IFR takeoff minimums

S

SHayes

New Member
FAR 61.175(f) says "This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter."

That did not used to be in there so what are the Part 91 IFR takeoff minimums now. Of course, if published under Part 97 they apply but if no Part 97 then standard should apply but read above? What are standard Part 91 minimums now?
 
I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that there were NO part 91 takeoff minimums. If you want to take off 0/0 knock yourself out.
 
SHayes said:
FAR 61.175(f) says "This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter."

That did not used to be in there so what are the Part 91 IFR takeoff minimums now. Of course, if published under Part 97 they apply but if no Part 97 then standard should apply but read above? What are standard Part 91 minimums now?
Click to expand...

Maybe you mean 91.175?

Anyway, hasn't zero/zero always been legal for 91?
 
SHayes said:
That did not used to be in there so what are the Part 91 IFR takeoff minimums now. Of course, if published under Part 97 they apply but if no Part 97 then standard should apply but read above? What are standard Part 91 minimums now?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's always been there. Never has been any take-off minimums for part 91. We don't need no steenking meenymums. :cool:
 
vikingair said:
True dat! However you must still comply with airport specific mins if they have any.
Click to expand...

jhugz said:
Are you talking about the ones in the front of the approach plates? If so then you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I just ran into a situation where I was not allowed to take-off due to airport minimums. In fact, I wasn't even allowed to taxi to the runway until field vis was up to 1/2 mile/2600 RVR. I was on a Part 91 flight.

Any guess why? :)
 
SteveC said:
I just ran into a situation where I was not allowed to take-off due to airport minimums. In fact, I wasn't even allowed to taxi to the runway until field vis was up to 1/2 mile/2600 RVR. I was on a Part 91 flight.

Any guess why? :)
Click to expand...


Canada?
 
You're correct that theres no reg requiring adherence to non-standard take off mins (in the front) for part 91 but remember that the determinant for those is ROC and not visibility. A 0/0 take off won't put you into the side of a mountain but not meeting the climb gradient will.
 
vikingair said:
You're correct that theres no reg requiring adherence to non-standard take off mins (in the front) for part 91 but remember that the determinant for those is ROC and not visibility. A 0/0 take off won't put you into the side of a mountain but not meeting the climb gradient will.
Click to expand...


Million dollar question. Does your aircraft publish an all engine climb gradient chart?
 
400A said:
Million dollar question. Does your aircraft publish an all engine climb gradient chart?
Click to expand...

Can we assume that if our aircraft can meet the required gradient on a single engine that it can also do so with both/all engines turning?
 
I think this is the worst non reg. Taking off in 0/0 is just plain stupid, specially in a piston. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right or safe and the FAA really should come up with something for Part 91 pilots to fallow with out getting into the 91.13 argument.

I personally use approach minimums as my take off mins, that way if I have an immediate problem I can at least get back into the airport. Call me a pansy but a big pair will do you no good in a casket.
 
Champcar said:
Call me a pansy but a big pair will do you no good in a casket.
Click to expand...


You will just have to get a bigger casket that is wider at the waist:).
At Continental, in order to takeoff below Category 1 minimums (200' and 1/2 mi) we need a takeoff alternate within a one hour range - 390 nm on a 737. On a single engine piston airplane, I would be hard pressed to takeoff zero zero if I didn't have a reasonably close place to go if I needed to get back on the ground quickly. I have said it many times: "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
 
SteveC said:
Can we assume that if our aircraft can meet the required gradient on a single engine that it can also do so with both/all engines turning?
Click to expand...
if you have data for single engine climb to the top of the DP and data for climb performance loss in turns. Also that single engine data cannot be extrapolated ie some aircraft do have ten minute charts for climbs at v2 but those charts are typically not FAA approved (no concern for 91 ops).
 
Champcar said:
I think this is the worst non reg. Taking off in 0/0 is just plain stupid, specially in a piston. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right or safe and the FAA really should come up with something for Part 91 pilots to fallow with out getting into the 91.13 argument.

I personally use approach minimums as my take off mins, that way if I have an immediate problem I can at least get back into the airport. Call me a pansy but a big pair will do you no good in a casket.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I look at it, if something were to happen I'd want to be able to shoot an approach back in.
 
My policy for our Part 91 operation is that we will not depart if we don't have landing minimums 200 for ILS 500 for GPS. Seldom is it even an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top