How do you leave this airport IMC?

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.
Is that smart??

PK


"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..

On the way to Pinckneyville last weekend, I stopped at Jimmy Stewart
Field, Indiana, PA. KIDI. I had to shoot the GPS 28 approach with
a cirle to land 10. There's a nice transition off the Revloc VOR.

Since we had a late start, we had planned to stop there for the night,
but by the time we left for the hotel, the overcast had broken up and
it was clear. Next morning, we left VFR.

Looking at the plates, 10/28 has minima 300-1 and 600-1 respectively.
The procedure for runwya 10 is to climb runway heading to 2300 before
proceeding on course. The MSA for the area is 4200. How do you get
from the DP to the nearest Victor airway safely when it's 300 and 1?


Morris

On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another matter).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
matter).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Paul Lynch wrote:

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.

Or, contained on a SID, in which case they become part of your ATC clearance.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
matter).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)



You are missing my point so let me restate it:

There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
(at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.

See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.

I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

You are correct about no takeoff minima, but that applies to all 91
operations no matter the size of aircraft. Subparts F & G do not apply to
takeoff minima.


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:40:17 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Under 91 there are no takeoff minimums (unless specifically stated in a
departure procedure) for any size aircraft, including a 747.
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:59:29 -0400, "Paul Lynch"
wrote:

Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under
Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements,

At least for small GA a/c, there are no legal departure weather
requirements even if there ARE specified takeoff minimums.

(Whether taking advantage of that rule is smart or safe is another
matter).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)



You are missing my point so let me restate it:

There are NO takeoff minima applicable to pilots operating under Part 91
(at least for small a/c) EVEN IF THEY ARE published under Part 97.

See 91.175(f) which talks about the applicability of takeoff minima.

I limit my statement to small GA a/c since I am not familiar with Subparts
F and G which deal specifically with large a/c.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Paul Lynch wrote:
Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.
Is that smart??

Maybe. All depends on the circumstances. :-)


Matt

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:GnPle.4510$%Z2.1986@lakeread08...
Unless there are specified takeoff minimums, a flight conducted under Part
91 does not have any departure weather requirements, only
destination/alternate requirements. That is where judgement comes into
play. You can legally takeoff with only enough viz to see the centerline.

Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the centerline.
My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
real, of course.)

--Gary

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" said:
Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the centerline.
My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
real, of course.)

I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
me do it?

The closest I had was leaving Muskegeon after being weathered in there
leaving Oshkosh. Off the approach end of the runway there was a wall of
fog and low visibility weather, but I could see both ends of the runway
and scattered clouds at a few thousand feet. The ATIS was reporting RVR
instead of visibility, and when I called for my clearance the controller
asked if I was sure I wanted to depart in this. I told him the visibility
situation, and he explained that the tower and the RVR sensors were in
that wall of fog.

If I'd had problems I could have landed downwind through VFR conditions,
or done a tricky approach to the upwind runway. I know which one I would
have taken.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I assume HR did send out the ad I wanted, not "apply for a cool job if
you're a clueless ****".
-- The Flying Hamster, on the receiving end of too many CVs

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" said:
Actually, there isn't even any requirement to be able to see the
centerline.
My instructor once had me take off under the hood, to show that a
zero-visibility departure is possible. (He didn't recommend doing it for
real, of course.)

I had three different instrument instructors, and they all had me do that,
and then said "but you'd never do it for real, of course". Then why make
me do it?

Possibly just because it's fun and harmless (under the hood with an
instructor, that is).

Or if you really stretch your imagination, you might come up with a rare
scenario in which a zero-visibility departure is warranted (say you're in a
remote area with someone who's having a medical emergency). In that case,
you're probably better off having at least tried it once before.

--Gary