IMC without ATC?

[ppragman]

Read the underline part. This type of takeoff is dangerous!! Entering IMC without radio contact at 200 AGL with lots of traffic in the area, and expecting to get clearance before reaching 700 AGL? that's where 91.13 comes into play! That dont mean its always illegal punch through a cloud with VFR flight following at 10,000 feet. If you read right, the judge dismissed the 91.155 charge because he didnt violate it! I wonder how many cases we never heard about that were dismissed when pilots entered class G without clearance because the pilot never violated 91.155. In this instance this guy was unsafe about it and got the 91.13 charge.

The feds can violate a pilot if he flies at the busiest uncontrolled airport without a radio carelessly and recklessly, it dont mean that a radio is required at ALL uncontrolled airports

Ducks have wings, this creature has wings, therefore it must be a duck.

 

[Lefty]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but from what I've read with regard to the instrument rating, it's completely legal to fly in IMC, without an IFR flight plan, and even without ATC seperation, if in class-G airspace.

How can this be legal? What's to stop two planes from colliding if they're out messing around in IMC below 1,200' AGL?

Surely I've interpreted the FAR's wrong?

This entire thread to me seems to have taken a few different twists, and terms seems to have been incorrectly used. The original question, (If I am interpreting correctly...) is, Is it completely legal to fly IMC while on a VFR flight without an IFR flightplan (obviously, being that your VFR) while in Class G, without ATC separation?

I am trying to figure out why so many people say that is legal, especially without regard to 91.155 of the FARs. Basic VFR weather minimums DO apply. For example, above 1200' AGL but below 10,000' MSL says during the day (in class G) you must have 1 statute mile of vis, with 500' below, 1000' above and 2000' feet horizontal of any cloud. I would find it very hard to punch through a cloud while maintaining those minimums

 

[OldTownPilot]

Except you are not on a 'VFR' flight.

IFR, without a clearance, not VFR.

 

[Lefty]

Except you are not on a 'VFR' flight.

IFR, without a clearance, not VFR.

Yea I understand what you are saying, but the origianl question is unclear. I don't see anywhere where the OP implied that he was going to pickup a clearance when he launched and then asked the question,

"What's to stop two planes from colliding if they're out messing around in IMC below 1,200' AGL?"

It seems to me that he is implying someone out flying around punching through clouds.

 

[tgrayson]

If you read right, the judge dismissed the 91.155 charge because he didnt violate it!

That's not relevant. Who cares what regulation he violated? The point is the behavior violates some regulation.

Entering IMC without radio contact at 200 AGL with lots of traffic in the area, and expecting to get clearance before reaching 700 AGL? that's where 91.13 comes into play!

You're only reading the part that supports your point of view and ignoring that which doesn't. There were essentially two prongs:

1. a pilot departing from an uncontrolled field in instrument conditions but without a clearance has no assurance that VFR conditions will prevail when he reaches controlled airspace."
2. And furthermore, this type of takeoff "also create the hazard of a collision with other aircraft. The see and avoid concept would be nullified and there would be no other means of assuring separation from other aircraft."
   

Neither prong mentions "lots of traffic" and only the first prong is concerned with entering controlled airspace. The second prong is airspace-independent, as written.

That don't mean its always illegal punch through a cloud with VFR flight following at 10,000 feet.

I agree that a judge might evaluate this differently. Or might not, who knows? I could make the argument either way.

 

[Lefty]

Totally legal in class g provided you are 1000' above terrain in non-mountainous, and 2000' AGL in mountainous. I've done it before, no need for a clearance, or separation, but the places you do this are pretty much remote and hard to find.

What this really means is that if you're at 5000AGL in class g, and there is a cloud ahead you don't have to divert around the cloud. Just look north east of PASV there is still some class g up there.

This one implies VFR only as well...

 

[tgrayson]

he NTSB doesn't jump out of the box and say "you did something bad so you can't fly any more."

So what? The NTSB rulings become part of the law which guides the behavior of the FAA, so in that sense it is regulatory. By failing to overturn the FAA certificate action, they've basically said "if you want to violate people over this issue, it's ok with us." This effectively has changed the law, since it has changed the way the law is applied.

 

[ppragman]

This one implies VFR only as well...

No it does not. You don't need to be on an IFR flight plan to be IFR provided you're in class g. You can be vfr, then ifr, then vfr then ifr all you want provided you follow the outlined rules in the fars and the aim.

The reason that guy got in trouble was because he tried to cheat.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

This entire thread to me seems to have taken a few different twists, and terms seems to have been incorrectly used. The original question, (If I am interpreting correctly...) is, Is it completely legal to fly IMC while on a VFR flight without an IFR flightplan (obviously, being that your VFR) while in Class G, without ATC separation?

I think you are mis-interpreting the question. The OP does not say it's a VFR flight.

Obviously if it is a VFR flight, say with a VFR-only pilot, it's illegal.

The question was whether it is legal for an instrument-rated pilot to fly in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without an IFR clearance, which it technically is.

Yea I understand what you are saying, but the origianl question is unclear. I don't see anywhere where the OP implied that he was going to pickup a clearance when he launched and then asked the question,

That's because he didn't imply any such thing. I think you're adding stuff to the question that just isn't there.

Start here:
==============================
§ 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has -
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
==============================

Note that the requirement for a flight plan and an IFR clearance is a "controlled airspace" requirement and does not apply to Class G airspace.

That's sort of the starting point of the discussion.