Decent below MDA, Legal?

(Bravo8500) wrote in
MDA on my local uncontrolled airport's NDB approach, and I don't
see the runway but can see directly underneath me, I could
legally slip down below MDA to try to bust out. Why? At MDA, I'm
below the 700 foot floor of the Class E airspace which puts me
in Class G. This would be the case at almost all uncontrolled
airports that have published instrument approaches. Does this
sound right?


I think that this reg answers your question.

Section 91.175: Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an
instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person
operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure
prescribed for the airport in part 97 of this chapter.

(b) Authorized DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the
approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of
a DH or MDA, the authorized DH or MDA is the highest of the
following:

(1) The DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.

(2) The DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.

(3) The DH or MDA for which the aircraft is equipped.

(c) Operation below DH or MDA. Where a DH or MDA is applicable, no
pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue
an approach below the authorized DH unless --

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent
to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of
descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under
part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown
to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended
landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility
prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any
necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the
Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for
the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the
pilot:

Bob Moore

Good answers, I think my thinking is recalibrated. Just because the
airspace is uncontrolled doesn't mean anything goes - in other words
the rules still apply, the only difference being is that you're not
operating under a clearance. Thanks!

Bravo8500

if upon
reaching MDA, still in IMC, you cancel IFR (very quickly!)
then you would still be legal.


No.

In uncontrolled airspace, I believe you still must be on an IFR flight plan to
operate IFR. You just don't need a "clearance" since no separation is
provided.

I'm away from my FARs right now; I could be wrong (and will no doubt discover
it quickly if so

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

if upon
reaching MDA, still in IMC, you cancel IFR (very quickly!)
then you would still be legal.


No.

In uncontrolled airspace, I believe you still must be on an IFR flight
plan to
operate IFR. You just don't need a "clearance" since no separation is
provided.


No flight plan is required to operate IFR in Class G airspace. You can't do
what is suggested here, but not for lack of a flight plan.


§ 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless
that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message ...

In uncontrolled airspace, I believe you still must be on an IFR flight plan to
operate IFR.

Untrue. No plan or clearance is requred.

But you are still IFR (as others have pointed out) and the rules for minimum altitudes
(either in general or on approaches) still apply.

91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has -
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

Huh?? What are you reading? The FARs are pretty clear that IFR
flight in class G is legal.

I'm reading NTSB reports, dude. ;-)

How could the NTSB say something that is clearly
explicitly allowed by the FAA is careless.

It's not expressly allowed, it's just not expressly forbidden.

I don't have a strong opinion either for or against their ruling.

"Greg Esres" wrote:

How could the NTSB say something that is clearly
explicitly allowed by the FAA is careless.

It's not expressly allowed, it's just not expressly forbidden.

I don't have a strong opinion either for or against their ruling.

If we consider the process carefully, it's really the FAA which makes the
rules and the FAA which enforces the rules. The NTSB is the body to which
we might appeal the FAA's less defensible enforcement actions, but they're
pretty much a rubber stamp for the will of the FAA.

If someone got violated for flying IFR in Class G airspace without a
clearance, it's the FAA that deemed it a violation. The NTSB simply failed
to fight about it with the FAA. The distinction is pedantic, but also
telling.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message om...


Yes, but not really. The NTSB has ruled such activty as "Careless or
reckless", and violated pilots for it.

Huh?? What are you reading?

I believe that was an FAA determination. I've never seen the NTSB make a
determination of "careless and reckless" in a cause. Usually they're coded
things like "Failure to maintain separation with Terrain -- pilot in command"
regardless of how bone headed the pilot was when he hit the ground.

The distinction is pedantic, but also telling.

Actually, I think that's an interesting point. You're right of
course, but why doesn't the FAA just go ahead and make it a FAR, if
they feel that strongly about it?

There is effectively a dual rule-making process, but one's relatively
out in the open, the other kinda hidden.

I believe that was an FAA determination. I've never seen the NTSB
make a determination of "careless and reckless" in a cause.

The ruling was not in an accident case, but for a violation. Seems
clear that the Board ruled the action "careless or reckless", though
obviously the charge was initiated by the FAA. An excerpt:

-------------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---------------