IMC without ATC?

Holocene

Holocene

Well-Known Member
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?
 
Holocene said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ppragman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Although this still seems a bit dangerous if there's other traffic involved...:confused:

btw, yes, I know class-G can exist above 1,200' AGL, just not out this way....lol
 
Holocene said:
Thanks. Although this still seems a bit dangerous if there's other traffic involved...
Click to expand...

There is at least one NTSB case where a violation was sustained against a pilot for flying IFR in Class G without a clearance. The underlying violation was 91.13.
 
Ive done it some here in Wyoming. Alot of G airspace here, One class G airport I fly out of is impossible to get ATC coverage or cell phone coverage to get your clearance until 5 or 6000 AGL. nothing wrong with going in IMC to get out of the airport. I dont see it unsafe. you still need to be instrument rated, equipped, and have a radio. In fact ATC here says "maintain VFR WHILE in controlled airspace". Also on the flights I do VFR with Flight following and there are a few small clouds along my route, it saves the bother of diverting around it. With Flight following I dont see it dangerous at all. Very rare you will find IFR traffic in class G airspace anyhow.

I believe the guy that was violated, was flying below 2000 AGL in IMC
 
Holocene, class G = uncontrolled. Meaning ATC doesn't have any jurisdiction there. Nothing on an instrument rating limits you to flying in clouds in controlled airspace only.

minitour said:
Don't do it. It's illegal, mildly unsafe and highly stupid.

-mini
Click to expand...

How so? If you have an instrument rating, are in an airworthy IFR aircraft, and have your terrain clearance, there's nothing illegal about it. Mildly unsafe, sure. But so is flying in general. In terms of traffic conflicts, it's risk management, just like everything else in flying. You're probably a lot more likely to have a midair flying around LA in severe clear than you are in the soup in eastern WY/MT.

Fly_Unity, where do you fly out of? I end up in GCC and EAN several times a week.
 
tgrayson said:
There is at least one NTSB case where a violation was sustained against a pilot for flying IFR in Class G without a clearance. The underlying violation was 91.13.
Click to expand...
The case (if we're thinking of the same one) involves a pilot taking off in IMC from a coastal California airport. The 91.13 issue was that, by doing so, the pilot was potentially causing a problem for IFR traffic in controlled airspace (with clearances) just outside the Class G or traffic doing instrument approaches into the same airport.

I always wondered about what the result would be if the pilot had simply called ATC and let them know what he was doing.

As we all kow, "legal" does not equal "safe". And when "technically legal but unsafe" means potential danger to others, 91.13 comes into play.

Not all IMC in Class G is created equal for IFR purposes.
 
XcalibeR said:
Fly_Unity, where do you fly out of? I end up in GCC and EAN several times a week.
Click to expand...


Im based out of KCOD, Very west side of Wyoming in the rockys, beside Yellowstone National Park. I do however fly to the KGCC area once or twice a weak, one of my clients has an oil field there.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The case (if we're thinking of the same one) involves a pilot taking off in IMC from a coastal California airport. The 91.13 issue was that, by doing so, the pilot was potentially causing a problem for IFR traffic in controlled airspace (with clearances) just outside the Class G or traffic doing instrument approaches into the same airport.

I always wondered about what the result would be if the pilot had simply called ATC and let them know what he was doing.

As we all kow, "legal" does not equal "safe". And when "technically legal but unsafe" means potential danger to others, 91.13 comes into play.

Not all IMC in Class G is created equal for IFR purposes.
Click to expand...

I dunno, its not really that unsafe. Its probably about as safe as scud running, which isn't the pinnacle of safety, but isn't really bad compared to some of the other things out there. I don't know if I'd do it on a regular basis, but I've done it once or twice, and I didn't think there was any danger.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The 91.13 issue was that, by doing so, the pilot was potentially causing a problem for IFR traffic in controlled airspace (with clearances) just outside the Class G or traffic doing instrument approaches into the same airport.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's unclear as to how broad that case can be applied. If there were no class E until 14,500, could the pilot have taken off from a class G and then land at another class G? He still had the potential to encounter another aircraft operating in IMC without a clearance; I think the case brought out that possibility.
 
tgrayson said:
You can't determine that by reading either the AIM or the regulations, but rather, you have to see how the law has been applied. We know that in some cases, it is illegal.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of this has to do with taking off IFR, because on the climb out you can't maintain the adequate terrain clearance. I think if you punched through in cruise I don't think it would be as frowned on. Not sure though, do you have a link to the judgment?
 
Is it legal, yes, a good idea NO WAY! Just dont do it and you will be fine. Those who decide to fly IMC in class G are asking for trouble, plain and simple!
 
XcalibeR said:
How so?
Click to expand...
Someone already tried it. He lost.

If you do it and get caught, you will be violated. There's legal precedent there.

ppragman said:
Not illegal. Read the AIM 3-3-3
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the AIM. I already know what the judge will say when they drag me into the hearing. It's already been done. Pilot lost. The AIM didn't save him. The regs didn't save him. The judge said what he did was illegal. Whether he violated a rule for not having a clearance or just got violated for being careless and reckless (which, IMO it is) either way, a judge said it's illegal. This has been discussed before.

Again, it comes down to "if you don't get caught ..." but we shouldn't be asking "how much can I get away with?", should we?

-mini
 
ppragman said:
I think a lot of this has to do with taking off IFR, because on the climb out you can't maintain the adequate terrain clearance. I think if you punched through in cruise I don't think it would be as frowned on. Not sure though, do you have a link to the judgment?
Click to expand...

The issue wasn't terrain clearance, but separation from other IFR traffic. I posted the judgment the last time this came up. Here's the link:

NTSB--IFR in Class G Airspace
 
minitour said:
Someone already tried it. He lost.

If you do it and get caught, you will be violated. There's legal precedent there.



I don't need to read the AIM. I already know what the judge will say when they drag me into the hearing. It's already been done. Pilot lost. The AIM didn't save him. The regs didn't save him. The judge said what he did was illegal. Whether he violated a rule for not having a clearance or just got violated for being careless and reckless (which, IMO it is) either way, a judge said it's illegal. This has been discussed before.

Again, it comes down to "if you don't get caught ..." but we shouldn't be asking "how much can I get away with?", should we?

-mini
Click to expand...

By that standard, there is nothing you can do that is right and you might as well quit flying because they can always find something to violate you for. Further, if you show yourself to be an idiot in the hearing, you'll find yourself violated. If you show yourself to be logical and methodical in your processes, you should be fine. Because a judge ruled one way once under a specific set of circumstances doesn't mean a judge will rule the same way again under different circumstances. You know the sad thing, every time you take off they could get you under 91.13, because its safer to sit on the ground than it is to take off, who knows what could happen when you rotate? Irregardless, the fact of the matter remains, the procedures for operations under IFR in class G airspace are outlined in the AIM and in the FARs, and thus are legal, provided you don't cause problems for other traffic, and maintain adequate terrain separation. If you cause a safety of flight issue (e.g. getting to close to some guy in controlled airspace) then you may be in trouble. Think for yourself on this one and you should be fine, don't just "do it because its legal," think over the ramifacations of doing so, then do or do not.

BTW thanks tgrayson for the link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top