Contradictory Departures and Other Stupid Rules

Each pilot must comply with any departure procedures established for that airport by the FAA. Id bet a lunch with the editor of IFR that this excerpt from Part 91.129 (g)was written by some non-flying FAA lawyer. It sounds good by itself, but how do you apply this rule on a day when youre launching IFR but the initial climb is in the clear and in direct violation of the local noise-abatement policy? If you fly the departure, are you in violation? What if you turn for noise, will you get a tongue-lashing from ATC when you check on?

Editorial Staff

Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

The article critiques the FAA's often vague regulatory language, exemplified by Part 91.129(g), suggesting it's intentionally ambiguous to provide the agency leverage in NTSB hearings and causes confusion for pilots.
This vagueness creates practical dilemmas for pilots, particularly when official departure procedures conflict with local policies like noise abatement.
Pilots are strongly advised to always review departure procedures (ODPs) before any flight, even when only planning an approach and landing, as this preparation is crucial for safety in scenarios like an aborted landing or missed approach in low visibility.

See a mistake? Contact us.

“Each pilot must comply with any departure procedures established for that airport by the FAA.” I’d bet a lunch with the editor of IFR that this excerpt from Part 91.129 (g) was written by some non-flying FAA lawyer.

It sounds good by itself, but how do you apply this rule on a day when you’re launching IFR but the initial climb is in the clear and in direct violation of the local noise-abatement policy? If you fly the departure, are you in violation? What if you turn for noise, will you get a tongue-lashing from ATC when you check on?