at 1100’, blew through 5000’ started a turn at 3100 rather than 3600, failed to stop a climb at 3000 when cleared, all would attract the wrong type of attention, AND, a violation on the wrong day/person combination. As for the noise routes, are they not getting as ridiculous in Canada as they are in Europe?.. No wonder there are so many violations. The SIDs are getting so complicated and sensitive on tolerance that they accomplish nothing more than to inject unnecessary workload into one of the most challenging phases of flight. Why not all SIDs [OK, some Terminals, ie JFK may be a different story] just maintain runway heading, climb to 3 or climb to 5 [like YVR]. Whats up with Toronto?.. Buy a freakin house within 5 miles of an International Airport and expect to hear some planes takeoff and land. Whats so complicated about that?.. then again, I'm just the pilot, what do I know?.. As for Europe, don’t get me started. Reminds me of just another tax. Any controllers out there with any thoughts?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Hiya Dragon: To my knowledge (limited by time away from Canada) there are no noise monitoring facilities at Canadian airports. I think noise prosecutions in Canada come initially from complaints by people in vicinity of the airport and, when "investigated" either via voice or radar tapes, the charge is made against the pilot in command. If you're asking me what I would do about noise regulations, try this one on for size: 1. Identify people who make noise complaints; 2. Ban them from flying; 3. Refuse delivery of any item sent to them on an airplane; 4. Eliminate all noise abatement regulations. And not necessarily in that order. Watch the complaints drop to zero! ON THE OTHER HAND, I think it must have been noise complaints that in part led to the development of high bypass fan jet engines. Anyone else with some George W. Bush tactics on "fixing" the noise abatement conundrum?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Gapper Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Departed on 23 with Lester 7, given turn Right heading 360, asked if we had to wait to 1100 for noise as stated on plate he said "No, and that tower can overruled that requirement and if given a heading then assume it's been overruled" Note we were in a Dash 8 in awesome VFR and we turned inside Fed EX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 The whole noise issue has become and is nothing more than an income generator for the gov. Note the tiny fines issued for safety violations as opposed to noise. Fly without a C of A etc, 250 bucks. Make some noise and the fine is always in the thousands. All BS IMHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 I think you have a pretty good understanding of TC DEFCON, you hit the nail on the head, IMO. Have a great day. dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Heh Loon, What and where are you flying? FTR, or FYI if you prefer, Calgary [CYYC] employees 15 Noise Monitor stations and in my opinion, its just a matter of time until we see more. As noted by DEFCON below, as more financial pressures squeeze the infrastructure, this is another ‘looking out for the people’ mechanism [politically correct BS] to milk more revenue from the operators who fly into and out of our airports. Gotta build bigger and better and someone has got to pay for it all after all... I see you and I run a parallel course with respect to our view on noise abatement. AND, in the best interest of the Canadian people, this cash cow will soon be enshrined to ‘sacred’ status, imo. Have a great day loon dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.