Legality of Taking off 0/0

[Goldmember]

Hey guys, I've been going back over all the IFR chart challenges and IFR regs stuff on AFR.ORG and while doing one of the courses, I came across the "it is legal to take off 0/0 but not advisable" caveat. When I went for my private instrument checkride, I remember telling the examiner how it was legal to take off part 91 0/0 but not a good practice since I couldn't get back in if I had an emergency. He smiled and said everybody who comes to him gives him that same answer but that it is incorrect. (I remember being a little perturbed at John and Martha for teaching me that!) He flipped to the Takeoff mins section in the TPP and showed me the paragraph that reads:

"Civil Users Note: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 prescribes standard takeoff rules and establishes takeoff minimums for certain operators as follows: (1) Aircraft having two engines or less-1 statute mile. (2) Aircraft having more than two engines-one half statute mile. These standard minima apply in the absence of any different minima listed below."

How can we take off 0/0 with a statement like this in the TPP? I mean it seems like ceiling can be crap but we have to have the 1 mile vis. I haven't seen anything in the regs that contradicts this statement so I guess I am looking for someone to point me in the direction of the reg that says we can takeoff 0/0. I'm sure it is there since this is a common teaching but I need to be able to teach my instrument students why they can ignore this section of the TPP...or not.

 

[Ian_J]

Tell your examiner to read just above that part where it says those minimums apply to aircraft operating "under those parts." A bit above that, it specifies those parts as 121, 125, 129, or 135.

Reference: 91.175 (f)

Honestly, this is a pretty sad misunderstanding for an examiner to have.

Edit: Here's the whole thing:

(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums.This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.
(2) If takeoff weather minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a particular airport, the following weather minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR:
(i) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less—1 statute mile visibility.
(ii) For aircraft having more than two engines—1/2statute mile visibility.
(iii) For helicopters—1/2statute mile visibility.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, no pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs.
(4) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, no pilot may takeoff from an airport under IFR unless:
(i) For part 121 and part 135 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff obstacle clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the applicable airplane performance operating limitations requirements under part 121, subpart I or part 135, subpart I for takeoff at that airport; or
(ii) For part 129 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff obstacle clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the airplane performance operating limitations prescribed by the State of the operator for takeoff at that airport.

 

[darrenf]

I have taken off 0/0 when there was ground fog. Clear on top at 30 foot above ground.

 

[tjvpa28]

The examiner was wrong. Takeoff minimums are prescribed in part 91, but if you read the regulation: 91.175(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter. So the regulations for takeoff minimums are in part 91, but specify that they apply to those other operators. Furthermore, page 2-7 of the Instrument Procedures Handbook (an FAA publication) states "Aircraft operating under Part 91 are not required to comply with established takeoff minimums. Legally, a zero/zero departure may be made, but it is never advisable."

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Tell your examiner to read just above that part where it says those minimums apply to aircraft operating "under those parts." A bit above that, it specifies those parts as 121, 125, 129, or 135.

Reference: 91.175 (f)

Honestly, this is a pretty sad misunderstanding for an examiner to have.

Edit: Here's the whole thing:

Truth is that unless they actively worked in a regulatory area, their understanding of some of the ins and outs of the regulations is not much better than anyone else's once you get past the basics.

 

[Goldmember]

Cool, thanks for the help guys. I knew it had to be in there and I just missed it because all the training I've seen says we can go 0/0, but that hiccup on the checkride always stuck with me I guess. Thanks again!

 

[Ian_J]

Truth is that unless they actively worked in a regulatory area, their understanding of some of the ins and outs of the regulations is not much better than anyone else's once you get past the basics.

That's a bit nuts. Do you find that to be true with a lot of examiners you work with?

 

[darrenf]

That's a bit nuts. Do you find that to be true with a lot of examiners you work with?

I almost got into a brawl with my examiner because he liked to use the terms Density and Density Altitude interchangeably! anic:

 

[bafanguy]

Truth is that unless they actively worked in a regulatory area, their understanding of some of the ins and outs of the regulations is not much better than anyone else's once you get past the basics.

I bet that's a pretty accurate statement...and no wonder. The FARs are not exactly "user friendly" and betting the rent money on the interpretation of a fellow jailhouse lawyer has its risks.

Since you have lots of experience in the training world, what do you think is the best way for people to get a firm, accurate understanding of the subject ? I'm not sure just reading them will get the job done in all situations.

Working in a large organization with part of the ground training dept. devoted to this subject along with ops specs for the 121 & 135 people is a step in the right direction. At least you can get an "Interpretation You Can Believe In." :laff:

But with the state of the industry, this area may be getting the ax.

 

[MFT1Air]

That's a bit nuts. Do you find that to be true with a lot of examiners you work with?

A lot

is a rather subjective term, but I've been surprised at how many examiners/CFIs are not as detailed/accurate into regs as I thought they should be.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Since you have lots of experience in the training world,

Says who?

I'm really just a "weekend warrior" with an inclination toward teaching but very little time in which to do it because of my non-aviation career.

what do you think is the best way for people to get a firm, accurate understanding of the subject ? I'm not sure just reading them will get the job done in all situations.

I think you're right. There is a combination of official interpretation, guidance (the AIM and ACs) and practical application that often goes beyond the words in the reg itself. (Who the heck would figure reading the regs that a CFI could fly with a brand new non-pilot student without being passenger current? Want to take a shot at what "known icing" is?)

I took a business law course as a undergrad. What I came away from it with was that people in a vocation (1) need to have a very basic understanding of the rules that apply to them on a day-to-day basis and (2) need to have enough understanding to know when they have gone beyond their knowledge level. IOW, in the business law context a businessperson needs to know when to call a lawyer.

In the aviation world, it's something similar. Most day-to-day stuff is pretty simple. After that, know enough to know when you don't know enough.

 

[bafanguy]

There is a combination of official interpretation, guidance (the AIM and ACs) and practical application that often goes beyond the words in the reg itself.

IOW, in the business law context a businessperson needs to know when to call a lawyer.

In the aviation world, it's something similar. Most day-to-day stuff is pretty simple. After that, know enough to know when you don't know enough.

Ah yes, the rules and the application of those rules. Problem is that pilots may not have the ability to call a lawyer.

The paper edition of the FARs from GPO came with lots of pages called the Preamble, I think. This would explain the regulatory intent and FAA's thinking on a particular change to the FAR. When 91.175 came out in the early '80s, for example, the accompanying Preamble had pages of explanation of the new reg which made complying with it much easier. I don't know if this feature of the FARs is available online or not.

 

[minitour]

That's a bit nuts. Do you find that to be true with a lot of examiners you work with?

You'd be amazed what examiners like to think/preach to people.

I remember my first multi-student. Duchess. We went out for the checkride, to a guy we hadn't heard of before but he was the closest duchess examiner we could find.

We showed up and I just hung out at the FBO while they did the oral and flight. Everything seemed to be going fine, and I actually went up in the tower to watch them on the "feed" for a little bit.

They came back and he started screaming at me because I didn't show the student that you HAVE TO continue after V1. I mentioned that the Duchess didn't have a V1 chart, published speed or other means to figure out what that speed is and that my personal belief was that if the gear was down, you'd stop straight ahead. If it was up or in transition, you'd try to climb away at Vyse.

No, not according to him. You HAVE to continue after V1...sure...in airplanes with published V1 speeds/charts that meet the appropriate climb criteria. He was *this close* to calling the fed to revoke my Multi-engine rating and Multi-engine CFI rating according to him.

When an examiner doesn't understand the regs, that's usually a quick debate/discussion and we move on. When the examiner is trying to preach something dangerous, that's where I draw the line. You can't continue after Vmc+5 (his definition of V1 for a light piston twin) in all conditions...especially not in a duchess. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

We also had an examiner try to declare that if you shut down an engine in flight (for a multi-ride) that "by definition" is an emergency and you had to declare an emergency. And that any declaration of an emergency on a checkride was an immediate pink slip for the applicant...which is why he didn't do multi-engine checkrides. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

As for a 0/0. I did one. Once in a 172. Never again. There's a reason why you can't do them under air carrier regulations and it's a good one.

-mini

 

[jtrain609]

I did a flight with a kid once in the Seminole. Already had his multi engine rating, just wasn't current and wanted somebody to come along with him.

As we're passing 80 knots he calls "V1" and shortly after, "rotate." As soon as I hear the words V1 my hand moves up under the throttles, knowing that this kid is gonna try to continue the takeoff if we lose an engine. If that happens, I want to be able to pull the throttles back to idle before we're both dead.

We get up into the climb and I say to him, "You know there isn't a V1 speed in this aircraft, right?"

Guy had no idea. Had 100 hours in the Seminole, and had no idea. I don't even think he knew what V1 really stood for, just that airline pilots say it and he wanted to be an airline pilot.

 

[Roger, Roger]

They came back and he started screaming at me because I didn't show the student that you HAVE TO continue after V1. I mentioned that the Duchess didn't have a V1 chart, published speed or other means to figure out what that speed is and that my personal belief was that if the gear was down, you'd stop straight ahead. If it was up or in transition, you'd try to climb away at Vyse.

No, not according to him. You HAVE to continue after V1...sure...in airplanes with published V1 speeds/charts that meet the appropriate climb criteria. He was *this close* to calling the fed to revoke my Multi-engine rating and Multi-engine CFI rating according to him.

When an examiner doesn't understand the regs, that's usually a quick debate/discussion and we move on. When the examiner is trying to preach something dangerous, that's where I draw the line. You can't continue after Vmc+5 (his definition of V1 for a light piston twin) in all conditions...especially not in a duchess. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

As we're passing 80 knots he calls "V1" and shortly after, "rotate." As soon as I hear the words V1 my hand moves up under the throttles, knowing that this kid is gonna try to continue the takeoff if we lose an engine. If that happens, I want to be able to pull the throttles back to idle before we're both dead.

We get up into the climb and I say to him, "You know there isn't a V1 speed in this aircraft, right?"

Guy had no idea. Had 100 hours in the Seminole, and had no idea. I don't even think he knew what V1 really stood for, just that airline pilots say it and he wanted to be an airline pilot.

Yikes. Trying to continue a takeoff single engine...in a Duchess (or Semi, I hear they perform similarly). anic:anic:anic:

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Ah yes, the rules and the application of those rules. Problem is that pilots may not have the ability to call a lawyer.

The paper edition of the FARs from GPO came with lots of pages called the Preamble, I think. This would explain the regulatory intent and FAA's thinking on a particular change to the FAR. When 91.175 came out in the early '80s, for example, the accompanying Preamble had pages of explanation of the new reg which made complying with it much easier. I don't know if this feature of the FARs is available online or not.

It is, at least for "preambles" going back to 1994.

The procedure is not FAR-specific. For most new regs and modified regs, federal agencies are required to publish proposals ahead of time. The process is proposed rule - comment period - final rule. (There can be modifications to the procedure, such as a proposed rule than never becomes final or a proposed rule that goes through multiple modifications and comment periods).

The publication of both the proposed rule and the final rule generally include explanatory material, which you are refer to as the "preamble."

If you want to look around, the Federal Register in which these things are published is here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html

And remember that for this purpose the FAR is "14 C.F.R. Part..." Look for "FAR" and you are far more likely to end up in "Federal Acquisition Regulations" than the "Federal Aviation Regulations." Of course, if you end up browsing =that= FAR you may come away with a completely different view of how complicated "our" FAR is.

 

[minitour]

Yikes. Trying to continue a takeoff single engine...in a Duchess (or Semi, I hear they perform similarly). anic:anic:anic:

Very similarly. They're almost the same aircraft IIRC. The semenhole seems to "pop" off of the runway vs. the duchess kind of "smoothing" itself off of the runway. That's all I can remember as far as the big stuff.

-mini