Reno sector file issue/question for trainees

[Marc Sykes 852946]

So the other day when I was online I had a guy pop up in the Reno area looking for clearance to PDX. I actually was about halfway through the clearance, thinking he was at KRNO (I was ranged way out to view the whole center) and then realized that his target was (seemingly) off in the middle of nowhere somewhere northwest of the field.

Upon further inspection, it turned out that he was departing from 4SD -- Reno-Stead Airport -- which apparently isn't depicted on the sector file. IRL it seems to be a pretty good-sized field, with two long runways (9000 ft. and 7600 ft.) and some instrument approaches, so it might be one to consider adding. The coordinates are on the Airnav page that I linked above and can be cross-referenced with the bearing/distance information from the navaids listed in the "Nearby radio navigation aids" section.

Anyway, the route as filed was 4SD WNDEL LMT.MOXEE6 KPDX. My question for those studying for APP/CTR, then, is: knowing of the high terrain in the Reno area, what are some good ways to issue the clearance to guarantee terrain separation? Can the aircraft be cleared "as filed"? How about "runway heading, vectors WNDEL as filed"? Something else?

I know the senior guys will know the answer(s) to this but it's a good exercise for those training for radar positions.

Off to work now but I hope to see some good answers when I return.

SY

[David Carman]

Reno Stead is in the 11RC version of the sector file at the bottom of the downloads page. Another interesting fact is that the Reno air races are held there. About the departure, what I do is say runway heading vectors first fix, then vector them as needed in reference to the MVAs till I can give a direct, or if they are in a deep valley I will ask them to make several climbing 360s and say something like "make 5 left 360s, c/m FL310, upon reaching 15k cleared direct WNDEL." That is just what I do, maybe it is incorrect, I want to hear what Inigo has to say.

[Chuck Barlow]

Based on my limited experience at ZOA my impression / assumption is that the airport detail is only "drawn" in the sector file for airports that have a tower (class B,C,D). Reno/Stead of course is a class E, uncontrolled airport. In VRC you can still see the airport runways as simple lines (View -> Runways).

In he past I have also wondered if it wouldn't be nice to see these ZOA airports drawn: KTVL, KMEV, KTRK, KTCY, and probably others. The trade-off question of course is, how much extra airport clutter do you want to start seeing on your scope? Unless we want things to get out of hand, perhaps our current guideline is best.

Regarding the departure instructions for IFR aircraft, it's true that there are no published departure procedures for 4SD. However take a look at the NACO procedure document "TAKE OFF MINIMUMS". If you look up Reno/Stead (see below), you are given some good information that can be used to provide the initial departure instructions, as well as vectors and climb instructions to get them to their first fix. It's pretty clear though that you would need to know which runway they will depart from.

RENO/STEAD

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: CAT A,B only, CAT C,D NA.

Rwys 8,14,

1300-2 or std. with a min. climb of 400' per
NM to 6500. Rwy 26, 1900-2 or std. with a min. climb of
410' per NM to 7200. Rwy 32, 2300-2 or std. with a min.
climb of 420' per NM to 7200.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwys 8,32, climbing right
turn heading 100?. Rwy 14, left turn climb direct FMG
VORTAC. Rwy 26, climbing right turn heading 050? and
FMG VORTAC R-314 to FMG VORTAC. All aircraft

climb in FMG VORTAC holding pattern (NE, right
turns, 221? inbound) to depart FMG VORTAC; R-260
CW R-170 at or above 10000; R-171 CW R-195 at or
above 10500; R-196 CW R-259 at or above 12000.

By the way Mark, if you ever have the chance to go to Reno/Stead for the annual Reno Air Races, I HIGHLY recommend it. Usually in mid-September. It's totally awesome to watch the unlimited class P-51 Mustangs screaming by at 500 knots! Lots of other stuff to see too.

[Tom Flanary]

Well, in this case, I think WNDEL would work, but our LOA with Seattle says any aircraft should be routed via FMG.LMT. Of course, in the Reno area, it is common to get them on the initial turn to Mustang, and then turn them back to LMT or their next fix, whichever it may be. This is simply for terrain avoidance. It looks like the WNDEL intersection is on the northwestern radial for FMG, which would probably work out, but it's also 60 miles out, so I'm not sure how the terrain up there is.

So next time I'd do: FMG.LMT.MOXEE6, so I have the terrain avoidance. Reno is the same way, and since Stead is only about 6 miles north of Reno, I would think they would have the same procedure.

I think the appropriate phrasing would be "Cleared to Portland International Airport via the obstacle departure procedure, Mustang VOR, then as filed..."

Of course, that will be if the pilot actually knows how to fly a ODP, which is doubtful. Not to mention that if memory serves correctly, controllers arn't responsible for telling pilots about ODPs. So you could technically just use a normal clearance to Mustang... then as filed.

[Justin_Ingersoll]

Chuck, that little insert you have there is a Departure Procedure. More specifically, it's an Obstacle DP, as opposed to a SID like we normally see. But really, a SID is a beefed-up Obstacle DP that does does the same thing in addition to allowing better traffic flow and less radio communications.

In fact, pilots should fly the ODP, they do not have to have ATC clearance to fly it (as opposed to the SID where they do have to have clearance). Their FP would contain FMG as the first fix.

From AIM 5-2-7
c.2 - "ATC may assume responsibility for obstacle clearance by vectoring the aircraft prior to reaching the minimum bectoring altitude by using a Diverse Vector Area (DVA).....ATC may also vector an aircraft off a previously assigned DP. In all cases, the 200 FPNM climb gradient is assumed and obstacle clearance is not provided by ATC until the controller begins to provide navigational guidance in the form of radar vectors."

"NOTE - When used by the controller during departure, the term "radar contact" should not be interpreted as relieving pilots of their responsibility to maintain appropriate terrain and obstruction clearance which may include flying the obstacle DP."

d.1 - "As a general rule, ATC will only assign an ODP from a nontowered airport when compliance with the ODP is necessary for aircraft to aircraft seperation. Pilots may use the ODP to help ensure seperation from terrain and obstacles."

Don't expect all VATSIM pilots to know this. Since it is a noncontrolled airport, you may have the aircraft report reaching the MVA of that sector after departure, then, if you'd like, vector them. Or, if report when airborn is given, you can tell them, "radar contact", and that's it, and it will be their responsibility to keep away from the mountains. Then, once they reach your MVA, you can start vectoring them, making you responsible for their seperation.

[Marc Sykes 852946]

Ok, back from work. Tonight I'm pretty sure that every airliner operating in North America flew through my sector at least once. The entire midwest USA was virtually shut off by thunderstorms, so everybody flew up north to go around them (we had the edge of the front, so everybody was deviating and picking their way through the weather -- much fun). It's not that often you see a KSFO-KJFK flight (or the reverse) fly over Northern Ontario, but there were a bunch tonight. So I'm exhausted. Anyway:

I see that v.11 of the sector file has it now. I was using v.10 for whatever reason, I think I found the default colours easier to work with. Just found it odd that it had a whole lot of much smaller airports but didn't have 4SD.

Some varied answers here. Looking at Airnav, we discover that the airport elevation for 4SD is 5,050. MVAs in the area range from 6,700 to 11,800. Since it's an uncontrolled airport, we generally wouldn't be specifying a runway for departure, and depending on what runway our pilot uses, he could be going right into a 9,000+ MVA. There's no published data that states or infers that runway heading is safe (quite the opposite in fact as we'll discuss) or that a DVA has been established, so I would rule out runway heading and vectors. To me assigning runway heading constitutes a vector, and thus a vector below MVA, except in cases where there's information suggesting that this heading would be safe. I might be ok with using runway heading off the 16s at KRNO, for instance, at least with a relatively high-performance aircraft, since the ZEFFR SID basically has the aircraft climb out on runway heading (providing certain altitude restrictions are met).

I likewise wouldn't favour a clearance of "direct WNDEL (or direct LMT) then as filed" as that also sends the pilot into high terrain immediately after departure.

That leaves a couple of options, depending on the weather. In IMC, I would be looking at assigning the ODP, or some version of it. Technically, yes, it is probably not required that we do so, but if flown properly it assures safety, versus having our guy depart right into the soup and then try to pick his way through 10,000-foot high peaks. If he flicks in while attempting to do so I probably won't lose my license or anything, since I did follow the rules (minimally -- I certainly didn't go out of my way to help the guy out and that will probably come up at the investigation), but there will still be some blame that'll be put on me and I don't want that. So my question to the pilot would be, "are you familiar with the published obstacle departure procedure for 4SD?" If yes, no problem. "Cleared to PDX via the published obstacle departure procedure, Mustang, Klamath Falls, MOXEE6 arrival, etc. etc." I was pleased to see that there was an awareness of the existence of these procedures for airports with no charted DPs -- I know that ZLA uses them all the time (I was one of the first to start doing so), but I don't think there are very many other facilities on VATSIM that are aware of them. So most of you were, in my mind, on the right track in that regard.

If the pilot wasn't familiar with the ODP, you could try reading/typing it out to him. However, looking at it more closely, we see that it's basically just direct FMG, then climb in the FMG holding pattern until reaching a given altitude, depending on the direction of the flight-planned route. In our case it's 10,000 to exit to the northwest. So an alternate, virtually idiot-proof clearance, if the pilot is unfamiliar with the ODP, would be "cleared to PDX via direct FMG, LMT as filed, maintain FL340, cross Mustang at or above 10,000 .." etc. etc. From 4SD to FMG is 14 miles, probably add on a few extra for the turn after departure, assume a speed after departure of approx 4 miles/minute and that means the pilot has to climb 5,000 feet in about 4 minutes. Shouldn't be a problem.

If the weather happens to be VMC, then that adds an extra option that may be more expeditious. The highest MVAs in the area are around 11,800, so my question to the pilot would be "are you able to climb VFR to 12,000?" In my experience 99% of pilots will agree to a VFR climb if it will get them where they're going even 5 seconds faster, and this will save our guy a lot more than that. If he answers in the affirmative, our clearance is "cleared to PDX via direct LMT, MOXEE6, maintain FL340, blah blah blah, your clearance is valid when you reach 12,000." We VATSIM controllers are used to validating clearances (or giving IFR "releases" as it's more commonly known in the USA) in terms of time. If we were reading a normal clearance to this guy we'd probably answer his readback with "readback correct, released for departure, clearance void if not off by 1500Z." Basically what we're telling him is that his clearance is valid now, for a certain time, etc. etc. We do have to give the pilot some sort of clearance validation, but we don't HAVE to use time -- we can use a time, a place, or an altitude. There have been times, IRL, when an aircraft has departed VFR and asked me for an IFR clearance, I give him his squawk code (not the clearance yet) so I have an idea of where he is, and he pops up on right on the edge of restricted airspace. Our rule is that VFR aircraft just have to miss the restricted areas, but IFR aircraft have to be kept 5 miles from it, so I have no way of giving this guy a (valid) clearance at the moment. What I do in that case (after explaining the situation obviously) is pick a point that offers me the amount of separation I need, read the clearance, and tack on "your IFR clearance is valid when you reach such-and-such VOR." That's an example of using a place, and the clearance we gave to the jet off 4SD -- clearance valid when you reach 12,000 -- is an example of using an altitude.

The benefit to doing this -- if it's a clear day and the pilot is confident in the performance of his aircraft, he'll turn right toward LMT on wheels-up (note that he does not HAVE to do this, even though we cleared him "direct LMT," because he's VFR until he reaches 12k. He can do whatever he wants, fly 360s for all we care, until he reaches 12k -- only once he reaches that altitude is he obligated to turn direct LMT) and cut right through the 9,800 MVA, but since he's VFR up to 12k this is perfectly legal. It makes no difference to us (other than that it gets him out of our airspace sooner which is good if we're busy) and it's quicker for him. And there's no way that any center controller (even IRL) can tell the difference between 4SD -> LMT and FMG -> LMT, so I don't think I'd worry too much about what the LOA says. If we were giving the direct from 100 miles west or east of FMG that would of course be a different story.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this not-entirely-hypothetical situation up because I think it's a good example of the kinds of considerations real controllers make every day. Obviously our most important goal is safety, so we start by tossing all the unsafe or questionably safe solutions. Runway heading, vectors WNDEL/LMT, or direct WNDEL/LMT don't work because we don't know exactly what runway he's going to use or how fast he's going to climb -- for all we know he could lose an engine on departure, remember! -- and our MVA map isn't detailed enough for us to know exactly where the high terrain is. So then we're left with the ODP and, if the weather's good and the pilot is agreeable, the VFR climb. After safety, our number-two goal is efficiency -- so the slightly craftier, more experienced controller is going to pursue the VFR climb route because it's a bit more expeditious for all parties.

Those were my thoughts. Questions, comments?

SY

[David Carman]

I have a comment Marc, you are awesome. Thanks for the very educational post, and hopefully when I start radar courses at school, I will now be one step ahead of the game when it comes to terrain.

[Justin_Ingersoll]

I have to say, I've never heard of giving an IFR clearance in terms on altitude. The AIM (and FARs) only seem to mention a clearance void time. I'm not trying to question your knowledge, sir, I'm just saying I haven't heard of it. It is rather interesting and practical though, especially when there is a ceiling of say 12,000 ft at RNO when the MVA is 10,800.

The only thing I can come up with from the AIM in any kind of close relation to this is that we can have the aircraft "climb in visual conditions so as to cross the McElory Airport southbound, at or above 6000, then climg via Keemmling radial zero three three to Kemmling VORTAC" (AIM 5-2-7 b.5) Paragraph C cites who is responsible for terrain clearance when the pilot opts to climb in visual conditions in lieu of flying a DP (and that would be the pilot).

[Marc Sykes 852946]

In a case like this, where the pilot is on the ground, we would probably give a clearance void time as well, since we're effectively blocking altitudes from 12,000 to FL340 (or whatever the requested cruise was). Because we're releasing the pilot VFR, there aren't any restrictions on what route of flight he can take below 12,000 -- although we anticipate that he will probably turn northbound right after takeoff, we can't count on that -- he could pop up right over KRNO. So all airports in the vicinity are pretty much shut down until this guy is on radar. If he had departed VFR without coordinating with us and was, let's say, climbing through 9,000 in the 10,000 MVA heading toward LMT, already on radar, we wouldn't need to issue a void time, as the altitude would be our only concern.

I was looking through the 7110.65 and it doesn't phrase it quite the same as the Canadian equivalent in terms of offering a clearance validation either through time, place, or altitude. However, there are a couple of sections that apply loosely:

7−1−2. VFR CONDITIONS
a. You may clear aircraft to maintain ?VFR
conditions? if one of the following conditions exists:
1. The pilot of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan
requests a VFR climb/descent.
2. TERMINAL. The clearance will result in
noise abatement benefits where part of the IFR
departure route does not conform to an FAAapproved
noise abatement route or altitude.

PHRASEOLOGY−
MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS.
MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS UNTIL (time or fix).
MAINTAIN VFR CONDITIONS ABOVE/BELOW
(altitude).
CLIMB/DESCEND VFR,
and if required,
BETWEEN (altitude) AND (altitude)
or
ABOVE/BELOW (altitude).

So perhaps the more correct phraseology in FAA-speak would be "cleared to KPDX via direct LMT, MOXEE6, climb VFR to 12,000, maintain FL340, etc. etc." Personally I still like saying "IFR clearance valid when you reach 12,000" as I think that's far less subject to misunderstanding, but that phraseology doesn't seem to be provided for, at least officially.

Another section of interest is 4-3-9:

4−3−9. VFR RELEASE OF IFR DEPARTURE
When an aircraft which has filed an IFR flight plan
requests a VFR departure through a terminal facility,
FSS, or air/ground communications station:
a. After obtaining, if necessary, approval from the
facility/sector responsible for issuing the IFR
clearance, you may authorize an IFR flight planned
aircraft to depart VFR. Inform the pilot of the proper
frequency and, if appropriate, where or when to
contact the facility responsible for issuing the
clearance.

PHRASEOLOGY−
VFR DEPARTURE AUTHORIZED. CONTACT (facility)
ON (frequency) AT (location or time if required) FOR
CLEARANCE.

This is something I use now and then, especially at non-radar, one in one out airports. Let's say I've just cleared a guy for a full-procedure NDB approach and he's already on the UNICOM channel doing his thing. Then another aircraft calls me wanting to depart. I have no way of giving this guy an IFR clearance off the ground, but what I can do is find out (either directly or through relay) what the arrival's current altitude is, and offer the departure an opportunity to climb to 1,000 feet above that VFR. Eg. if the arrival is at 4,000 right now on the procedure turn outbound, and I know the missed approach altitude is 3,500, I know that once I get my departure through 5,000 I have separation.

So I might say, "unable IFR clearance at this time due traffic inbound, estimated to arrive in 8 minutes. I can approve a VFR departure upon request, and you can expect your IFR clearance through 5,000 feet." Hopefully I checked the local weather before saying this to see whether it might actually be feasible. If the ceiling turns out to be OVC020 I kind of end up looking like an idiot by suggesting that the guy depart VFR up to 5k. Of course, if the weather's good VFR below 5,000, it's probably unlikely that the inbound would be doing a full-procedure approach, and in most cases in VMC an arrival will cancel IFR in the air, especially if he hears you saying "unable" to somebody else and can figure out that he's holding up traffic. But every now and then you get folks who want to do the approach for training and/or who won't do the honourable thing and cancel IFR.

The important elements: 1) a VFR departure can never be assigned, it must be requested by the pilot; and 2) we must give a time, place, or altitude at which to expect the IFR clearance. Basically that's the same sort of thing as an "expect higher" with an IFR clearance (maintain 5,000 expect FL350 10 minutes after departure) or an expect-further-clearance time with a hold. If a pilot departs VFR without telling us in advance and then calls in the air for his IFR clearance, he has to accept the risk (however slight) that we may not ever be able to issue something to him due to workload or traffic, and therefore the possibility that he might have to fly his entire route VFR. I've never actually seen this happen IRL, but I have seen situations where pilots flew an awfully long way (50-60 miles) before getting a clearance because they decided to depart VFR in the midst of complete chaos (weather deviations, thunderstorms, holding, etc.) and the controller had way too much on his plate to be able to find the guy an altitude. If you're doing a long-range flight in a jet, it's going to be a real problem to be hung up at VFR altitudes for a long time (especially in Canada where 12,500 is the highest altitude where you can be VFR not talking to anyone -- from 12,501 to 18,000 we have "controlled VFR" which imposes the same separation standards as IFR, so if you depart VFR and we can't accommodate you, 12,500 is the highest you're going). So it's a good idea to call before you come off and basically get the picture from the controller as to when you can expect to be able to get your clearance. In a situation where I have multiple inbounds to the same non-radar airport, an altitude may not work so I might say "expect your clearance 20 miles south of Elliot Lake" (20 miles is a non-radar crossing track separation standard, so if all my arrivals are coming from the east or west and this guy is headed south, once he's 20 miles south of the airport he's got lateral separation). The important thing is that I'm effectively telling the pilot that although I can't give a clearance right away, I will be able to do so eventually. If he does decide to depart VFR, of course I'll also tell him the ident(s) and position(s) of the inbound aircraft so he can listen out on UNICOM.

Theoretically, I could do the same as we did with our bizjet above, if we're using altitude, and give the clearance with the "climb VFR to 5,000" part added. But just as a personal preference, I never do this when there's other traffic around, I'll always tell them just to maintain VFR and I'll have a clearance once they reach whatever altitude gives me separation with the other IFR guys. This way there can't be any confusion with the pilot thinking that he just got an IFR clearance off the ground. If there's no traffic in the area and it's just a terrain issue I don't have a problem giving a clearance off the ground with a maintain VFR below xxx restriction.

Hope that helps to clarify a bit. I've been away from the American regulations for quite awhile now, and sometimes there are differences with how things work in Canada, but I do know from talking to pilots that the VFR releases and "maintain VFR below xxx" clearances are used quite a bit in the USA as well.

SY

[Justin_Ingersoll]

Roger that, excellent research and explanations, thanks for taking the time to do so!

[Jim Thompson]

Now all of you know why we named one of the ZLA forums the "Marc Sykes 5000-word Forum" (or something similar at one point ).

This is great info. Something I hadn't thought much about in the past with those high MVAs around Reno.

I speak for most of ZOA controllers when I say that I LOVE Reno. It CAN and SHOULD be our Vegas sector. It's just as much fun to fly in and out of, IMHO. I don't know why Pilots won't use it as much. Probably the same dichotomy as the real Vegas and Reno I guess. It's a great approach training sector when there is traffic.

[Tom Flanary]

Thanks SY for these great posts... you throw an angle in there that I haven't even thought about.

[Jim Thompson]

Marc - without spending more than 5-10 mins, could you stitch this narrative into an article we can post on the site? Thanks. For the time being I will link to this thread.

[Inigo Markle-Allen]

Excellent, informative post Marc. I'd like to second the request for an article on this subject. We have been pretty good about teaching Obstacle Departure Procedures, but the concepts you outlined for conditionally issuing the IFR Clearance in lieu of the ODP are awesome. I learned a lot from it, as I'm sure everyone else here did as well. As far as American vs. Canadian phraseology is concerned, this particular subject seems like something one should just use intuative and easy to understand plain english instructions to accurately convey to the pilot what you want them to do. I've never been able to find this particular phraseology in the 7110.65, but I've heard the real Oakland Center use:

"Maintain own terrain and obstruction clearance through [ALTITUDE]."

Thanks again Marc, looking forward to many more.

[Marc Sykes 852946]

Inigo, that phraseology is actually from section 4-2-8 (VFR-IFR Flights):

d. When a VFR aircraft, operating below the
minimum altitude for IFR operations, requests an IFR
clearance and you are aware that the pilot is unable to
climb in VFR conditions to the minimum IFR
altitude:

1. Before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is
able to maintain terrain and obstruction clearance
during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude.

NOTE−
Pilots of pop−up aircraft are responsible for terrain and
obstacle clearance until reaching minimum instrument
altitude (MIA) or minimum en route altitude (MEA). Pilot
compliance with an approved FAA procedure or an ATC
instruction transfers that responsibility to the FAA;
therefore, do not assign (or imply) specific course guidance
that will (or could) be in effect below the MIA or MEA.

EXAMPLE−
“November Eight Seven Six, are you able to provide your
own terrain and obstruction clearance between your
present altitude and six thousand feet?”

2. If the pilot is able to maintain terrain and
obstruction separation, issue the appropriate clearance
as prescribed in para 4−2−1, Clearance Items,
and para 4−5−6, Minimum En Route Altitudes.

3. If unable to maintain terrain and obstruction
separation, instruct the pilot to maintain VFR and to
state intentions.

4. If appropriate, apply the provisions of
para 10−2−7, VFR Aircraft In Weather Difficulty, or
para 10−2−9, Radar Assistance Techniques, as
necessary.

That's an important clause to know as well, and one I have actually used on VATSIM quite a bit. Back when I was training guys in ZLA, we'd always get guys calling in VFR somewhere around the Hoover Dam flying at like 3,500 in a 7,500 MVA (IRL this would be non-radar, so that would be a good clue that giving a clearance here is probably NOT a good idea), looking for a pop-up IFR to go shoot an approach at Vegas. Invariably the trainee spiels off, "cleared to Vegas via direct, maintain 8,000, blah blah blah ..." which does not work at all. "Direct" anywhere implies course guidance -- it doesn't give the pilot a choice, he must turn direct to that fix immediately -- and therefore constitutes a vector below MVA if the aircraft isn't already above it.

In that case, you can say climb VFR to 7,500, or you can say your IFR clearance is valid once you reach 7,500. However, if the weather is kind of marginal, there's a chance the pilot may not be able to maintain VFR conditions (less than 3 miles visibility, or perhaps he'll have to climb through a cloud layer) but is still in good enough weather to maintain ground contact. It's kind of like a contact approach, where you don't have good enough visibility to shoot a visual but you have ground contact, so you know where you are and can use that visual reference to point yourself in the general direction of the airport until you have it in sight. So we have the above provision, which basically allows the pilot to be IFR for traffic purposes but VFR for terrain purposes until reaching the MVA.

Note that this procedure should NOT be used when giving a clearance to an aircraft still on the ground. This is really intended for a quasi-emergency situation where an aircraft has departed VFR and the weather has unexpectedly deteriorated to the point where the aircraft can no longer maintain VFR conditions and needs an IFR clearance in order to get where he's going (note that it says "you are aware that the pilot is UNABLE to climb in VFR conditions" -- so the VFR climb should be your first option here). It would be irresponsible to authorize something like this for an aircraft on the ground, when other options are available. Eg. our same bizjet is on the ground at 4SD, Reno weather is 1 1/2 SM, BKN 060, etc.. Our guy is unable a VFR departure for obvious reasons. Can he maintain his own terrain clearance up to 12,000? Maybe, but do we want to risk it? I'm not a weather expert, but I know that the weather in a valley area, like Reno, can be quite a bit different from what's happening in the mountains only a few miles away. So our guy could turn confidently toward the mountains, hit some sort of layer or fog patch, and then the next thing you know we're getting a mayday call from a guy at 9,500 in an 11,000 MVA, and we have no real way of helping him (other than advising him to make a 180 and head back toward Reno). In that situation, I would absolutely assign the ODP and that way we're 100% safe.

Speaking of weather playing tricks on you, funny story from a few nights ago:

An Air Canada regional Dash-8 is flying its usual route from Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie (CYAM), which is the only towered airport in my specialty. Checks in, gets cleared to 5,000 at pilot's discretion, told to expect the ILS to runway 12. Weather is something like 1/2 SM, OVC003, etc. etc..

25 miles out: "airport in sight for Jazz 7576"
Controller: (tone of disbelief) "uhhhh ... sorry sir, confirm you said that you have the airport in sight?"
JZA: (confidently) "I know what an airport looks like, Toronto, I've been flying for twenty years"
Controller: "JZA7576, roger, I don't have limits for a visual, but the contact approach is available upon request"
JZA: "we'll take the contact for 30"
Controller: "JZA7576, cleared to the Canadian Sault airport for the contact approach runway 30"

So we watch the guy descend down to, oh, about 1,500 or so .. then level off .. then start climbing again .. tower hits the hotline and says, "Jazz is on the missed!"

JZA: (grumbling) "Toronto, back with you on the missed approach, climbing through 2,000 for 2,500"
Controller: "JZA7576, roger, maintain 3,000, did you want to try the ILS this time?"
JZA: (grumbling) "affirm ... don't know what happened, just hit a layer all of a sudden and the vis went to nothing"

Lots of laughing in our little corner of the ops room. What happened here? Well, these guys fly to this airport all the time, so they know the area very well. Between that and being GPS-equipped, they can pretty much do this route blind. It's not at all uncommon for them to call "field in sight" 40 miles back, and sometimes as far as 80 miles, on a normal day. They don't actually have the field at this point, of course, but they know where they are and they "know" they'll get it in sight when they get closer. Toronto to Sault basically takes you right to the extended centerline to runway 30, so these guys REALLY don't want to be vectored all the way around for runway 12 (30 doesn't have an ILS, 12 does) unless the wind or weather make it absolutely necessary. So this guy called "in sight" thinking if he just kept going he'd eventually get a visual, and he never did, and eventually he realized there was no way he was going to be able to make it work, because he was too close to the airport to get established on any kind of instrument approach and make a stable descent that would get him below the deck. Lessons here: 1) weather is unpredictable; 2) try not to bet anybody's life on what a pilot says he can do.

Jim: Yes, I'm sure I can mix all these posts into an article somehow. I'll try to work on it on my days off (tomorrow is the last day of this cycle, then 5 days off).

I'd be more than happy to keep writing on different topics if there's interest, just let me know what you'd like to hear about. I'm quite lucky in that my specialty probably has the most varied skill set of any in Canada. Generally our facilities are quite specialized -- airspace tends to be divided into high, low, and terminal subsets, and 7 of the 8 specialties in Toronto Centre are either high OR low. Mine is the exception. We do high-level overflights (which includes sequencing for Toronto and Chicago), low-level control into small airports in northern Ontario, some terminal (TRACON)-style vectoring and sequencing in the Sault area, we work a Toronto "bedpost" sector that's basically an extension of the terminal area, so we sequence departures and arrivals as they transition into or out of the high-level; we do quite a bit of non-radar controlling; and finally, we are, to my knowledge, the only controllers in Canada responsible for American airspace (a small chunk of northern Michigan that includes 5 airports), so we have to know and adhere to FAA procedures in that area to the extent that they differ from Canadian ones. So there's a little bit of everything and each day brings something different.

I'm probably over my 5,000 word limit now but I'll check back in later.

SY

[Matthew Hull]

Additionally, I thought I might add that all of our 3037+ pilots and growing here at ExpressJet had to complete an online C.B.T course (computer-based training) to be qualified to fly in and out of RNO now that we operate 2 flights a day with our Delta Connection flying. Everything we do here is special. We have special arrival procedures, special departure procedures, special missed approach procedures, rwys 7-25 are prohibited for us, etc. Very challenging airport for our aircrews to operate in and out of. Additionally, our flight operations team is suggesting that crews operating into RNO begin the brief for the arrival into RNO outside of 1 hr before arrival! (very early)
I hope I have the time to read all the above thread posts.

[David Carman]

so if you are going from like SLC to RNO you begin arrival brief on wheels up? lol that's insane

[Matthew Hull]

They are advising briefing the arrival PRIOR to wheels-up .... yes, it's that bad. Can't wait to see how much stuff we'll screw up there!!!