Decent below MDA, Legal?

"Robert Moore" wrote in message
. 8...

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


I had similar thoughts, why didn't he just change his destination to another
airport in the Indianapolis area?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

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.


The NTSB report states the clearance request was denied because the
Indianapolis airport was below IFR minimums and was not accepting any
additional traffic.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


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


Well, that means that the bases were at 100 to 200 feet. The tops were not stated in the ruling. So he was at best 500 feet away from clouds upon entering Class E airspace, and most likely much less.


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.


My guess at this is that the violation of cloud clearances is hard to prove in court and that it is a small violation that the FAA gave up on. They wanted to get him for being careless and reckless. That was their main purpose, and they weren't interested in a piddly little charge getting in the way.

Its a bit like my driving analogy from a few posts ago about running a red light. If you were speeding by 5 mph when you ran a red light that charge would be secondary and likely not even bothered with or dropped.

So the charge was let go (you'd have to go into the original proceedings to figure out exactly how and why). But, yes, he did violate FAR 91.155, and if the FAA wanted to spend resources on it they probably could have convinced the Judge to agree.

Ron Natalie wrote:


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.


But you can't legally remain below 700 ft AGL when IFR. Gotta be at least 1000 feet above anything within four miles or 2000 in mountainous terrain (or something like that).

So you're stuck. Can't climb, can't descend. Every direction is illegal. That makes it careless and reckless.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:



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.

You're right. But they let him off on that charge. I was trying to explain why this incident was careless and reckless even though it would have been okay had the class G airspace extended to a higher altitude (several thousand feet at least).

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.

Only if that class G airspace is very shallow, as in this case. If you have 10,000 feet of class G airspace to climb through before reaching controlled airspace, it doesn't matter if you get your clearance on the ground or in flight or the day before. Its all the same: no separation within the class G airspace.

Isn't that right? My point was that the NTSB stated that it is safer to take off from an uncontrolled field with a clearance and I think that it is not universally true. Only when class G airspace is shallow.

Robert Moore wrote:


"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

I thought so too, but I don't know where all these airports are situated (so I don't know how delays and reroutings at Indy affect the sector he flew into).

The NTSB ruling mentined some captain and his first officer that witnessed the takeoff and also that this guy took off right after an IFR departure. I assume, from that, that there was a queue of planes waiting for their IFR departures. So this guy cut in line and the people waiting were ****ed and turned him in. Kinda like the impatient drivers out there that weave in and out of traffic.

wrote in message ...

Well, that means that the bases were at 100 to 200 feet. The tops were
not stated in the ruling. So he was at best 500 feet away from clouds
upon
entering Class E airspace, and most likely much less.


I took the witnesses' statement to mean the cloud layer was 100 feet thick,
100 to 200 AGL. That fits with the respondent's statement that there were
clouds at 200 feet and he was in VFR conditions well before he reached
controlled airspace at 700 feet.

The actual altitude and thickness of the cloud layer really doesn't matter.
If the floor of controlled airspace is at 700 AGL and there's a solid cloud
layer between the surface and the start of controlled airspace, then it's
impossible to climb through that layer and be in VFR conditions when you
reach controlled airspace.

wrote in message ...

You're right. But they let him off on that charge.


I realize that. The question is why did they let him off, given that his
statements indicate he was in violation of it?



Only if that class G airspace is very shallow, as in this case.


This is the case I'm talking about.

wrote in message ...

But you can't legally remain below 700 ft AGL when IFR. Gotta be at least
1000 feet above anything within four miles or 2000 in mountainous terrain
(or something like that).

So you're stuck. Can't climb, can't descend. Every direction is illegal.
That makes it careless and reckless.


No, you can't legally remain below 700 ft AGL when IFR, but he was not in
IMC when he was below 700 AGL. Remember, he took off under IFR but he was
in VFR conditions well before he entered controlled airspace at 700 AGL.
Once he was above the clouds in Class G airspace all he needed for VFR
operations was one mile visibility and stay clear of clouds.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


No, you can't legally remain below 700 ft AGL when IFR, but he was not in
IMC when he was below 700 AGL. Remember, he took off under IFR but he was
in VFR conditions well before he entered controlled airspace at 700 AGL.
Once he was above the clouds in Class G airspace all he needed for VFR
operations was one mile visibility and stay clear of clouds.



Yup all true. But the main beef the NTSB had is that he couldn't have known it ahead of time. If you can't ensure that you will be in VFR conditions before 700 ft then it is a careless and reckless operation because if you don't break out then you have no way out.