PilotEdge Forums

I recently filed the following flight plan from Bakersfield (KBFL) to Fullerton (KFUL):

KBFL WRING3.WRING V459 SLI KFUL

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1501/pdf/00036WRING.PDF
http://skyvector.com/?ll=35.43381992427 ... :A.K2.KFUL

The Bakersfield ground controller cleared me to KFUL WRING2 departure WRING then as filed. Climb to 3,000. Expect 9,000 10 minutes after departure.......

The SID specified a minimum climb of 345' per NM to 5400 with a minimum crossing altitude of 5400' at WRING. I was prepared to climb at Vy in the Beech Barron (BE58/A). Upon departure from 30R I flew runway heading to 400 AGL then turned direct EHF and set up for a Vy climb (105 KIAS).

The tower controller was very busy and did not give a timely hand off to departure. A quick reminder call to the tower and I got the hand off to departure. Obviously the departure controller was also talking non-stop as well.

Between the tower delay and before I could make contact with departure, the plane reached the initial altitude of 3,000 and needed to level off. After a short delay, contact was made and I was given the climb to 9,000. I honestly don't remember what my altitude was crossing WRING but I'm doubtful I made to to 5400'. Which got me thinking about what I should/could have done differently.

Before I ask my questions, please note this is not a complaint. Just me trying to "learn". I absolutely love the Pilotedge service and have no complaints with the controllers.

Question 1: What should I have done If I realized that the 5400' altitude crossing restriction at WRING won't be met?

Question 2: What is the operational reason for the initial climb altitude restriction of 3,000'?

Question 3: In this particular case, would it have been safer to give the initial altitude at 6,000 or even a "climb via SID"?

It also occurred to me this could make an interesting accident scenario during a "lost comms" situation. At the speed the Barron flies more than 11 NM would be covered in 10 minutes. Therefore during a lost comms situation there's would be no way to climb to 5400' if held at 3,000 feet while waiting for the 10 minutes to expire.

For this reason, it seems to me that it would be safer to have the initial climb altitude at 5400' or greater. In this way during a lost comm situation, the pilot will be at or above the minimum altitude called for in the filed SID.

In a lot comms situation, you would not wait to climb. Upon realizing that comms were lost you would climb to the highest of 1) Last assigned alititude, 2) MSA, 3) altitude to expect. Don't wait.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... 5&rgn=div8

Thanks for the reply. So I understand that in the case where the Pilot is aware of the lost comms, the pilot should set the squawk to 7600 and climb. Makes sense.

What about the case where the pilot doesn't realize that comms are lost? Or as in this case, comms are not technically lost but due to high radio traffic volume unable to make contact?

I can easily see the situation where after 10 minutes of trying to get a break in the radio traffic, then the pilot should climb. But in this particular case, the altitude restriction would already be busted before the 10 minutes expired.

Hello,

Because you were not told to "climb via SID" the altitude restriction at WRING doesn't apply from an ATC point of view. However, obviously the reason that restriction is there is for terrain clearance so you want to comply with it if possible.

In a perfect world the tower controller should hand you off to departure when you are about a mile off the end of the runway. If you haven't been handed off to departure within 2-3 miles you should inquire with tower as radio traffic allows.

To answer the specific questions:

1. Let ATC know, in this specific case our minimum vectoring altitude over WRING is 4500' so if you are going to be at that altitude don't expect ATC to take action (as you won't hit anything). If not we will give you a vector to remain clear of terrain.

2. We aren't sure on this one. Different airports use a variety of initial altitudes, KBFL has selected 3000' and that is what we use. It's worth nothing that in the real world the WRING departure is never used. Most departures are just vectored to LHS. We don't specifically enforce that as pilots may want the practice of flying that departure. I'll do some research on this and if needed we may end up restricting use of that DP here on PE as well.

3. In theory yes, it's worth noting that jet aircraft are given an initial of 6000' out of KBFL, but obviously that doesn't help.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

If the instruction from the departure controller was to "climb and maintain 9000" then the WRING restriction turns into a pumpkin and you are are no longer required to meet it.

I'm curious, was the ground controller's initial clearance to "climb via SID except maintain 3000, expect 9000 5 mins after departure", or was it "maintain 3000, expect 9000 5 minutes after departure" ? It should've been the former since you were being assigned a SID that contained an altitude restriction.

Keith Smith wrote:If the instruction from the departure controller was to "climb and maintain 9000" then the WRING restriction turns into a pumpkin and you are are no longer required to meet it.

I understand that from ATC's point of view, the restriction is gone. But what about the terrain? Or are you saying that before the controller issues the climb instruction he/she ensures that terrain clearance will be maintained assuming a standard rate climb? Or do they use the higher climb rate call out in the SID?

Keith Smith wrote:I'm curious, was the ground controller's initial clearance to "climb via SID except maintain 3000, expect 9000 5 mins after departure", or was it "maintain 3000, expect 9000 5 minutes after departure" ? It should've been the former since you were being assigned a SID that contained an altitude restriction.

Was not told to "climb via SID". The "expect" time was 10 minutes.
http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/ ... _17510.mp3 @13:27 N55VM

Why are some "expect" times given as 10 minutes verses others at 5 minutes? I could see how the shorter "expect" time could make a difference in this case

It seems to me that the SID is supposed to make communication simpler. Why limit the initial climb to 3,000?

Again. No complaints. I'm not trying to change anything. I'm just trying to understand.

I understand that from ATC's point of view, the restriction is gone. But what about the terrain? Or are you saying that before the controller issues the climb instruction he/she ensures that terrain clearance will be maintained assuming a standard rate climb? Or do they use the higher climb rate call out in the SID?

From an ATC point of view as long as you are crossing WRING at 4500 the terrain won't be an issue. If you won't be at 4500 by WRING the controller should take action to prevent you from entering that area of higher terrain (most likely a vector).

Was not told to "climb via SID". The "expect" time was 10 minutes.

We've determined that this was a mistake in how we implemented the Climb via procedures (ignore my previous post on this). We've corrected our internal procedures to prevent this from happening again.

Why are some "expect" times given as 10 minutes verses others at 5 minutes? I could see how the shorter "expect" time could make a difference in this case

Honestly it's airport specific. It's also one of the area's that we don't provide specific guidance to our controllers about. Therefore some use 5 and some use 10. Around the country you'll most commonly hear 10 minutes, however there are some airports that use 5, and some that use 3.

Why limit the initial climb to 3,000?

That I can't answer. The reason we limit the climb to 3000' is because the real world KBFL limits the climb to 3000'. There is no obvious reason why they do so. The only reason I can think of is departing from any runway at KBFL 3000' is the lowest "round number" safe altitude above the terrain.

Peter Grey wrote:

Was not told to "climb via SID". The "expect" time was 10 minutes.

We've determined that this was a mistake in how we implemented the Climb via procedures (ignore my previous post on this). We've corrected our internal procedures to prevent this from happening again.

Now I'm more confused than ever. This sounds like you are saying that the clearance should have been "Climb via SID except maintain 3,000". Which in this case I don't see how that functionally changes anything.

However if you are saying the clearance should have been simply, "Climb via SID....", that makes perfect sense.

Peter Grey wrote:

Why limit the initial climb to 3,000?

That I can't answer. The reason we limit the climb to 3000' is because the real world KBFL limits the climb to 3000'. There is no obvious reason why they do so. The only reason I can think of is departing from any runway at KBFL 3000' is the lowest "round number" safe altitude above the terrain.

In my limited understanding of ATC procedures, I can wrap my head around why there's a low limit on the initial climb when the departure contains radar vectors as 3,000 stays within the KBFL class D. But a critical difference is the pilot is under direct ATC control AND 3,000 actually maintains terrain clearance.

Whereas under the WRING3 Departure procedure the route is pre-determined. The SID contains specific altitude crossing restrictions as well as greater than standard climbing requirements to clear the terrain. It's my understanding that when a pilot files a SID the pilot is also confirming they are able to meet any restrictions listed in the SID.

One of my other hobbies is reading NTSB accident reports. To me they read like a real life detective novel. One of the take a ways is the how it takes a series of small circumstances/mistakes/errors/bad luck to have to occur in a certain order to lead to an accident. To me it seems like to me that imposing a 3,000' initial climb on this particular SID could be one of the items in an accident sequence.

Thank-you Pilotedge for the wonderful service. The fact these "discussions" are proof what a great learning tool this is.

Sorry if it seems like I'm beating a dead horse.

Now I'm more confused than ever. This sounds like you are saying that the clearance should have been "Climb via SID except maintain 3,000". Which in this case I don't see how that functionally changes anything.

It was and it doesn't. That's part of why we needed some internal discussion on the change. Climb via SID except maintain 3000 changes nothing but is the "correct" way to issue the clearance. This functionally doesn't change how the pilot flies the DP.

However if you are saying the clearance should have been simply, "Climb via SID....", that makes perfect sense.

Nope, you can't issue a clearance as a controller with "Climb via SID" unless a top altitude is specified. There is no top altitude on the WRING DP so we can't issue "climb via SID" as you don't know when to stop climbing.

In my limited understanding of ATC procedures, I can wrap my head around why there's a low limit on the initial climb when the departure contains radar vectors as 3,000 stays within the KBFL class D. But a critical difference is the pilot is under direct ATC control AND 3,000 actually maintains terrain clearance.

I'll give you that this is weird. I mentioned it before but I want to bring it up again, in the real world you would have been issued "runway heading radar vectors LHS". Functionally the WRING DP isn't really used. It's not banned for use so we will let pilots fly it here as in the real world you would most likely be able to do it with a specific request. In the real world it requires some extra controller coordination so they tend to not want to deal with that.

That solves the real world issue.

One of my other hobbies is reading NTSB accident reports. To me they read like a real life detective novel. One of the take a ways is the how it takes a series of small circumstances/mistakes/errors/bad luck to have to occur in a certain order to lead to an accident. To me it seems like to me that imposing a 3,000' initial climb on this particular SID could be one of the items in an accident sequence.

I don't disagree here. In a case like this there is nothing wrong with asking the controller for a higher initial altitude (either after getting the clearance or just before takeoff when the controller is calling for the IFR release). We use to do it all the time in the jet when we were given low initial altitudes. Unless the controller has a conflict this should be approved (I don't think I ever had this request denied).

In the end you are the PIC if you think there is a risk of hitting terrain and you can't get a hold of ATC then CLIMB! This is what 91.3 is for.