PilotEdge Forums

Hey PE Team,

I have a small operational concern about my flight today. I filed from KMHV to KNCO (and later diverted to Ontario). My issue was departing MHV. I was assigned RW heading vectors to Palmdale departing 26. After takeoff departure cleared me direct Palmdale after leaving 8000 (I was flying heading 260). I was climbing Vy in a Saratoga and after realizing that I would not make 8000 until I was over mountain valley airport and my south turn to Palmdale would put me dangerously close to 8000ft terrain, I asked for a turn south. The controller told me MVA was 8000 and I had to verify I could remain clear of terrain. I acknowledged that I could. However, in IMC in real life this acknowledgment would not have possible and I could have been in deep trouble had I stayed on course. In fact, in real life in IMC I would have deviated making the decision as PIC that the safety of the flight was in jeopardy. I contend that I should have cleared via the JERID departure or vectored similar to that departure. Thoughts...?

Rob,

I assume you meant KCNO above? This is a valid concern, we'll look into it and let you know the result. The MVA is indeed 8k in that area for us. The SOP does indeed say runway heading, too. However, the 8k MVA leaves the controllers' hands tied. There is an ODP and there is a SID (RNAV required). At a glance, it seems as though the SID should be issued to RNAV aircraft, otherwise, the ODP should be used, which reads:

Rwy 26, climbing left turn to 8000 heading 218° and LHS R-023 to LHS VORTAC or for climb in visual conditions cross Mojave Airport at or above 6800, then
climb to 8000 on LHS R-023 to LHS VORTAC.

Where "runway heading" comes from, I truly don't know. We'll check and find out. Thanks for bringing it up.

It was CRQ. I was the controller working the flight.

Hi Keith,

I did mean KCNO (typo). The ODP or the SID seem more appropriate. Flying 260 from field elevation to 8000 with that terrain to the west seems wrong. Thanks for the quick response. You guys are all awesome.

Unless a diverse vector area is established along the departure route, we can't vector you along a path 'similar to the SID', but I fully understand the spirit of the suggestion.

After a quick internal discussion about this, the SOP is indeed going to be changed. RNAV aircraft will get the SID, non-RNAV aircraft will get the ODP.

Your instincts were bang on, you should've been on the SID. Thanks again for bringing it to our attention. As you can see, this sort of issue is taken very seriously and is addressed as quickly as possible. I don't think there will be many cases where a fix is needed, but at some of the low volume, remote locations, I can see how this might happen. I am curious what the r/w SOP calls for. I will look into that as a side project. It may well be that rwy heading is issued and they have a DVA that lets them do precisely what you suggested. We don't have it on our scope, though, so a DP is our best shot.

Sorry. Ryan is correct, KCRQ (2 typos!!!!)