Decent below MDA, Legal?

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.

That's your interpretation, but what the ruling actually said was
"technically legal" under 91.155a and then added a "but" to it, saying
it violated 91.13a. It never said that it was "legal" period, just
under 91.155a.

It did not limit its ruling to when Class E lay above it, even though
that was the circumstance of the particular case.

I'd be interested to see the case of "Administrator v. Vance" where
they originally made the ruling.

Greg Esres wrote:


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.

That's your interpretation, but what the ruling actually said was
"technically legal" under 91.155a and then added a "but" to it, saying
it violated 91.13a. It never said that it was "legal" period, just
under 91.155a.



True, its my opinion, but you can say that about a Judge's ruling too.

So here's why it is my opinion:

1. You can't get an IFR clearance in uncontrolled airspace. Before the ATC system became so extensive, it was probably common do fly IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a clearance (well, as common as it was to fly IMC to begin with). There is still a lot of airspace that is uncontrolled to 14500 feet in the western states, and probably Alaska.

2. The NTSB's main argument is based on this quote:
"a pilot departing from an uncontrolled field in instrument conditions but without a clearance has no assurance that VFR conditions will prevail when he reaches controlled airpsace."
Let me make an analogy. Say you're driving down a highway. You come to a traffic signal and the light is red. You don't slow down or make any attempt to stop but the light just happens to turn green when you're a foot away from entering the intersection. Now: crossing an intersection when the light is green is perfectly legal. But it was only green because you got lucky, so you could and should be charged with "reckless endangerment" or whatever the term used by traffic cops. Then a Judge might even say that crossing the intersection with a green light is "technically legal" but what you did was reckless and unsafe.

The reason it is a violation of 91.13a is because he was legal due to luck: the clouds happen to clear before he reached controlled airpsace. He could very well have entered controlled airspace and still been in the clouds. Just because he didn't happen to (or says he didn't) can't get him off.

It did not limit its ruling to when Class E lay above it, even though
that was the circumstance of the particular case.

This is a ruling on a particular case. That automatically limits it. It is not new law. However it does go at length about how it is unsafe to fly without a clearance. That may be true depending on traffic density in the area.

And also keep in mind that these NTSB guys are not necessarily experts on the ATC system. They investigate pipeline accidents, trains, highways, etc... Hammerschmidt is a pilot (but I don't know if he even has an instrument rating). The other guys can be mechanics, executives from car companies or the railroads or just plain bureaucrats that the President likes. So when they say its unsafe, they're just regurgitating the FAA position on this particular case.


I'd be interested to see the case of "Administrator v. Vance" where
they originally made the ruling.


Post it if you find it. But, from the quotes in this one, it seems that it was a similar circumstance of class E airspace closely overlying the airport. Also, the Administrative Law Judge's ruling probably has more detail on this case as well. The appeal was posted earlier on this thread, but I haven't seen the original ruling.

Think about this (I'm pretty sure I've got this right):

If you choose not to fly IMC without a clearance in class G airspace because its dangerous, thats up to you and not governed by the FAA. But if you take off from an airfield in class G airspace, that's exactly what you are doing. Your clearance begins when you enter controlled airspace and no sooner. That could be 700 feet AGL, 1200 feet AGL, 14,500 feet MSL or anywhere in between. I'm guessing that ATC can give you traffic advisories if they can see you on radar, but they can't issue instructions and are not required to separate you from anyone or anything.

You might feel good getting an ATC clearance, but it provides absolutely no protection while you're in class G airspace. Does this mean you should never depart IFR if controlled airspace is more than 1200 feet above you?

wrote in message ...
The reason it is a violation of 91.13a is because he was legal due to luck: the clouds happen to clear before he reached
controlled airpsace. He could very well have entered controlled airspace and still been in the clouds. Just because he didn't
happen
to (or says he didn't) can't get him off.

That's not how I read the opinion. The opinion centered on the possibility that he'd hit IFR traffic in the uncontrolled airspace
who had been operating in or out of the adjacent controlled airspace with a clearance. That the fact that a clearance obtained
for the adjacent controlled airspace would reduce the risk of collision in the adjacent uncontrolled airspace. This is probably
true, but not supported literally by the FARs.

The answer to your interpretation is simple. If you don't have a clearance or VFR conditions before reaching
the controlled airspace boundary, you remain within uncontrolled airspace. It's analogous to being prepared
to slam on the brakes if the light doesn't turn green.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

That clearly contradicts the NTSB ruling.


How so? The initial decision found takeoff from an uncontrolled airport
into clouds without a clearance was NOT a violation of FAR 91.155(a), so the
NTSB didn't even get a chance to rule on it in this case. The appeal, and
thus the NTSB ruling, was only on the FAR 91.13(a) violation. In upholding
this decision, the NTSB cited an earlier case where it ruled that "a pilot
departing from an uncontrolled field in instrument conditions but without a
clearance has no assurance that VFR conditions will prevail when he reaches
controlled airspace." Obviously, that precedent cannot apply when the
flight does not enter controlled airspace at all, so, by itself, departing
in IMC in Class G airspace would not be a violation.



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.


I got it from NTSB Order No. EA-3935, you can examine it he

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

It states witnesses testified that the ceiling was 100 to 200 feet, and that
the respondent admitted there were clouds at 200 feet.



Not according to the NTSB.


Oh? What did the NTSB say about flights that depart uncontrolled fields in
instrument conditions without a clearance that never enter controlled
airspace?



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


I have no idea what you're looking at, as I said, I'm looking at NTSB Order
No. EA-3935. As I said previously, the pilot stated there were clouds at
200 feet, controlled airspace at Robinson begins at 700 feet, so his
statement puts him 500 feet above the clouds when he entered controlled
airspace.

What I find most curious about this incident is that the pilot was found not
to be in violation of FAR 91.155(a) when his own statement obviously
indicates that he was.

wrote in message ...

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.


Well, you can't legally do that. FAR 91.177 requires a minimum altitude of
1000 feet (2000 feet in a designated mountainous area) above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal distance of four miles of the course to be
flown. If you're within 1000/2000 feet of terrain you're obviously too low.



Now, an interesting followup to this is can you get "IFR flight following"
if ATC radar can see you?


Well, to receive flight following requires radar contact and radio
communications. In the US, areas where ATC has good radar coverage and
radio communications tend to have controlled airspace as well so that ATC
can separate IFR traffic. While there are certainly areas where one can
legally operate IFR without a clearance, I doubt these areas have good radar
coverage and direct radio communications with ATC.



And, as there is in Canada, is there an uncontrolled IFR standard squawk
code analogous to the 1200 VFR code?


No. With the way we designate airspace in the US there'd be no point in it.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

That's your interpretation, but what the ruling actually said was
"technically legal" under 91.155a and then added a "but" to it, saying
it violated 91.13a. It never said that it was "legal" period, just
under 91.155a.

It did not limit its ruling to when Class E lay above it, even though
that was the circumstance of the particular case.


In this ruling the NTSB said "a pilot departing from an uncontrolled field
in
instrument conditions but without a clearance has no assurance that VFR
conditions will prevail when he reaches controlled airspace." The NTSB
said nothing about departing from an uncontrolled field in instrument
conditions but without a clearance where the flight does not enter
controlled
airspace.



I'd be interested to see the case of "Administrator v. Vance" where
they originally made the ruling.


As would I, but that ruling does not appear to be available online.

wrote in message ...

The reason it is a violation of 91.13a is because he was legal due to
luck: the clouds happen to clear before he reached controlled airpsace.
He could very well have entered controlled airspace and still been in the
clouds. Just because he didn't happen to (or says he didn't) can't get
him
off.


But he wasn't legal due to the clouds clearing before he entered controlled
airspace. Clear of clouds is the standard in Class G airspace, but the
minimum cloud clearance in Class E airspace is 500' below, 1000' above,
2000' horizontally. You simply cannot operate VFR in controlled airspace
less than 1000 feet above a cloud deck, even if that cloud deck itself is in
uncontrolled airspace. Obviously, you cannot climb through a cloud deck and
reach VMC prior to entering controlled airspace where the floor of
controlled airspace is 700 AGL.



You might feel good getting an ATC clearance, but it provides absolutely
no protection while you're in class G airspace.


I can't agree with that. Getting an ATC clearance and release ensures you
won't encounter another IFR aircraft with an ATC clearance while you're in
that Class G airspace.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
I can't agree with that. Getting an ATC clearance and release
ensures you won't encounter another IFR aircraft with an ATC
clearance while you're in that Class G airspace.

I wonder why he just didn't get a short range IFR to VMC
conditions on top and then cancel?

Bob Moore

"Robert Moore" wrote in message . 8...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
I can't agree with that. Getting an ATC clearance and release
ensures you won't encounter another IFR aircraft with an ATC
clearance while you're in that Class G airspace.

I wonder why he just didn't get a short range IFR to VMC
conditions on top and then cancel?

Because the departure delay for that wouldn't likely have been any shorter
doing that than just getting an IFR clearance for his full route.
..

"Ron Natalie" wrote
Because the departure delay for that wouldn't likely have been
any shorter doing that than just getting an IFR clearance for
his full route. .

As I understood it, the delay was due to landing conditions at
the destination, not for takeoff.

Bob