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.