FAA just turns a blind eye, or so I guess!

[UndauntedFlyer]

You just departed VFR from MDW (Chicago, Midway) which is totally in the middle of a congested area with the floor of the controlled airspace 700 AGL for 20 miles outside of the surface area of the Class C. The WX is 1000 feet overcast with good visibility. Such a departure with a cruise altitude of 1000 feet AGL is necessary to stay 1000 feet above the surface as is required for minimum altitude over a congested area. And since you're in controlled airspace the pilot must remain 500 below the clouds. This is impossible with only a 1000 foot ceiling but I have never heard of anyone getting an FAA violation for being less than 500 below clouds and/or less than 1000 feet above the surface as in this situation. I guess the FAA just doesn't want to pursue this conflict of rules.

Your comments on this would be appreciated.

 

[The_Russian]

The FAA only cares if:

1. Their pockets are being lined

2. Their job could be at risk (or pension)

3. They are completely and utterly bored out of their minds

 

[The_Russian]

Wait! I forgot:

4. Pressure from other agencies or political influence (see #2)

 

[sqwkvfr]

What's the conflict?

It's not legal to do VFR. File.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

What's the conflict?

It's not legal to do VFR. File.

VFR pilots conduct this type of operation regularly without concern of FAA action or interest. Of course if you depart and climb to 1000 AGL to be legal regarding minimum altitude, who's to say that you were not 500 below the clouds. Even the pilot doesn't know how low he/she is below the clouds. Just because it's a 1000 foot ceiling over the airport that doesn't mean it's not a 1500 foot ceiling 2 miles away (where you are). I guess that's the answer to give anyone who inquires.

 

[Princedietrich]

You just departed VFR from MDW (Chicago, Midway) which is totally in the middle of a congested area with the floor of the controlled airspace 700 AGL for 20 miles outside of the surface area of the Class C. The WX is 1000 feet overcast with good visibility. Such a departure with a cruise altitude of 1000 feet AGL is necessary to stay 1000 feet above the surface as is required for minimum altitude over a congested area. And since you're in controlled airspace the pilot must remain 500 below the clouds. This is impossible with only a 1000 foot ceiling but I have never heard of anyone getting an FAA violation for being less than 500 below clouds and/or less than 1000 feet above the surface as in this situation. I guess the FAA just doesn't want to pursue this conflict of rules.

Your comments on this would be appreciated.

Don't wanna sound like I'm splitting hairs or anything, but the floor of the MDW Class C is not 700 AGL for 20 miles. For a 5 mile radius around the airport, the floor is at the surface and goes up until it hits the ORD Class B above it (ranging from 1900MSL to 3600MSL). The outer ring, in an arc from approximately 150 to 280, the floor is 1900MSL out to 10 miles from the airport and again goes up until it hits the ORD Class B above it. The elevation at MDW is 620 and the terrain around the airport is in the 600 foot elevation neighborhood, give or take. This would make the floor in the MDW outer ring approximately 1200AGL to 1300AGL, give or take. For a northbound or eastbound departure, depending on your heading, you could end up under ORD airspace with a floor anywhere from 1200AGL to 3000AGL.

My source for this is a current Chicago TAC chart.

To answer your question as to why the FAA isn't bothering to slap a fine or a revokation on those who are apparently violating cloud and terrain clearance requirements, there is a legal term (which I can't remember unfortunately, and it's in latin) which basically translates into "the law doesn't care about the small stuff." With the massive air carrier activity going in and out of ORD and MDW, combined with the huge amount of GA corporate, charter, and flight training activity, the feds in that area would have their hands full as it is. So long as nobody is placed in danger, no loss of seperation happens, and no airspace is violated, there is no big deal.

Besides, honestly, would you even WANT the FAA to go after people for something like this??

 

[svcta]

Someone would have a pretty hard time telling me that I wasn't proper distance from clouds, buildings, etc. I was the one in the airplane......

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Don't wanna sound like I'm splitting hairs or anything, but the floor of the MDW Class C is not 700 AGL for 20 miles. For a 5 mile radius around the airport, the floor is at the surface and goes up until it hits the ORD Class B above it (ranging from 1900MSL to 3600MSL). The outer ring, in an arc from approximately 150 to 280, the floor is 1900MSL out to 10 miles from the airport and again goes up until it hits the ORD Class B above it. The elevation at MDW is 620 and the terrain around the airport is in the 600 foot elevation neighborhood, give or take. This would make the floor in the MDW outer ring approximately 1200AGL to 1300AGL, give or take. For a northbound or eastbound departure, depending on your heading, you could end up under ORD airspace with a floor anywhere from 1200AGL to 3000AGL.

My source for this is a current Chicago TAC chart.

To answer your question as to why the FAA isn't bothering to slap a fine or a revokation on those who are apparently violating cloud and terrain clearance requirements, there is a legal term (which I can't remember unfortunately, and it's in latin) which basically translates into "the law doesn't care about the small stuff." With the massive air carrier activity going in and out of ORD and MDW, combined with the huge amount of GA corporate, charter, and flight training activity, the feds in that area would have their hands full as it is. So long as nobody is placed in danger, no loss of seperation happens, and no airspace is violated, there is no big deal.

Besides, honestly, would you even WANT the FAA to go after people for something like this??

Thanks for your reply but it makes no sense and shows a total lack of understanding on your part about just what is controlled airspace. In the case of MDW, the class C airspace extends out to the 5NM ring and your are correct up to that point that that is controlled airspace. However beyond that the floor of the controlled airspace is not the floor of the next ring (the 10NM ring), it is the magenta tinted 700 foot AGL floor of class E "controlled airspace." Because of your lack of understanding of this basic understanding of the airspace structure the rest of your reply loses all credibility and besides I just don't believe it regarding those in authority with the government. And especially when you say:

"the law doesn't care about the small stuff."

You have obviously not dealt with government authorities very often, especially the FAA where enforcement of minor discrepancies is just as important as it is for anything else.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Someone would have a pretty hard time telling me that I wasn't proper distance from clouds, buildings, etc. I was the one in the airplane......

Clouds, yes. Buildings, that's a different story because of the altitude readout.

 

[ackattacker]

The Fed's don't usually bust people for cloud clearance because it's so hard to prove. And because they don't really care.

I do know of one case however where a 121 crew got busted for cloud clearance on a visual approach where the Fed was in the cockpit of a different airplane.