The FAA’s revised takeoff-minimums format separates obstacle types, adds DER crossing heights, and gives IFR pilots clearer departure-planning options.
Short answer
The FAA is gradually replacing the legacy takeoff-obstacle presentation with a format that separates low, close-in obstacles from takeoff-minimums obstacles, describes where those obstacles are located, and may publish a new departure-end-of-runway crossing-height option. The change does not eliminate climb-performance planning. It gives pilots better information for choosing among a published climb gradient, visual obstacle avoidance in adequate weather, an approved DER crossing height, a different runway, or delaying the flight.
What the FAA changed—and what it did not
The FAA is revising how takeoff minimums and departure obstacles appear in the Terminal Procedures Publication and in commercial charting products. As highlighted in FlightInsight’s video, the practical benefit is not a new shortcut around obstacle clearance. It is a clearer set of facts and options for deciding whether a particular airplane can safely depart a particular runway in the actual weather.
The underlying discipline remains the same. Before an IFR takeoff, the pilot must identify the departure procedure, understand the obstacle environment, determine whether the airplane can meet every applicable climb requirement, and decide what to do if it cannot. A clearance, a SID assignment, or an early call of “radar contact” is not a substitute for that analysis.
The rollout will take several years, so pilots should expect to see legacy and revised entries at the same time. The chart in front of you—not a remembered example—controls the briefing.
The revised presentation at a glance
| Planning item | Legacy presentation | Revised presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Obstacle categories | Low, close-in and takeoff-minimums obstacles may be combined in one runway list | Low, close-in obstacles and takeoff-minimums obstacles are separated |
| Location | Individual obstacle distances and offsets can produce a long, difficult-to-brief list | Obstacle groups use beginning and ending distance bands plus left, right, or crossing centerline |
| Height | Obstacle elevation data may be listed without a single planning-focused summary | The controlling obstacle includes MSL altitude and height above DER elevation |
| Departure options | Higher weather minimums, a higher climb gradient, or another published option | Those options remain, with a DER crossing height added where published |
| How to recognize it | Legacy headings and combined notes | Reformatted bold and underlined headings and runway entries identify the new evaluation |
Two obstacle categories now have different planning meaning
The distinction matters because a short obstacle very near the runway and a taller controlling obstacle farther out do not create the same decision. The revised notes tell the pilot where an obstacle group begins and ends in quarter-statute-mile increments and whether it lies left, right, or within 100 feet of the extended centerline.
That makes weather information more useful. If an airplane cannot climb over an obstacle on the planned profile, the pilot can evaluate whether the reported ceiling and visibility would genuinely support seeing and avoiding it. “Visual” is a specific obstacle-avoidance plan—not merely being able to see some ground after takeoff.
| Category | FAA planning description | What the pilot evaluates |
|---|---|---|
| Low, close-in obstacles | Within 1 NM or less of the DER and requiring more than the standard climb gradient only to 200 feet or less above DER elevation | Early liftoff, initial climb, drift, visual acquisition, and any published DER crossing height |
| Takeoff-minimums obstacles | Within 2.6 NM of the DER and requiring a higher gradient to more than 200 feet above DER elevation | The published climb gradient, higher ceiling/visibility option, DER crossing-height option, runway choice, and aircraft performance |
What a DER crossing height actually gives you
The departure end of runway, or DER, is the reference point from which departure obstacle protection is built. Standard departure criteria generally assume crossing the DER at least 35 feet above its elevation, climbing at least 200 feet per nautical mile, and reaching 400 feet above DER elevation before the initial turn unless the procedure says otherwise.
Under the revised format, a runway may include a higher DER crossing height that clears the evaluated obstacle. The FAA example adds an option to cross the DER 66 feet above DER elevation. A pilot who can demonstrate, using current aircraft performance data and the actual runway available, that the airplane will reach the published height at the DER may be able to use standard ceiling, visibility, and climb-gradient criteria instead of the steeper alternative.
That is useful because it connects takeoff performance with instrument-procedure planning. It is not permission to estimate casually, subtract runway distance without a safety margin, or assume book performance on a hot, heavy day. Weight, density altitude, wind, runway condition, aircraft condition, pilot technique, and the reliability of the available performance data all matter.
Why IFR departure planning deserves more attention
Approach plates usually receive the most attention in instrument training, but a departure can place the airplane close to terrain and obstacles before the pilot has time or altitude to recover from a poor assumption. Workload is also high: a frequency change, heading, altitude, avionics mode, and configuration change may arrive during the same minute that obstacle performance matters most.
For many ordinary Part 91 operations, published takeoff minimums are not regulatory in the same way they are for specified commercial operators. That does not make the obstacles optional. The pilot in command remains responsible for a safe departure, and a climb gradient or routing that is part of an accepted ATC clearance must be treated accordingly.
A good instrument pilot can explain not only the assigned route, but also why the airplane is protected from the runway to the en route structure. That habit is central to instrument training in Los Angeles, where terrain, complex airspace, busy frequencies, and rapid ATC instructions can tempt a pilot to focus only on the clearance.
A practical IFR departure-planning workflow
- Identify the actual departure runway and obtain current weather, NOTAMs, airport data, and the current chart cycle.
- Check every applicable approach or departure chart for the nonstandard-takeoff-minimums symbol, then open the airport’s Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) Departure Procedures entry. Review any graphic ODP, SID, or DVA that may apply.
- Separate three questions: What route did ATC clear? What path provides obstacle protection? What performance must the airplane deliver? The answers may overlap, but they are not automatically identical.
- Read the runway’s takeoff minimums, low close-in obstacle notes, takeoff-minimums obstacle notes, departure route, initial-turn condition, and climb-gradient termination altitude.
- Compare the available options: meet the published gradient, meet the weather minimums and visually avoid the obstacle, cross the DER at the published height, use another runway or procedure, reduce weight, wait for better conditions, or do not depart.
- Calculate climb capability using conservative aircraft data for actual weight, pressure altitude, temperature, wind, configuration, and runway condition. Convert feet per nautical mile to feet per minute at the expected groundspeed.
- Brief the first several minutes aloud: liftoff target, DER crossing requirement, heading or route, turn point, required gradient and termination altitude, frequency, automation modes, and the action for inadequate climb or an abnormal event.
Convert the charted gradient into a cockpit number
A charted climb gradient is expressed in feet per nautical mile, while the vertical-speed indicator shows feet per minute. A useful planning conversion is: required feet per minute = climb gradient × groundspeed ÷ 60. Use expected groundspeed—not indicated airspeed—because wind changes how quickly the airplane travels each nautical mile over the ground.
| Published gradient | Expected groundspeed | Minimum vertical speed |
|---|---|---|
| 200 ft/NM | 90 knots | 300 ft/min |
| 300 ft/NM | 90 knots | 450 ft/min |
| 300 ft/NM | 120 knots | 600 ft/min |
| 400 ft/NM | 90 knots | 600 ft/min |
What this should change in instrument training
Instrument students should practice complete departures, not only clearance copying and button pushing. A realistic lesson can ask the student to compare two runways, calculate two climb requirements, explain the new DER crossing-height option, and decide which combination of weather and aircraft performance creates an acceptable plan.
From Van Nuys and elsewhere in Southern California, that discussion should happen before engine start. The goal is not to memorize one local departure. It is to build a repeatable process that transfers to an unfamiliar airport on a hot day, with a different airplane, after a runway change.
This is also valuable recurrent training. A pilot may be legally current yet rusty at finding textual ODP information, distinguishing a SID from an ODP, or calculating a gradient under time pressure. An IPC or instrument proficiency session can include those decisions even when the flight portion focuses on approaches.
Common departure-planning traps
- Briefing the SID but never opening the airport’s takeoff-minimums and obstacle entry.
- Assuming ATC checked the airplane’s climb performance before issuing the clearance.
- Treating “radar contact” as automatic relief from the published obstacle plan.
- Converting feet per nautical mile with indicated airspeed instead of expected groundspeed.
- Checking climb rate at cruise-climb speed when the procedure requires a different early-departure profile.
- Using a POH sea-level performance number without correcting for weight, temperature, pressure altitude, wind, runway, and aircraft condition.
- Looking only for a textual ODP and missing a graphic ODP, DVA, runway-specific note, or NOTAM change.
- Assuming the new format is universal while the FAA’s multiyear transition is still underway.
A short pre-takeoff briefing checklist
- Current chart cycle, airport entry, and procedure NOTAMs verified
- Runway-specific takeoff minimums and both obstacle categories reviewed
- ODP, SID, DVA, or other obstacle-protection plan identified
- DER crossing height and available takeoff distance evaluated when applicable
- Required climb gradient converted to feet per minute at expected groundspeed
- Aircraft performance calculated with a deliberate margin
- Initial heading or route, turn condition, and gradient termination point briefed
- Plan for an unexpected runway change, inadequate climb, or abnormal event discussed
Frequently asked questions
Questions pilots ask about this topic
What is the standard IFR departure climb gradient?
Unless a procedure specifies otherwise, standard departure obstacle-clearance criteria generally assume crossing the DER at least 35 feet above its elevation, climbing at least 200 feet per nautical mile, and reaching 400 feet above DER elevation before the initial turn.
Does the new DER crossing height replace a published climb gradient?
Only when the current runway entry publishes it as an alternative and the airplane can meet that crossing height under the actual conditions. The pilot must still follow every remaining route, altitude, and climb requirement after the DER.
Are FAA takeoff minimums mandatory for Part 91 pilots?
The takeoff-minimums rule in 14 CFR § 91.175(f) applies to specified commercial operations rather than a typical standalone Part 91 flight. However, the obstacles are real, the PIC remains responsible for a safe departure, and accepted ATC procedures and climb requirements may create obligations independent of that distinction.
Can I fly an ODP without ATC specifically clearing me for it?
The FAA AIM says an ODP may generally be flown for obstacle clearance without a specific ATC clearance unless ATC assigned an alternate departure procedure, such as a SID or radar vector. The pilot should ensure the route is compatible with the clearance and communicate intentions when necessary.
Why will some airports still show the old obstacle-note format?
The FAA is updating procedures over several years. Legacy and revised formats will coexist, so pilots must brief the current entry instead of assuming the new obstacle categories and DER crossing-height option will always be present.
Primary references
Verify the controlling information
Regulations, procedures, avionics, weather, and airport information can change. Use the current official source for an actual flight or certification decision.