IMC without ATC?

[OldTownPilot]

........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? ......

Sad, but the truth.

Every time you fly, you are doing something illegal.

That is assuming you can't fly perfectly, because nobody ever does.

rotate 2 kts after V1.....careless.

1 kt below ref.....careless.

and so on.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

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.

I like your thinking.

 

[USMCmech]

It's illegal, mildly unsafe and highly stupid.

Actually it is legal, not the least unsafe, and is done thousands of time every say. Every time you depart or arrive to a uncontrolled airport where class E starts at 700 or 1200 AGL, you have flown IFR (and possibly IMC) without the bennift of ATC.

ATC- "enter controlled airspace heading 130....."

Note that fact that he did NOT tell you what to do between the time your wheels lift off, and you climb into class E. Durring this time you would be possibly IMC without being under ATC controll.


And also, as has been noted in sparsely populated areas where class G may go considerably higher, this is SOP.

 

[ppragman]

I like your thinking.

Thanks.

 

[Fly_Unity]

Interesting I noticed today (after this thread came up) ATC said to me "upon entering controlled airspace, climb and maintain 13,000, Maintain own navigation and terrain clearance while in uncontrolled airspace" (something along them lines) . This was on an IFR flight plan. It didnt matter to them If I was, or was NOT on an IFR flight plan. Its still the same thing, Uncontrolled.

The guys saying its illegal probably haven't barely seen class G above 1,200 AGL, let alone flew IMC in it.

Im not condoning just going out and flying IMC in uncontrolled airspace, however it is legal, and being on an IFR flight plan wont really make it safer as its still uncontrolled.

 

[tgrayson]

The guys saying its illegal probably haven't barely seen class G above 1,200 AGL, let alone flew IMC in it.

The "guys" saying it have the NTSB ruling to back it up. The best you can argue is that it doesn't have universal applicability, but that remains an argument until there is case law to support that.

Telling people "it's legal" seems a bit disingenuous to me when the only case we have knowledge of says that it is not.

 

[Fly_Unity]

The "guys" saying it have the NTSB ruling to back it up. The best you can argue is that it doesn't have universal applicability, but that remains an argument until there is case law to support that.

Telling people "it's legal" seems a bit disingenuous to me when the only case we have knowledge of says that it is not.

Actually on that link you provided with, The court ruled that "Takeoff into controlled airspace was "technically" legal, but he was nonetheless careless in violation of 91.13"

It appears to me that even they admitted it was "technically" legal. What the pilot did wrong in that case was carelessly, enter IMC at 200 AGL with lots of traffic from a nearby airport when he was refused a clearance from ATC. Then he expected to get a clearance before he got into controlled airspace at 700 AGL. To me this was careless, reckless and justified a 91.13 violation. (which is what they gave him)

As far as punching though a small cloud at 10,000 MSL in uncontrolled airspace in the middle of nowhere. I dont see 91.13 coming into play at all, but I guess its a judgment thing.

You could get violated for 91.13 doing almost anything if you do it recklessly, that dont mean that everything you do is illegal. The FAA wants some common sense, and some safe flying, not die-hard rules.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The "guys" saying it have the NTSB ruling to back it up. The best you can argue is that it doesn't have universal applicability, but that remains an argument until there is case law to support that.

Telling people "it's legal" seems a bit disingenuous to me when the only case we have knowledge of says that it is not.

I don't agree. One case with a specific fact pattern (in which safety of flight is pretty clearly an issue) that led to a result does not equal a general rule.

I don't think FlyUnity's read is disingenuous at all. Quite the opposite.

I think it's way too easy (and probably disingenuous) to say, "that guy got arrested for standing on a street corner, so it's illegal to stand on street corners." Looking at why he got arrested on the street corner takes a little more effort, but is usually worth it.

Now, one could certainly argue that in today's airspace where Class E appears at 700 or 1200 AGL almost everywhere, it is going to be a rare situation where non-controlled flight in actual instrument conditions is not going to be a problem from a 91.13 point of view. But that still doesn't make non-clearance flight in Class G illegal.

Actually, the general rule I get out of the case has nothing to do with flight in IMC. The universal rule I get is that something (anything?) that is technically permissible under the FAR can still be done in a way that can result in certificate action for a safety violation under 91.13.

The case doesn't say "it's not legal." The case says, "Yeah, it's legal. But so what?"

 

[ppragman]

I don't agree. One case with a specific fact pattern (in which safety of flight is pretty clearly an issue) that led to a result does not equal a general rule.

I don't think FlyUnity's read is disingenuous at all. Quite the opposite.

I think it's way too easy (and probably disingenuous) to say, "that guy got arrested for standing on a street corner, so it's illegal to stand on street corners." Looking at why he got arrested on the street corner takes a little more effort, but is usually worth it.

Now, one could certainly argue that in today's airspace where Class E appears at 700 or 1200 AGL almost everywhere, it is going to be a rare situation where non-controlled flight in actual instrument conditions is not going to be a problem from a 91.13 point of view. But that still doesn't make non-clearance flight in Class G illegal.

Actually, the general rule I get out of the case has nothing to do with flight in IMC. The universal rule I get is that something (anything?) that is technically permissible under the FAR can still be done in a way that can result in certificate action for a safety violation under 91.13.

The case doesn't say "it's not legal." The case says, "Yeah, it's legal. But so what?"

Exactly right, the case says nothing about the legality in ifr in class g, in fact they acknowledge its legitimacy, what happened here was a safety of flight issue. Nothing more. If, and its a big if, the feds thought it was important enough of a case that they wanted to make IFR from class G illegal, they would have changed the regulations. The federales expect you to follow the far/aim. That's the only guidance they can give you in a lot of respects. They don't expect, nor do they want people going off to find NTSB reports about specific scenarios and second guessing them. I'm not saying that the far/aim is the end all to ends all in any respects, that solution to problems that doesn't get you killed is what's most important, however, follow the far/aim and you should be alright. They didn't bust the guy for flying in IMC. They busted him for being dangerous.

 

[tgrayson]

The court ruled that "Takeoff into controlled airspace was "technically" legal, but he was nonetheless careless in violation of 91.13"

Which makes the "technically legal" a moot point. Bringing up the legality without informing the listener that pilots have been violated for doing so is misinforming them.

We don't know the extent to which the FAA will call the practice a violation of 91.13. Your speculation about the criteria necessary for the FAA to make this determination does not appear supported by the case at hand. The controlled airspace aspect was not the only issue:

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." 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."
​

In most cases similar to that of the NTSB case, I would agree with the FAA that it's a form of Russian Roulette.

 

[ppragman]

Which makes the "technically legal" a moot point. Bringing up the legality without informing the listener that pilots have been violated for doing so is misinforming them.

We don't know the extent to which the FAA will call the practice a violation of 91.13. Your speculation about the criteria necessary for the FAA to make this determination does not appear supported by the case at hand. The controlled airspace aspect was not the only issue:

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." 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."
​

In most cases similar to that of the NTSB case, I would agree with the FAA that it's a form of Russian Roulette.

The NTSB is not regulatory in nature, follow the FARs

 

[tgrayson]

I don't agree. One case with a specific fact pattern (in which safety of flight is pretty clearly an issue) that led to a result does not equal a general rule.

It doesn't mean that it's not a general rule either. The point is, we don't know. There don't appear to be enough cases to draw a strong inference. The case does refer to another NTSB case that I have not read.

Looking at why he got arrested on the street corner takes a little more effort, but is usually worth it.

It certainly does. In this case, the NTSB pointed out that "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." There is nothing there about the relationship of the class G to the class E airspace. This is akin to, using your analogy, saying that a man standing on the corner is a collision hazard to traffic that might jump the curb. That would render pretty much all corner-standing illegal.

 

[tgrayson]

The NTSB is not regulatory in nature, follow the FARs

That's silly. The regulations are meaningless without the context of how the judges (or FAA) enforce the law.

 

[esa17]

Its not illegal and its not any more unsafe than many other things we do. Those who want to nail you will be able to find something so I recommend either coming to terms with that or picking a new profession.

That's silly. The regulations are meaningless without the context of how the judges (or FAA) enforce the law.

Nothing silly about it, thems the facts. The NTSB does not make policy, they only make recommendations.

 

[Maurus]

In the case thatw as posted I noticed they guy departed right after another guy that had a clearance. With the ability to obtain a clearance on the ground for the airport, there was no reason to not obtian a clearance prior to entering IMC. This is why I believe the guy got hit with a 91.13 violation.

If you are at an airport with no way to get a clearance on the ground, then the same situation probably would be looked at differently.

 

[ppragman]

In the case thatw as posted I noticed they guy departed right after another guy that had a clearance. With the ability to obtain a clearance on the ground for the airport, there was no reason to not obtian a clearance prior to entering IMC. This is why I believe the guy got hit with a 91.13 violation.

If you are at an airport with no way to get a clearance on the ground, then the same situation probably would be looked at differently.

Exactly the spirit of the law. The feds will nail you if you use a loophole because you're in a hurry. Out here however it is a little bit different. There are times when you can't go IFR with a clearance because there is no radio or radar contact with any facility, and no phone on the ground. You need to boogie on out, and you have to go IFR because the wx is garbage, what do you do?

There are other times when flying IMC in class g is the only safe way to proceed. E.g. crossing the shelikov straight in a single engine airplane. Do you descend to avoid clouds? Because if you lose an engine then, its a death sentence.

 

[tgrayson]

Nothing silly about it, thems the facts. The NTSB does not make policy, they only make recommendations.

You're confused over the role of the NTSB in accident investigation vs its role as a Court of Appeals for airman certificate actions. The rulings are binding on the FAA. Note that the ALJ issued an "Order", not a recommendation:

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent's appeal is denied;
2. The initial decision is affirmed; and
3. The 90-day suspension of respondent's airman pilot
certificate shall commence 30 days after the service of this
opinion and order.9

 

[tgrayson]

there was no reason to not obtain a clearance prior to entering IMC. This is why I believe the guy got hit with a 91.13 violation.

You didn't read the case very closely. Here's what it said:

...requested an IFR to proceed to Indianapolis. (Tr. 147.) His request was denied because the Indianapolis airport was below IFR and was not accepting any additional traffic.

So the case doesn't support your hypothesis regarding the reasoning of the violation, and, in fact, contradicts it.

 

[esa17]

You're confused over the role of the NTSB in accident investigation vs its role as a Court of Appeals for airman certificate actions. The rulings are binding on the FAA. Note that the ALJ issued an "Order", not a recommendation:

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent's appeal is denied;
2. The initial decision is affirmed; and
3. The 90-day suspension of respondent's airman pilot
certificate shall commence 30 days after the service of this
opinion and order.9

Correct, however, the FAA issues the initial certificate action. The NTSB is just our version of the appeals board. The NTSB doesn't jump out of the box and say "you did something bad so you can't fly any more."

 

[Fly_Unity]

...this type of takeoff "also create the hazard of a collision with other aircraft.

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