Decent below MDA, Legal?

"David Megginson" wrote in message
...

That's another good example -- I assume that your rules are the same
as ours, and that in Class G VFR you need to be 500 ft below the
clouds above 1000 ft AGL, but only clear of cloud below that.


In the US, VFR minimums in Class G airspace, 1,200 feet or less above the
surface, during the day, or at night if the airplane is operated within 1/2
mile of the runway, are 1 statute mile visibility and clear of clouds.



The worse situation in that case would be a low-wing plane coming out
of the clouds IFR right on top of a high-wing plane that's VFR
underneath -- there's not really much of a chance for either to see
the other.


I don't think the configurations will make much of a difference when an IFR
airplane emerges from a cloud at virtually the same point a VFR airplane is
operating.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
In the US, VFR minimums in Class G airspace, 1,200 feet or less
above the surface, during the day, or at night if the airplane
is operated within 1/2 mile of the runway, are 1 statute mile
visibility and clear of clouds.

The 1 mile visibility applies at night, but during the day, there
is no visibility requirement, just clear of cloud when operating
within 1/2 mile of the runway.

Section 91.155: Basic VFR weather minimums
(2) Airplane. When the visibility is less than 3 statute miles but
not less than 1 statute mile during night hours, an airplane may be
operated clear of clouds if operated in an airport traffic pattern
within one-half mile of the runway.

Bob Moore

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 6...

The 1 mile visibility applies at night, but during the day, there
is no visibility requirement, just clear of cloud when operating
within 1/2 mile of the runway.

Section 91.155: Basic VFR weather minimums
(2) Airplane. When the visibility is less than 3 statute miles but
not less than 1 statute mile during night hours, an airplane may be
operated clear of clouds if operated in an airport traffic pattern
within one-half mile of the runway.


Only a helicopter can operate VFR with less than one statute mile
visibility. The visibility minimum in Class G airspace below 1,200 AGL for
airplanes during the day is one statute mile. The visibility minimum in
Class G airspace below 1,200 AGL at night for airplanes is three statute
miles, except when in an airport traffic pattern within one-half mile of the
runway, where it is one statute mile.

Robert Moore wrote
Are you inferring that I can't read?

Rereading it, I can see where it would apply only to
airplanes at night. Sorry....:-)

Bob Moore

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 6...
Rereading it, I can see where it would apply only to
airplanes at night. Sorry....:-)

You're not the only one confused by 91.155b2. The FAA got it wrong too. As
they wrote it, if you're in the pattern at night in class G, you can fly
right next to the clouds if the visibility is *less* than 3 miles; but if
the visibility is 3 miles or *greater*, you have to maintain the usual
500'-1000'-2000' distance from the clouds. Presumably, that's not what the
FAA meant, but it's what they wrote.

--Gary

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 6...

Are you inferring that I can't read?


If I was to suggest to you that you couldn't read I'd be implying, it's you
that would be inferring. I'm just restating the requlatory requirements.

wrote:


So does this mean all take offs without an atc clearance into
unconttolled airspace in imc can expect "careless" operation?
Anyone?

Stan

No it doesn't even in the USA. I haven't read this report recently, but I remember hearing about it or a similar one some time ago. The guy got busted not just because he flew IFR in class G without a clearance (and, as someone mentioned, there is not choice--you can't get a clearance in class G), but because his flight took him into class E airspace and he had no good way of ensuring that portion of the flight would be VFR.

In other words, if you've got class G airspace up to 14,500 feet, you're fine, but taking off into IMC without a clearance when class G airspace is only 700 feet thick is careless and reckless. So he should have gotten an IFR clearance for that portion of the flight above 700 ft AGL. Since you can't go cruising around IFR less than 1000 AGL, you really have no choice. That, I believe, was the problem.

wrote in message ...

No it doesn't even in the USA. I haven't read this report recently, but I
remember hearing about it or a similar one some time ago. The guy got
busted not just because he flew IFR in class G without a clearance (and,
as
someone mentioned, there is not choice--you can't get a clearance in class
G), but because his flight took him into class E airspace and he had no
good
way of ensuring that portion of the flight would be VFR.

In other words, if you've got class G airspace up to 14,500 feet, you're
fine, but taking off into IMC without a clearance when class G airspace is
only 700 feet thick is careless and reckless. So he should have gotten an
IFR clearance for that portion of the flight above 700 ft AGL. Since you
can't go cruising around IFR less than 1000 AGL, you really have no
choice.
That, I believe, was the problem.


I think the wrong charge was thrown out. It reads like they nailed him with
careless and reckless because there was a feeling that he had been very,
very bad but there was nothing else to pin on him. Departing in IMC in
Class G airspace without a clearance was not a violation, he broke out of
the clouds at 200 AGL and was then in VMC for Class G airspace. He was
fine, legally, as long as he didn't climb into controlled airspace. As soon
as he entered Class E airspace at 700 AGL he was operating in controlled
airspace in IMC without an IFR clearance because he was only 500 feet above
clouds where the minimum cloud clearance is 1000 feet above.

Departing in IMC in Class G airspace without a clearance was not a
violation,

That clearly contradicts the NTSB ruling.

he broke out of the clouds at 200 AGL

Where did you get that info? It's not in the ruling that I have. It
just says he broke out "well before" 700 AGL.

He was fine, legally, as long as he didn't climb into controlled
airspace.

Not according to the NTSB.

he was only 500 feet above clouds where the minimum cloud clearance
is 1000 feet above.

That was not mentioned at all in the document I have. Are you looking
at something else?

Greg Esres wrote:


Departing in IMC in Class G airspace without a clearance was not a
violation,

That clearly contradicts the NTSB ruling.


No. The NTSB ruling states that IFR in class G without a clearance is legal. That, in itself, is not wrong. What was wrong was the circumstances under which he did it. He was at an airport with only 700 ft of class G above it and with airplanes operating IFR in and out of the airport at the time he departed. That makes him careless and reckless even though there is no FAR that specifically prohibits exactly what he did.

I stand by my previous statement that if you have a thick layer of class G airspace above the airport that you can legally operate IFR within (1000 or 2000 ft above terrain and even cruising altitudes westbound, odd eastbound, etc....), then you're good to go.

Now, an interesting followup to this is can you get "IFR flight following" if ATC radar can see you? And, as there is in Canada, is there an uncontrolled IFR standard squawk code analogous to the 1200 VFR code?


That was not mentioned at all in the document I have. Are you looking
at something else?


Remember, the NTSB ruling is only an appeal ruling written by a lawyer. There were tons of documents on this case that the FAA put together to go after this guy. And documents put together by the pilot's defense as well. I think I read a long article about it on AVWEB about a year ago. (No, sorry, I don't have a link handy for any of these).