Decent below MDA, Legal?

Greg Esres wrote:

-------------snip---------------
In dismissing the 91.155(a) charge and affirming a 90-day
suspension, the law judge relied on our decision in Administrator
v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037 (1986), wherein we held that an instrument-rated
pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into
uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a), but was nonetheless careless, in violation of
the predecessor to section 91.13(a).
-------------snip---------------

This has some interesting implications. Obviously, what's legal and what's
safe are not the same. But how is "safe" determined? A take-off at full
gross on a runway with *just* enough room to get off is legal. Is it safe?
More importantly, could one be cited for "careless and reckless" for doing
so?

My concern is that this can be used rather arbitrarily.

- Andrew

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

Stan
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:21:47 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Greg Esres wrote:

-------------snip---------------
In dismissing the 91.155(a) charge and affirming a 90-day
suspension, the law judge relied on our decision in Administrator
v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037 (1986), wherein we held that an instrument-rated
pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into
uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a), but was nonetheless careless, in violation of
the predecessor to section 91.13(a).
-------------snip---------------

This has some interesting implications. Obviously, what's legal and what's
safe are not the same. But how is "safe" determined? A take-off at full
gross on a runway with *just* enough room to get off is legal. Is it safe?
More importantly, could one be cited for "careless and reckless" for doing
so?

My concern is that this can be used rather arbitrarily.

- Andrew

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

There is a website that has either all or a bunch of NTSB rulings. I
think there's a link from the FAA website or from the NTSB site, I
forget.

The case I have saved on my hard drive is Administrator vs. Murphy,
NTSB Order No. EA-3935, dated July 20, 1993.


http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3935.PDF

Interesting case. Apparently they were going after a 91.155(a) violation
only as it applied to uncontrolled airspace. The guy busted VFR minimums
when he entered controlled airspace at 700 AGL. That's just 500 feet
above
the clouds he reported breaking out of at 200 AGL, but the VFR minimum is
1000 feet above clouds.

Claim is that it's careless and reckless to fly IMC without a clearance in
Class G (even though it is "technically" legal), because you don't know who
might be out there flying on an ATC plan.

Surely, by the same token it's equally careless and reckless to coordinate a
release with ATC, fly up through Class G, and enter controlled airspace,
because you don't know who might be out there flying legally under the floor
of controlled airspace.

If you look at the text from the bottom of page 5/top of page 6, the witness
(Smith) just about says as much.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
Surely, by the same token it's equally careless and reckless to coordinate a
release with ATC, fly up through Class G, and enter controlled airspace,
because you don't know who might be out there flying legally under the floor
of controlled airspace.

And ATC won't issue you any sort of clearance that covers the portion of flight
through the class G airspace anyhow. Absent surface area controlled airspace,
Steve, what is ATC's requirements for separating arrivals and departures that
have dropped below (or have not yet entered) the controlled airspace?

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

Claim is that it's careless and reckless to fly IMC without a clearance in
Class G (even though it is "technically" legal), because you don't know
who
might be out there flying on an ATC plan.

Surely, by the same token it's equally careless and reckless to coordinate
a
release with ATC, fly up through Class G, and enter controlled airspace,
because you don't know who might be out there flying legally under the
floor
of controlled airspace.

If you look at the text from the bottom of page 5/top of page 6, the
witness
(Smith) just about says as much.


I understand all that. But there were initially two violations, careless
and reckless and busting VFR minimums. The minimums bust was dropped, even
though it was established that he did bust minimums.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

And ATC won't issue you any sort of clearance that covers the portion of
flight
through the class G airspace anyhow. Absent surface area controlled
airspace,
Steve, what is ATC's requirements for separating arrivals and departures
that
have dropped below (or have not yet entered) the controlled airspace?


Simple. Only one operation gets a clearance.

writes:

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

Well, not up here, anyway. We even have the default transponder code
1000 for uncontrolled IFR, corresponding to the default 1200 VFR code.
I generally fly from bigger airports, but I understand that at smaller
ones its common to take off into IMC squawking 1000 (in class G) until
you're high enough to talk to an ATC unit, then to pick up your
clearance.

Most of the Canadian north is covered by low-level air routes, where
you're uncontrolled anywhere below class A. That's where all the
standard procedures -- standard altitudes for direction of flight,
reporting over every navaid with ETA for the next one, etc., actually
matter. Again, I have no personal experience in that -- the parts of
Canada I fly in have fairly dense radar coverage, just like the
U.S. -- but many northern pilots get old and retire flying everything
from bush planes to 727s in those conditions.

Uncontrolled IFR must exist in Alaska as well -- I find it difficult
to believe that every little airstrip has radar and radio coverage.


All the best,


David

Ron Natalie ) wrote:
:
: And ATC won't issue you any sort of clearance that covers the portion of flight
: through the class G airspace anyhow. Absent surface area controlled airspace,
: Steve, what is ATC's requirements for separating arrivals and departures that
: have dropped below (or have not yet entered) the controlled airspace?
:

One other bit that none have mentioned in this thread is someone
else could be operating in VFR in almost the same area.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

(Tim Hogard) writes:

One other bit that none have mentioned in this thread is someone
else could be operating in VFR in almost the same area.

In theory, if they're legally VFR you should be able to see them in
lots of time; in practice, unfortunately, that does not always work
out (think 1 SM visibility in haze flying towards the sun). While ATC
is not responsible for separation in class G, I have found so far that
they'll give me a last advisory as far as their radar will allow,
along the lines of

"No traffic visible in the circuit."

or

"There's VFR traffic approaching the airport from the east, 2500 ft
unconfirmed. You're about three minutes ahead of him."

etc.


All the best,


David

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

In theory, if they're legally VFR you should be able to see them in
lots of time; in practice, unfortunately, that does not always work
out (think 1 SM visibility in haze flying towards the sun).

Think cloud clearance. An IFR aircraft on an SIAP can emerge from
the cloud base where a VFR aircraft is operating, quite legally,
just clear of clouds. How much time is there to spot the traffic in
that situation?

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.

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.

In Canada, many airports too small for a control tower are designated
MF (Mandatory Frequency), so that everyone is required to be talking
on the radio on the same frequency. Still, some very small ones can
have an IAP without an MF, so you cannot even be sure that the radio
calls will do any good.


All the best,


David