Narrative:

Filed flight plan from rdd to sfo: rdd.HOMAN2.rbl..sfo. Tower assigned clearance: cleared to sfo direct red bluff (rbl) then as filed, maintain FL230, etc. The usual case: it is common to receive the HOMAN2 departure. As soon as radar contact is established (MVA is 3500 ft), we usually are cleared direct rbl, or more commonly, receive a heading for direct pye when able. Apparently, some tower controllers will occasionally issue direct rbl, to shortcut the HOMAN2 departure, presumably when there is no ATC need for the HOMAN2 (SID). Although there is a provision in my company's operations specifications for a VMC departure, it is strongly discouraged. There is a textual (obstacle) departure procedure for the rdd airport which (departing runway 34) indicates a right turn to intercept the 044 degree radial to itmor intersection (12 NM away) before proceeding on course (and above the MEA). This indicates to me that a standard 40:1 clearance cannot be maintained and the textual/obstacle departure procedure (or a charted departure procedure) should be used unless the pilot is willing to accept a VMC climb (own terrain separation). The first officer picked up the clearance and there was no discussion between the tower and the first officer about accepting a VMC/VFR climb. Presumably the tower just assumed that it was a given that we would maneuver VFR to proceed direct the rbl VOR. Although it was not quite legitimate as an IFR procedure, I figured that ZOA would give us direct rbl as soon as he had radar contact, so I did not engage redding tower in a discussion about proper IFR departure procedures. On departure, we were handed off to ZOA and I asked for direct routing, but it was not forthcoming, so the first officer continued on the obstacle departure procedure which tracks a radial to the northeast for 12 mi before proceeding direct to rbl. ZOA questioned our route of flight and we 'discussed' the fact that we were unable to proceed direct rbl on any sort of departure procedure so were obligated to follow the obstacle departure procedure to ensure terrain avoidance. Center seemed baffled by our action and pointed out that we should have cleared that up with the tower. Although the ARTCC controller was correct on this point, it was clear to me that he did not understand the point I was making that it was not possible to proceed direct to the rbl unless it was on radar vectors or a VFR/VMC climb. Again, I agree that we should have clarified things with tower before launching, but where departure procedures are re-established and there is an operating tower, a departure procedure must be assigned unless radar capability exists to provide departure vectors below the MVA (FAA order 7110.65 paragraph 40302(4)). Radar capability does not exist to provide vectors below the MVA at rdd. In the future, I will not accept such a clearance and will query the controller, but I wish someone would let ATC in on the departure procedure rules at rdd to avoid this 'trap' in the future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR TURBOPROP DEPARTING RDD IS QUESTIONED BY ZOA ABOUT THEIR FILED AND CLRED ROUTING.

Narrative: FILED FLT PLAN FROM RDD TO SFO: RDD.HOMAN2.RBL..SFO. TWR ASSIGNED CLRNC: CLRED TO SFO DIRECT RED BLUFF (RBL) THEN AS FILED, MAINTAIN FL230, ETC. THE USUAL CASE: IT IS COMMON TO RECEIVE THE HOMAN2 DEP. AS SOON AS RADAR CONTACT IS ESTABLISHED (MVA IS 3500 FT), WE USUALLY ARE CLRED DIRECT RBL, OR MORE COMMONLY, RECEIVE A HDG FOR DIRECT PYE WHEN ABLE. APPARENTLY, SOME TWR CTLRS WILL OCCASIONALLY ISSUE DIRECT RBL, TO SHORTCUT THE HOMAN2 DEP, PRESUMABLY WHEN THERE IS NO ATC NEED FOR THE HOMAN2 (SID). ALTHOUGH THERE IS A PROVISION IN MY COMPANY'S OPS SPECS FOR A VMC DEP, IT IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. THERE IS A TEXTUAL (OBSTACLE) DEP PROC FOR THE RDD ARPT WHICH (DEPARTING RWY 34) INDICATES A R TURN TO INTERCEPT THE 044 DEG RADIAL TO ITMOR INTXN (12 NM AWAY) BEFORE PROCEEDING ON COURSE (AND ABOVE THE MEA). THIS INDICATES TO ME THAT A STANDARD 40:1 CLRNC CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AND THE TEXTUAL/OBSTACLE DEP PROC (OR A CHARTED DEP PROC) SHOULD BE USED UNLESS THE PLT IS WILLING TO ACCEPT A VMC CLB (OWN TERRAIN SEPARATION). THE FO PICKED UP THE CLRNC AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION BTWN THE TWR AND THE FO ABOUT ACCEPTING A VMC/VFR CLB. PRESUMABLY THE TWR JUST ASSUMED THAT IT WAS A GIVEN THAT WE WOULD MANEUVER VFR TO PROCEED DIRECT THE RBL VOR. ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT QUITE LEGITIMATE AS AN IFR PROC, I FIGURED THAT ZOA WOULD GIVE US DIRECT RBL AS SOON AS HE HAD RADAR CONTACT, SO I DID NOT ENGAGE REDDING TWR IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPER IFR DEP PROCS. ON DEP, WE WERE HANDED OFF TO ZOA AND I ASKED FOR DIRECT ROUTING, BUT IT WAS NOT FORTHCOMING, SO THE FO CONTINUED ON THE OBSTACLE DEP PROC WHICH TRACKS A RADIAL TO THE NE FOR 12 MI BEFORE PROCEEDING DIRECT TO RBL. ZOA QUESTIONED OUR RTE OF FLT AND WE 'DISCUSSED' THE FACT THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO PROCEED DIRECT RBL ON ANY SORT OF DEP PROC SO WERE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE OBSTACLE DEP PROC TO ENSURE TERRAIN AVOIDANCE. CTR SEEMED BAFFLED BY OUR ACTION AND POINTED OUT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CLRED THAT UP WITH THE TWR. ALTHOUGH THE ARTCC CTLR WAS CORRECT ON THIS POINT, IT WAS CLR TO ME THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE POINT I WAS MAKING THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROCEED DIRECT TO THE RBL UNLESS IT WAS ON RADAR VECTORS OR A VFR/VMC CLB. AGAIN, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THINGS WITH TWR BEFORE LAUNCHING, BUT WHERE DEP PROCS ARE RE-ESTABLISHED AND THERE IS AN OPERATING TWR, A DEP PROC MUST BE ASSIGNED UNLESS RADAR CAPABILITY EXISTS TO PROVIDE DEP VECTORS BELOW THE MVA (FAA ORDER 7110.65 PARAGRAPH 40302(4)). RADAR CAPABILITY DOES NOT EXIST TO PROVIDE VECTORS BELOW THE MVA AT RDD. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL NOT ACCEPT SUCH A CLRNC AND WILL QUERY THE CTLR, BUT I WISH SOMEONE WOULD LET ATC IN ON THE DEP PROC RULES AT RDD TO AVOID THIS 'TRAP' IN THE FUTURE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.