Takeoff under IFR
- Thread starter mshunter
- Start date
:insane: I know. But I hate the legal wording they use. It can be confusing to my little brain.
Corporate Pilot
Well-Known Member
Does not apply to Part 91 operations.
A little more of 91.175 states
(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
A little more of 91.175 states
(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
The Gardener
Terrafirma Phobic
Yes, kinda funny really.
Lets assume part 91 guys just wanted to comply with the rule too.
That means a C-150, J-3 Cub, a 777, and a 787 would all be holding short for departure with .9 miles vis.
Meanwhile, a Ford Tri Motor pulls onto the runway and departs.
Lets assume part 91 guys just wanted to comply with the rule too.
That means a C-150, J-3 Cub, a 777, and a 787 would all be holding short for departure with .9 miles vis.
Meanwhile, a Ford Tri Motor pulls onto the runway and departs.
As stated above, that reg doesn't apply to Part 91 operations. They can legally (but stupidly) take-off 0/0.
Also, many operators are allowed lower take-off minimums. We are allowed (by our Operations Specifications C079) to perform take-offs down to 600 RVR (with a lot of stipulations we must meet).
Also, many operators are allowed lower take-off minimums. We are allowed (by our Operations Specifications C079) to perform take-offs down to 600 RVR (with a lot of stipulations we must meet).
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Yep, yeah that!
Yeah, I've been flying 135, and have never had the opportunity to take off at an airport without alternate minimums in bad weather. But if I ever get asked the question in an interview, I don't want to shoot my foot off. I knew what the right answer was, I just needed to hear it from someone else to make sure I wasn't going crazy. I have been reading regs and studying the AIM a lot lately to make sure I am prepared for any interview that might come up. Don't know if you have seen the thread, but I was laid off a few weeks ago. So I am spending my days job hunting, calling operators all over the country and studying.
Hey man sorry to hear about the misfortune. I know the feeling though, I am actually in construction now still looking to get my foot back in the aviation door to do some instruction. I do have a little tip for you about reading the regulations: view them as an outline. That is, any subsection of the outline will always be subject to stipulations from the main sections they lie in.
Sometimes simply copying and pasting it to word before reading it can help, here:
See, every sub section of "f" must also meet the requirements of "f". Therefore, the portion you quoted "f(2)i" & "f(2)ii" does not apply to part 91 because "f" states that it only applies to 121, 125, 129, or 135.
Sometimes simply copying and pasting it to word before reading it can help, here:
See, every sub section of "f" must also meet the requirements of "f". Therefore, the portion you quoted "f(2)i" & "f(2)ii" does not apply to part 91 because "f" states that it only applies to 121, 125, 129, or 135.
Sorry to hear about your misfortunes to man. But the reason I ask is because of 135 stuff. I know that pt 91, if it's 0-0, you can still depart. Stupid, maybe, legal, yes.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
I've taken off 0/0 a couple times. We weighed the risks and went. There were plenty of alternates that were MVFR within 10 minutes flying time. Remember, there's always more to a situation than meets the eye.
Pilotforhire587
Lycra Man
Confusing your little brain!!! You should join the 121 world where you have to deal with ops specs and exemption 3585 and alternate mins and what you need to take off in various RVRS
With a departure alternate available, it can be done safely. With no departure alternate, one would really have to weigh the risk vs the mission at hand.
Was it TRULY 0/0? Which airports?
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
It was 600 RVR and indefinite ceiling if I recall correctly. Departed out of ORF, with MVFR at PHF, SFQ, and CPK. Happened twice in one month.
That's a little different. We're approved for 600 RVR take-offs in our Ops Specs as well.
0/0 is on another level entirely.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
This is true. It's just so often that the term 0/0 is tossed around when the visibility is less than 1/4 mile.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
0/0 is kind of a meaningless phrase. Honestly, anything less than straight in landing mins for the airport is pretty dammed low, and not exactly advisable under all circumstances. Even at straight in landing mins, it'd be pretty dicey to catch fire, then turn around and fly an approach in to land.