Technicality Question that has probably been asked before

[ppragman]

Imagine you're on the ground at an airport with a thin layer of fog. The vis is 1/4 SM, and you know that the ceiling is only 200' thick (because you're psychic, or have a balloon with a camera and an altimeter on it, or whatever, this is a thought experiment bear with me). You're part 91, and the airspace is class G until 1200' AGL. The terrain is non-mountainous. There's no obstacles that require an ODP or anything like that.

Could you depart IFR without a clearance in Class G because by the time you enter controlled airspace at 1200' AGL you're 1000' above the clouds, and because the entire time you were in Class G you were climbing out - which means you're not in violation of 91.177 (except as required for takeoff and landing), then when you become VFR at 1200' you're 1000' above the cloud layer. The only thing I can think of would be the catch-all 91.13 violation if they wanted to get you - but out of curiosity, anyone have any case law?

 

[Houston]

Could you depart IFR without a clearance in Class G

Yes. However, the aircraft and pilot both have to be IFR capable and current.

Obviously, there are hazards associated with taking off into IMC without a clearance, to include encountering someone else who is doing the same thing.

Here is an accident report of a fellow who took off into IMC with the intention of picking up his clearance in the air before entering controlled airspace:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20001212X21661&ntsbno=CHI00FA276&akey=1

When faced with such a situation, a safer course of action is to obtain a void time clearance.

 

[Seggy]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe.

 

[shdw]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe.

That is true about a lot of things. Though it's nice to know what you're legally allowed to do, then you can move on to deciding whether or not it is safe. Me personally, in a single, I want to have the ability to return should I have an engine out situation. In a twin, however, I would have no problem departing given there is an airport relatively close where I could land should there be an issue.

These are my personal safety precautions, yours and the OP's might be different. If it weren't legal there would be no need to consider this though, right? I'm glad to know it's legal as I like having the opportunity to make my own decisions.

 

[mikecweb]

Bob at Amflight used to ask a question very similar to this. @jtrain609 probably knows it since he was on of his minions.

 

[jtrain609]

Bob at Amflight used to ask a question very similar to this. @jtrain609 probably knows it since he was on of his minions.

Bob loved crap like this. Which meant I loved crap like this whether I liked it or not.

I think @Seggy has the proper point here. Whether you could legally do this or not doesn't matter; an IFR departure to a VFR climb, with no clearance (even if one isn't required) sounds like a real easy way to hit somebody that's inbound to the airport.

 

[mikecweb]

Bob loved crap like this. Which meant I loved crap like this whether I liked it or not.

I think @Seggy has the proper point here. Whether you could legally do this or not doesn't matter; an IFR departure to a VFR climb, with no clearance (even if one isn't required) sounds like a real easy way to hit somebody that's inbound to the airport.

Just announce any traffic in the area please advise.

 

[Roger Roger]

Bob loved crap like this. Which meant I loved crap like this whether I liked it or not.

I think @Seggy has the proper point here. Whether you could legally do this or not doesn't matter; an IFR departure to a VFR climb, with no clearance (even if one isn't required) sounds like a real easy way to hit somebody that's inbound to the airport.

I'm not sure you fully comprehend the nowhereness of some of the places praggles operates out of. They make places like Hoonah or even Excursion Inlet look like busy international airports.

 

[jtrain609]

I'm not sure you fully comprehend the nowhereness of some of the places praggles operates out of. They make places like Hoonah or even Excursion Inlet look like busy international airports.

I grew up in a place like he's describing.

But a king air still showed up with some respectable frequency.

 

[TallFlyer]

I grew up in a place like he's describing.

So you grew up in a native village with a 2,500 ft gravel strip that was hundreds of miles from the nearest road that actually connected to civilization?

 

[mikecweb]

So you grew up in a native village with a 2,500 ft gravel strip that was hundreds of miles from the nearest road that actually connected to civilization?

His mom tells me all about it.

 

[jtrain609]

So you grew up in a native village with a 2,500 ft gravel strip that was hundreds of miles from the nearest road that actually connected to civilization?

Thousands of miles, actually.

 

[Boyington]

Heres a link that was posted on here a few years ago. A guy did this and was violated for being careless or reckless. It is "legal", almost, but you will get violated.....and not in the good way.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

 

[Roger Roger]

It does raise a question though, if the FAA is going to violate you for careless and reckless for doing something that is pretty letter of the law legal (even according to the ALJ in the posted case), why do they even allow it?

 

[z987k]

Heres a link that was posted on here a few years ago. A guy did this and was violated for being careless and reckless. It is "legal", almost, but you will get violated.....and not in the good way.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

That has the caveat of the pilot couldn't get a release and took off anyways.

 

[Houston]

It does raise a question though, if the FAA is going to violate you for careless and reckless for doing something that is pretty letter of the law legal (even according to the ALJ in the posted case), why do they even allow it?

At the very end of the NTSB's Order, it says the following:

With regard to respondent's assertion that, "f anytime
an aircraft enters clouds in uncontrolled airspace it is careless
without a clearance then the FAR's should be changed," we note
that it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to attempt
to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considered
careless.

 

[Boyington]

It is perfectly legal until you get violated. The FAA can use 91.13 anytime that they want.

 

[z987k]

It is perfectly legal until you get violated. The FAA can use 91.13 anytime that they want.

If we seriously apply that logic to everything then we're not allowed to fly.

 

[Boyington]

If we seriously apply that logic to everything then we're not allowed to fly.

I am not saying that I do not agree with you, but that is what the FAA is saying here.

"it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to attempt to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considered careless"

If it could be considered careless, think twice before doing it. I believe that is the moral of this one.

 

[Roger Roger]

I am not saying that I do not agree with you, but that is what the FAA is saying here.

"it would be neither wise nor possible for the FAA to attempt to specifically prohibit every form of conduct that it considered careless"

If it could be considered careless, think twice before doing it. I believe that is the moral of this one.

but the problem is, careless is in the eye of the beholder. A guy blasting off from a mine strip in interior Alaska really isn't gonna consider blowing through a 100' ground fog layer (perfectly legally, per airspace and cloud clearance rules, btw) to be anything remotely approaching careless. Meanwhile some others on this board would have a coronary at the mere thought.