I think I'll take a stab at this one.

No. Reference the Bob2 Departure at UZA and the take off minimums information for the airport (from the front of the book):

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...5361BOBCAT.PDF
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...0909/SE2TO.PDF

You'll notice that the greater than standard climb gradient for a runway 2 departure is dictated by trees off the DER. At 100 ft tall and a quarter mile from DER, assuming you use more than 3800 ft for take-off, 200 ft per nm is gonna put you in the trees (or too close to them, at least). No ODP is necessary at UZA because the obstacle threat is right there at the airport, and the only thing that is going to get you safely over it is a greater than standard climb.

Not doubting anyone, but I've never seen the daggers either. However, on a NACO SID chart, it is my understanding that the "Takeoff Minimums" section lists the minimum climb gradient allowed for a safe departure. ATC preferred climb gradients will be specified elsewhere in the procedure. Reference the LGA2 departure:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...AGUARDIA_C.PDF

So, I think my answer is not what you wanted to hear. Perhaps I am wrong. My opinion is however; if the SID has a greater than standard climb gradient published in the "Takeoff Minimums" section of the NACO chart, then you must comply. Maybe that is not always the case, but that has been my experience. Certainly you cannot always assume that no ODP equals some reason other than an obstacle for the greater than standard climb. Hope this helps.

 

In addition to AIM 5-2-8, there is FAR 91.175(f)(3):

 

You file direct. No SID, just direct. Clearance: "cleared as filed". Tower: "cleared for takeoff". No further (conflicting) instructions are given, no SID or vector. Now you just fly the ODP, then on course. No clearance is necessary. The controller might appreciate a little warning, though if it's IMC or night he should be expecting it. In theory this is how it works. Apparently you can be cleared on an ODP too. Does this ever happen? I dunno.

 

Thanks for your responses.

The reason this issue came up is because some SIDS have rather demanding climb gradients. Should one lose an engine, these gradients are often impossible. I understand that engine failure and TERPS are independent. TERPS is for all engines operating. With an engine failure, responsibility lies with the operator.

With charter operators and perhaps with fractional operators, airport analysis (AC 120-91) is cost prohibitive. So I was wondering, as long as I can achieve 3.3% could I still fly the SID and remain clear of obstacles, even if the SID required a steeper climb gradient, presumably for ATC reasons.

 

Unlimited runway analysis via APG costs less than $100/month.

 

I assumed it was cost prohibitive. But $100/month certainly is not. Unless it is $100/month per airplane. A 50 plane operation would cost 60K/year.

Back to the original question... does the standard climb gradient keep you clear of obstacles on a SID, even if higher than standard climb gradients are published?

 

No. See my post at the top of the page. Do you disagree?

 

I believe we pay 75 a tail (or is it type? I'd have to check). We do a ton of ops out of EGE and ASE and its allows us to take alot more payload, so it is worth it.

 

Birdie, you are a frustrating OP. If there is anyone who can help me explain it, then please chime in as I am always willing to learn new tricks. But, Birdie, if you don't like the answers you get, then please, do the research yourself. Here's a link to United States TERPS and Changes 1-19. Good luck with that.

8260.3B Chgs 1-19 United Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) [Changes 1-19]

In the one post I mistyped and there is an error. The government plates use an * for minimum climb gradients (obstacles) and the dagger for ATC climb gradients. Reference Nellis AFB. But they don't always use this symbology. On other charts they clearly write out what is required for obstacle and ATC requirements. Reference Salt Lake City. Additionally, they will have the proverbial trouble T (a fat looking T symbol) in which the user is expected to reference the takeoff minimums page and read what is required. This is also where you find ODPs. Reference LaGuardia.

I think the US Government is moving away from the * and daggers and are clearly writing the text like Jepps does.

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00227DREAM.PDF Nellis

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00365TWINFALLS.PDF Salt Lake City

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/NE2TO.PDF LaGuardia Minimums (see NewYork)

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00289LAGUARDIA.PDF LaGuardia 1

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00289LAGUARDIA_C.PDF LaGuardia 2

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00289LAGUARDIA_C2.PDF LaGuardia 3

I disagree with you. TERPs requirements are to be met even with OEI (one engine inoperative) unless you've been authorized to go lower -- which I believe requires you to have an approved emergency escape procedure or special departure procedure. Airlines don't take off knowing that if they lose an engine, they just killed everyone. Additionally, some operators are allowed to operate at much heavier weights which allow them to meet the required climb gradients all engines, but use the SDPs for when they lose an engine.

 

AC 120-91

"Standard Instrument Departures (SID) or Departure Procedures (DP) based on TERPS or ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services—Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) are based on normal (all engines operating) operations. Thus, one-engine-inoperative obstacle clearance requirements and the all-engines-operating TERPS requirements are independent, and one-engine-inoperative procedures do not need to meet TERPS requirements."