1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Turning obstacles off using APG part 135

Discussion in 'Corporate/Fractional/Charter Aviation' started by Inverted25, Aug 14, 2017.

  1. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    I am sure this has been discussed here previously but I haven't found it. FAR 135.379 states that you have to be able to clear an obstacle by 35 feet vertically or 200 feet inside airport boundaries or 300 feet outside airport boundaries. We use APG which spits out all the performance calculations for this. Now the question comes to if its VMC outside can you turn obstacles off which is a option, and just climb in VMC conditions if you lose an engine and see and avoid the obstacles. By turning obstacles off it allows a much higher takeoff weight then leaving obstacles on. I am of the opinion that since 135.379 makes no mention of IMC or VMC that the obstacles must be accounted for on every takeoff regardless of weather conditions and therefore turning obstacles off would be a NO GO. Lets hear your thoughts
     
  2. deadstick

    deadstick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,552
    Likes Received:
    1,971
    So that way you can see the tree before you hit it?

    Seriously though, there's doesn't seem to be a reference to "in IMC." I think there's a LOI on this, but I'm not sure.
     
  3. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    The argument being made is that the obstacle performance data per 135.379 assumes a max bank angle of no more than 15 degrees. In reality you can do much more than that to maneuver to clear obstacles in VMC. If there is a LOI I would love to see it. I researched the LOI data base and didn't find one but that doesn't mean I missed it. I typed up a letter to mail to the FAA to hopefully receive a LOI on this very subject matter I plan to mail out tomorrow.
     
  4. Polymox

    Polymox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    36
    We turn it off only to get runway numbers for Special Auth VMC alternate OEI departure procedures in the mountains. These departures typically require no climb at all and you just follow the valley to the next airport.
     
  5. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    Interesting haven't heard of these. Would you mind sharing one? Any chance you guys operate in and out of KEGE and have one for that airport?
     
  6. CoffeeIcePapers

    CoffeeIcePapers Well-Hung Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    I think you're confusing different things. You always have to plan to avoid the 35 ft obstacle. I'm pretty sure most AFMs already factor this into the takeoff data.
     
  7. CFIT99

    CFIT99 I'm probably commenting ironically...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    710
    i didn't think APG gave you the ability to turn off obstacles.....
     
  8. JeppUpdater

    JeppUpdater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    14 CFR 135 does NOT allow you to disregard climb requirements because you're VMC despite what some operators with piss poor performing airplanes like to think and what weak POIs will sign off on (remember POIs do not make regs). The obstacles don't move because you think you're a visual super man. I'd bet your DO and CP also think the charted DP covers close in obstacles.
    It does in some cases. I frequently train a huge 135 operator who uses iPreFlight - their particular settings will allow them to disable obstacles, though they're not allowed to do it for computing performance (merely to see the hit).

    iPreFlight is extremely customizable (I'd argue the best performance program available for corporate and charter operators of jet aircraft) and an excellent program WHEN you understand the limitations.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2017
    BigZ likes this.
  9. CFIT99

    CFIT99 I'm probably commenting ironically...

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    710
    we use iPreflight too, I just checked our version of the program, we don't have the option to remove obstacles
     
  10. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    You have to request the ability to do it from APG by telling them you won't hold them responsible if you turn off obstacles and it doesn't go well.
     
    CFIT99 likes this.
  11. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    I agree with you on the 135 not being allowed to turn off obstacles. Just trying to make a better argument against it using the regs. Can you point me in the right direction besides the reg I already quoted.
     
  12. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    We are talking about obstacles specific to a airport. The AFM data wouldn't take into account the mountain at the end of the runway at KEGE. The 35ft reference is the 135 requirement that OEI you must be able to clear a obstacle by either 35 vertically or 200/300 ft laterally.
     
  13. CoffeeIcePapers

    CoffeeIcePapers Well-Hung Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    2,177
    91.175 f4i
     
  14. Inverted25

    Inverted25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    161
    You got to explain what point your trying to make. It says you must comply with 135 regs for obstacle clearance which is the 35 foot vertically or 200/300 laterally.
     
  15. CoffeeIcePapers

    CoffeeIcePapers Well-Hung Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,526
    Likes Received:
    2,177
  16. Polymox

    Polymox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yes, we have one at KEGE, that leads down the valley to KRIL. It requires good VFR, I think 5000-5. As long as you can make the numbers for 2nd segment climb, you can use it to take off at a higher weight than would be normally permitted with the Cottonwood. This is an emergency procedure that you would only fly with an engine failure prior to making the first turn on the cleared SID. This is permitted by 91.175(f)3 where it says "or an alternative procedure."

    It is most useful for getting out with decent weight in the summer, seldom used in winter with the weather and better weight limits on the Cottonwood.
     

Share This Page