« first day (747 days earlier)      last day (3334 days later) » 

NathanG
NathanG
04:03
@RalphJ I agree that I would not anticipate flying to DHP. I'm thinking about what I would do if I lost comms right after tower told me to switch to departure.
And considering that we should expect vectors to "over DHP", I'm expecting (in the IFR term of art) to be vectored there.
(context: aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24128/…)
Ralph J
Ralph J
04:16
If you lose comms right after departure, your Assigned is the heading. Your Expect is the routing to WINCO. Nothing tells you to expect vectors TO DHP. You're expecting the radial to get to WINCO. So in the case of lost comms, then I agree that fly the heading until intercepting the radial is correct.
But without lost comms, you're just on vectors. Fly the controller's vectors.
And WITH lost comms, everybody will be surprised by a turn to DHP. That isn't what the DP language is trying to tell you to do; it's just telling you the routing how to get to WINCO (for those without RNAV ability to go there directly).
Hypothetically, for an eastbound departure, they might have you use another VOR & radial from it to define how you're getting to the intersection, and in that case your Lost Comm "expect" would be to use that radial.
All of that, @NathanG.
NathanG
NathanG
@RalphJ I agree with you mostly, but that's where I'm coming up short. As in the comments, why not "Intercept DHP R-322 to WINCO INT"? Sure, it's a different departure - but we're flying what's printed.
I suppose that DHP, DHP322 WINCO would be easier to fly with lost comms coming off of one of the 9's. (Where do you intercept DHP322 unless they give you direct DHP?)
But the "expect" stuff isn't necessarily convenient - it's so everyone's on the same page. I frequently get told to expect a route that's significantly out of my way - just in case I go NORDO, which I then never fly. That's near the DC SFRA, for security, but I could see that happening in busy airspace as well.
Ralph J
Ralph J
@NathanG If the departure says that, then that's what everybody WILL DO -- but that's not necessarily what the controller wants them to do. As printed, you're on the vector until the controller turns you... he may fly you through the radial and then turn you back, he may give you vectors around traffic, he may do any of several things. But he wants everybody flying that one heading until HE says otherwise. That's the departure as written.
So, with comms, no automatic turn. And language saying "Intercept DHP R322 to WINCO" takes away that vector and makes the turn automatic.
If you LOSE comms, the idea is that you won't be doing EXACTLY what the controller would have had you doing (since we aren't mindreaders), but we'll do something reasonably close to it. Turning on the radial is probably not radically different than what he'd give you anyway. Turning south to DHP would be way different, and he'd probably be scrambling to clear traffic from the path you-DHP-course reversal-back toward WINCO.
NathanG
NathanG
04:38
I see your point. I suppose it could be worded better - it doesn't say "Fly direct DHP, DHP322 WINCO", though neither does it say "Join DHP322, WINCO". I'm willing to agree to disagree... I'll look in the TERPS tomorrow to see if I can find some context.
Ralph J
Ralph J
I agree that mentioning the radial (only) would be more clear. Maybe it's based on the scenario like you mentioned earlier, taking off east, lose comm, now turn southwest to DHP and then out the radial. Might be worth a call to Miami Departure & see what they're expecting from a Nordo aircraft in that situation. I'd be really surprised if they expect a 27R departure to turn to DHP first, but I'm willing to be educated.
 
17 hours later…
casey
casey
22:06
> WHITE/DIXIE departures expect vectors to COL R-350 or ELVAE/COL thence to WHITE on COL R-204 or to DIXIE on COL R-19
@RalphJ @NathanG I agree that the spirit of that instruction is to intecept DHP 322 radial to WINCO but it would be nicer to see it worded that way like it is on the KEWR Liberty3 departure I quoted above
Ralph J
Ralph J
22:35
@casey Totally agree-- that's much clearer.

« first day (747 days earlier)      last day (3334 days later) »