Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 03:20 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 03:20 AM As I understand the departure, typically you would be asigned a heading to fly on initial departure (usually runway heading) and cleared to 10k. You would then get clearance/vectors to your transition and higher altitude from departure. When flying tonight though, I got no initial heading to fly (not such a big deal, just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that I am cleared to fly the departure immediately) and was cleared to climb and maintain 6000. The 6000 really threw me off since that is only about 600 feet about the 5400 fet MSL DEN sits. I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume this was barometric altitude, as that is what I've always gotten in clearance before. Did I miss something with this departure? Any hints and suggestions would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Rosard 879188 Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:12 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:12 AM Eric, What type aircraft were you flying? Josh Rosard ZDV PPL ASEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:14 AM Author Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:14 AM 767-300. Figured that would have been cleared for for an initial altitude >600' AFE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Rosard 879188 Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:29 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:29 AM Eric, The low altitude was probably to avoid traffic. FNO was in progress so there were a lot of airplanes in the area when you took off. Josh Rosard ZDV PPL ASEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:46 AM Author Posted August 18, 2007 at 05:46 AM While I understand the traffic avoidance, isn't keeping an aircraft 600' above the ground dangerous practice (KDEN 5400' MSL, my altitude 6000" MSL)? I'm not faulting DEN ARTCC, I'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming I read something wrong with the instructions. I was also confused because I got handed off to approach, not departure. Anyway, I'm just trying to make sure I get it all right for next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Rosard 879188 Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:14 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:14 AM Eric, Hopefully you weren't held at 600 AGL for too long. A few other factors might have been present that influenced your situation... at one point KDEN changed landing configurations from south ops to east ops, which creates traffic in unusual places, and there was also a shift among approach/departure controllers who were trying to sort out an ops change and transfer responsibility of aircraft to new controllers at the same time. Hope you had fun anyway. Josh Rosard ZDV PPL ASEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Tombaugh 934339 Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:15 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:15 AM While I understand the traffic avoidance, isn't keeping an aircraft 600' above the ground dangerous practice (KDEN 5400' MSL, my altitude 6000" MSL)? I'm not faulting DEN ARTCC, I'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming I read something wrong with the instructions. I was also confused because I got handed off to approach, not departure. Anyway, I'm just trying to make sure I get it all right for next time. Hey Eric. I think you came on as we were switching landing configs, and switching out controllers, thus the change to approach, not departure. I was on tower at the time and think you were the last departure off of the runway before we fully switched to the other configuration. More than likely because of the change, and aircraft going all different directions, you got held at a lower altitude to keep you separated... vZDV Air Traffic Manager vZDV Webmaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:19 AM Author Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:19 AM Well, things are starting to make sense. Were you actually clearing people for 6000'? I just kept thinking that I was interpreting this wrong (like it should have been 6000' AFE, not MSL). Overall, ATC was going great, I just want to make sure that my understanding has been correct. I guess my other real question is that the charts I have say expect to be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a heading and then vectors to transition later. I never recieved a heading, so was it correct to just begin direct to my transiction (DVC)? Thanks. Again, you guys were doing a good job, I just got confused and then my computer started freezing up. Wanted to make sure I have things set for next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Tombaugh 934339 Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:22 AM Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:22 AM Well, things are starting to make sense. Were you actually clearing people for 6000'? I just kept thinking that I was interpreting this wrong (like it should have been 6000' AFE, not MSL). Overall, ATC was going great, I just want to make sure that my understanding has been correct. I guess my other real question is that the charts I have say expect to be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a heading and then vectors to transition later. I never recieved a heading, so was it correct to just begin direct to my transiction (DVC)? Thanks. Again, you guys were doing a good job, I just got confused and then my computer started freezing up. Wanted to make sure I have things set for next time. Unfortunelty because of the timing(i.e. had to get you out before another arrival) there wasn't time to issue a heading. In most case you'd proceed on runway heading until otherwise instructed. So my question is, did delivery give you 6k as your initial, or did approach give it to you in air? vZDV Air Traffic Manager vZDV Webmaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:32 AM Author Posted August 18, 2007 at 06:32 AM 6000' was from delivery. I got 10k from approach, but was a good distance out by the time I was able to get through the radio chatter to contact them. Thanks for the info on heading. I was wondering exactly what to do on this--whether or not to fly runway heading or the departure. I flew runway heading up until I got to the mountains off to the west, by which point I hadn't gottne further clearance and had to go to terrain avoidance issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Cassel 849958 Posted August 18, 2007 at 07:12 PM Posted August 18, 2007 at 07:12 PM I wouldn't have taken off with the clearance you were given, Eric S. 1. 6000 MSL, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the terrain is relatively constant around the field, is absolutely an illegal altitude. The FAR says you have to be at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle to operate IFR except when engaged in departure or arrival operations, which, this isn't if you are leveled out for a significant period of time. I imagine that Denver's minimum vectoring altitutde is below 7000 in the area, and although their runway heading may provide some additional terrain separation for departure operations, I'm still not sure I could accept a clearance to operate 600 feet above terrain. And yes, climb and maintain 6000 always means MSL, as it would be very difficult for a pilot to determine 6000 AGL. Think of it this way...6000 ft at Denver is the equivalent of 600 feet at a Sea Level airport. Would you accept a clearance if delivery said, "climb and maintain 600"? 2. The departure reads [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading, vectors to first fix. Without an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading, the departure procedure is not being followed. Note that you have no right to "[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume" runway heading, as that isn't part of the procedure. In fact, there are some airports where flying runway heading for more than a few miles is dangerous and could put you into terrain or other nasty stuff. You the pilot generally have no idea if that is the case or not. Since you were cleared via the ROCKI5, I would have asked for a heading or other clarification as to the controller's instructions. I know runway changes can be really hard on controllers, but it isn't an excuse to break FAR's or forget to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a departure heading. I know I've forgotten to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign headings where I was supposed to in the past, and probably still make that mistake occasionally, but its better for the controller to admit a mistake rather than say there wasn't time to give a heading. I apologize if 6000 feet and runway heading is actually compliant with the FAR's, in case the terrain goes down or something, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Tombaugh 934339 Posted August 18, 2007 at 08:42 PM Posted August 18, 2007 at 08:42 PM I know runway changes can be really hard on controllers, but it isn't an excuse to break FAR's or forget to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign a departure heading. I know I've forgotten to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign headings where I was supposed to in the past, and probably still make that mistake occasionally, but its better for the controller to admit a mistake rather than say there wasn't time to give a heading. I apologize if 6000 feet and runway heading is actually compliant with the FAR's, in case the terrain goes down or something, but I doubt it. Actually, since no heading was given, he should have flown runway heading. Which in his case(rwy 25 departure) the departure heading is nearly the same as the runway heading(5 degree difference), so yes, it is compliant. The real issue is the altitude, not the heading. vZDV Air Traffic Manager vZDV Webmaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Catherwood 903683 Posted August 18, 2007 at 09:37 PM Posted August 18, 2007 at 09:37 PM When flying tonight though, I got no initial heading to fly (not such a big deal, just [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that I am cleared to fly the departure immediately). Except in this case, your immediate departure instructions are "Fly [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading for radar vectors to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned transition". In this example, I'd have asked for the departure heading from TWR if they didn't give it in the takeoff or IFR clearance. KZSE C3/Facilities Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 18, 2007 at 09:56 PM Author Posted August 18, 2007 at 09:56 PM Well, that all makes a lot more sense. I agree that not accepting the clearance (or at least questioning the 6000') would have been smart, but it caught me off guard. I've been flying off the west coast recently where airport altitude usually about 100' MSL and 6000' is a good altitude actually. I should have caught it, but it just didn't register that in this case, I actually only had 600' AFE to climb rather than nearly 6000' from an airport at lower elevation. I did [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that I should be flying runway heading and did that for a while, but it seems that approach lost track of me and I never got new vectors. I flew for a good distance (40 NM or so), but was coming up on terrain and as I tried to contact approach to get new clearances (I had already started terrain avoidance in accordance with fly, navigate, communicate theory), my computer started dying. Thanks for your help guys. Sounds like it was a combination of a hectic runway shift and me not realizing (and being confident) just how low the cleared altitude was and problems of no [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemens Martin Posted August 19, 2007 at 04:14 AM Posted August 19, 2007 at 04:14 AM My 2 cents all of your issues were def. ATC mistakes. Nobody should talk that beatiful pls. POINT I understand that denver is and was really busy on all the FNOs, but please dont talk like "well, the dep/clrnc was new, the runway shift and so on" its no excuse POINT. We are just doint that for hobby, so accept the errors you made or make, i make them everyday in reallfe or on VATSIM while flying/controlling, but i never say, ah, that was the other party, coz then you make the same mistake again and again. Still great job Denver! Clem ZMP-C1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Rosard 879188 Posted August 19, 2007 at 04:49 AM Posted August 19, 2007 at 04:49 AM Clem, We're not trying to say it wasn't our fault. There was clearly a mistake if a pilots was given 6,000 initial and not given a vector for 40+ miles. But by providing factors that might have caused an ATC error, it helps the pilot understand what was going on and why that might have happened instead of just saying "sorry, we messed up, try again next time." Josh Rosard ZDV PPL ASEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Johns Posted August 19, 2007 at 07:29 AM Posted August 19, 2007 at 07:29 AM In general, it appears the runway config change was making a mess of things. Sheeut happens though. 6,000' MSL [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned off DEN is improper regardless of the current airspace status though. 10,000' MSL is the standard departure altitude for turbojet departures off DEN, and I see you mentioned that departure gave that to you after you had departed. Yes, you complied with the 6,000' MSL given by the clearance delivery controller. You already mentioned you should have questioned it, so, no need to comment on that further. The airspace around DEN is designed specifically to protect from the surface to 10,000' MSL in the departure corridors for aircraft climbing out of DEN initially. If there was traffic somehow preventing your ability to climb to that altitude, you probably shouldn't have been cleared for takeoff in the first place. Runway changes can be a confusing time, and it's safer and easier to leave an aircraft on the ground for a couple of extra mins than to clear them in to an unknown traffic situation. The [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment of a departure heading is also a vital portion of the SID that you were [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned. Since the ROCKI5 SID states to "fly [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned heading for vectors. . ." the absence of a departure heading should have been questioned by the pilot to ensure they were given complete and proper navigational guidance. It should not be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed to fly runway heading given that you were [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned the SID, and the textual description reads that you are to be [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned a heading, even if it is as simple as "fly runway heading." ATC is a team sport, and if either side (pilot or controller) is confused about what's going on, questions should be asked freely without fear of reprimand. Lest the system become ineffective, inefficient, and worst of all, unsafe. ~Nate Nate Johns "All things are difficult before they are easy." - Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Szczesniak 1011649 Posted August 19, 2007 at 02:40 PM Author Posted August 19, 2007 at 02:40 PM While I get what you're saying, I just can't leave all the blame with any ATC. It should have registered with me how low 6000' MSL was and I should have just politely asked clearance if that was correct. Same thing with the heading. I should have been more confident and politely asked. It may have been ATC mistakes in the first place, but it rested with me to for final acceptance and to ask for any necessary clarrification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Rutila 974112 Posted August 19, 2007 at 09:41 PM Posted August 19, 2007 at 09:41 PM It baffles me as to why you were [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned 6,000 initial...we always clear pilots to 10k in the clearance delivery...hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts