Ifr Question

[AWACoff]

Spike,
I can't believe that you would post such a degrading remark against Bigflyr when you in fact are in the wrong. I happen to live in the Midwest so I have a good idea of what states are part of it. Perhaps you are thinking of the Midwest being out in the Dakotas and Colorado? The Midwest contains states such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, etc. That being said, the only Class G up to 14,500 I could find in the ENTIRE Midwest was in the Upper Pennisula of Michigan. You can check my statement yourself by looking at L charts 31, 32, 33, 34, 27, 28, 19, 20, 35, 36, 33, 34, 25, 26. There are certainly NOT "quite a few".

 

[BigFlyr]

Thanks, AWA...

I would like to empasize that there seems to be confusion between "operating under IFR" and "operating in IMC". Furthermore, just because there may not be an FAR that prevents you from doing something unsafe, it doesn't mean that its legal. Remember... "the PIC is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft"...

 

[BannerTowPilot]

Regarding the IFR flights in class G without ever talking to ATC and operating IMC, doesn't sound very safe if there are more than one aircraft in the area. Do you transmit your position on a comman frequency?

 

[Speedtree]

i was wondering the same thing. I also believe it is legal to fly in Class G airspace without a clearance or flight plan. Whether I would want to, or recommend, flying such a flight as the example in Alaska, I doubt it.

I assume they have local procedures for the case when two guys want to fly the same route and the slower guy takes off before the faster guy and both decide on the same altitude. What then.

Just curious, in Alaska, could you, if you wanted to, coordinate the flight with ATC and talk to them on the example flight or is there no radio communication with ATC possible in this remote area at the altitudes normally flown?

If you're not comfortable doing something because you think it's unsafe, you are better off not trying it just because it might be legal. As my former instructor used to say, "you may be legal but you may be legally dead"

 

[A Squared]

Bigflyr,

How many people need to tell you you’re wrong before you are willing to consider that you might be wrong? The folks that are telling you that IFR is legal in Class G airspace have been there and done that. We’ve operated under IFR, in IMC, in Class G airspace under Part 91, Part 135, Part 121, and Part 125., all with the approval and blessing of the FAA. You, apparently, have not. Who is more likely to understand the regulations regarding an operation? Someone who conducts such operation, or someone who does not? Your posts are so full of misconceptions and inaccuracies, I’m not sure where to begin.

>>>>I'm not going to argue about the regs

Ummm, that is exactly what the discussion is about, the regs, specifically the regs regarding flying through clouds in Class G airspace.

>>>>>I am fully aware that an IFR flight plan may take you through or be contained entirely within class G airspace for lack of radar coverage.

No, you apparently misunderstand the various airspace classifications. Uncontrolled airspace does not exist because of lack of radar coverage. Uncontrolled airspace exists because the FAA has chosen not to accept the responsibility for separating IFR traffic in that area. In fact there are plenty of areas of controlled airspace which lack Radar coverage. My airline operates in these areas every day. There are some areas, on the airways, which are in Class E (controlled) airspace where there is no radar coverage for over an hour of flight. ATC provides separation by traditional Non-radar methods, the same way IFR traffic was separated all over the US before radar became common.


>>>>the original question here was whether or not you can "punch a cloud"(enter IMC) in uncontrolled (class G) airspace. I say you cannot, period.

Well, you are wrong, period.

You may fly through the clouds in Class G airspace, period.


>>>> I would like to empasize that there seems to be confusion between "operating under IFR" and "operating in IMC"

Yes, I agree, it appears that you are very confused on the concepts. It appears that you may believe that it is legal fly IFR through Class G airspace, but must remain clear of the clouds. Is this the case? If this is so, you need a review of the basics: There are Visual Flight Rules (VFR), and there are Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). If you are operating VFR, you must remain clear of the clouds, exactly how far depends on your altitude and what airspace you are in. This is all specified in 91.155

If you are operating under IFR, you may enter the clouds. There is no such thing as "IFR, but you can’t fly in the clouds" Ok, actually there is; operating "VFR on top" and Visual Approaches, but these are specific ATC clearances. In Class G airspace you are not on an ATC clearance.

You may fly IFR in Class G airspace, and you may enter the clouds.

>>>>If you guys can come up with an FAR... not an Ops. spec. may have an exception, that states otherwise, please let me know and I'll agree with you.

There is no FAR authorizing IFR flight in Class G airspace. Our legal system doesn’t work that way. If there is no law or regulation prohibiting something, it is legal. The FARs do not authorize operations. There is no FAR which permits us to fly airplanes. We may fly airplanes because there is no FAR which prohibits it. Likewise, we do not need a FAR permitting us to fly in the clouds in Class G airspace. It is not prohibited, so it is legal.
Certificated carriers and operators, of course are an exception. A certificate holder must have a specific authorization for each operation conducted. These are the operations specifications. If your carrier does not have an operations specification authorizing IFR operations in Class G airspace, you may not operate IFR in Class G airspace. Mine does have the authorization, and we do.

You seem certain that it is not legal to fly in the clouds in Class G airspace, but you cannot support this with a regulation.

In an earlier post I posed a series of questions which, if you had considered them, would show the fallacy of your thinking. You apparently have not considered them. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I was getting at. I will put them to you in a different way:

Consider the following.


1) The FAA authorizes part 121 carriers (the most restricted of all certificated operators) for terminal and enroute IFR operations in uncontrolled airspace.

2) The FAA establishes Instrument Approach Procedures and Instrument Departures at airports which can only be reached by flight through Class G airspace.

3) The FAA specifies enroute IFR altitudes for IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace.

Yet, you believe that it is illegal to fly in the clouds in Class G airspace. Something doesn’t add up. What good is an instrument approach in Class G Airspace, if you can’t fly in the clouds? Why authorize IFR operations, if you can’t fly in the clouds? Why specify IFR altitudes, if you can’t fly in the clouds.

If you think about it, 1,2, and 3 just don’t make sense if it’s illegal to fly in the clouds in Class G airspace.

So, which is wrong? 1, 2, and 3 ? ( I assure you, they are not) or your belief that IFR in Class G is illegal?

regards

 

[BigFlyr]

Alright Spike,

Just to make you happy I'm going to say I'm wrong and you're right. But let me beat the dead horse just a bit more. First of all, I don't give a rats @$$ how many people may agree or disagree with me. I need facts. You appear to have many so therefore I agree. You're right about not having flown in those areas. I have flown in several parts of the world where position reporting is required though, for lack of radar coverage. This makes sense to me.

What does not make sense to me is the one comment about doing an entire flight in "IMC" ( trust me, I know what that means) conditions from takeoff to landing without a clearance, without talking to anyone, without any kind of traffic separation other than maintaining IFR cruising altitudes, once level, has to make you wonder... Can I do this? Is it safe? If its not, how can it be legal? Again, I am aware that certain carriers have Ops specs for certain operations because they are not specified otherwise. Please don't talk to me like I haven't a clue. I've got more hours as a CFI alone than your posted total and would like to stand corrected but understanding why. If Its not clear to me, then I assure you it may not be clear to others. Also, lets see if you can clear it up without insulting me by stating the obvious. And let me add that I never had an issue about flight under IFR in class G airspace. Why the FAA designates certain areas as class G other than for lack of radar coverage is perhaps a TERPS question, which is not the issue here. I do, however have an issue about flying in IMC (can't see squat) without the benefit of any kind of traffic separation... no communications with ATC, no radar coverage, no clearance. OK? Be gentle now!

 

[flx757]

BigFlyr,

A Squared has spelled it out very clearly, and in great detail. How much clearer does it need to be? Re-read A Squared's most recent post...and the others, if need be. The questions you have and the issues you raise are answered. Several times.

He (and I) have provided FAR references, such as 91.173, and 91.179.

Also, common sense dictates that if airpace is classified as "uncontrolled", then that's exactly what it is. I have also flown in many parts of the world where position reporting is required due to the non-radar environment, but we are still in contact with ATC (obviously), and are in controlled airspace. While I might agreee that you, as the PIC, might decide for whatever the reason, that it might not be prudent to operate under IFR in IMC in Class G airspace, the FARs give you the authority to do so......legally.

Oh, BTW......desert pilot started this thread with his question, and hasn't been heard from since. What say YOU, desert pilot??

 

[cvsfly]

Very interesting discussion. I have not really considered it before. My flying is mostly eastern US with occasional forays out west and Caribbean. One question considering all of this. When you depart an uncontrolled airport that has Class E stopping at 700' or 1200' and you get your IFR clearance on the ground. Your clearance reads "cleared to XYZ airport as filed. Enter controlled airspace heading 270*. Contact.... Squawk ....". Let us say the weather is 500' BKN and 1 mile. You depart runway 09 and start turning to 270*. I have always assumed ATC will hold up other inbound/outbound IFR traffic until you are coordinated/communicated with ATC airborne, correct. I do realize that ATC cannot guarrentee traffic seperation in class G. Any one attempting to operate IFR below 700 or 1200 agl would not be able meet the regulatory requirements of IFR, correct? So the only worry we should have is the VFR guy who is flying with 1 mile and clear of clouds, right? Or from this discussion should we worry about an unknown (no clearance/no communication) IFR operator in class G while we are transitioning from Class G to class E on an IFR clearance? If this is true, I may rethink departing a class G airport unless the ceiling is at or close to the class E base. I agree there are very few places in the continental US where one would be in cruise flight in class G and class G is not predicated on areas of radar coverage. What is the standard operating procedure to operate IFR in Alaska in class G? Is it possible for more than one flight to be operating IFR/IMC in the same airspace with no coordination/flight plan?

 

[Vik]

Bigflyr,

I just took my instrument checkride not too long ago and what everyone is telling you pretty much correct. The examiner even asked me this question.

 

[cvsfly]

Typically from what I know of 135 Ops Specs and I assume 121 is that the provision on operating IFR in class G (domestic/continental US) is soley for purposes of transition to an approach and departure from an airport terminal area. It is not authorization to cruise IFR in class G from airport ABC to XYZ. There maybe special operations areas for an operator that needs this (ie Alaska, Canada or other remote areas) and then I'm sure some operational conditions go along with it.

 

[Vik]

I've got a peachy keen solution to all this ...

Just call your local FSDO and ask'em.

That way we don't spend a year trying to explain how flight may be conducted in IMC in Class G w/o a clearance and w/o talking to anyone.

 

[desert pilot]

To 757 and others-the question came up during my IPC with a new CFI/CFII,while training in the west most of us get our instrument rating without seeing the inside of a cloud,I suggested if possible to do it SAFELY-PUNCH A CLOUD,HE SAID THAT IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL! For practical reasons the x-country happens many times under blue skies,thanx all-great answers!

 

[bigD]

Desert Pilot - maybe it's the lack of any real punctuation in your post, but I don't follow. You say your CFII told you that it'd be illegal to fly in IMC while training? I'm confused.

 

[spike]

I LOVE THIS BOARD

SORRY BIG FLYR

I really didn't mean to come across as insulting.

One comment was made about IFR altitudes, remember that only counts for CONTROLLED airspace. You can fly at ANY altitude you want in uncontrolled airspace and punch as many clouds as you want if you are IFR rated period.

Oh yea, just to make things interesting Controlled airspace only goes up to FL 600 so you could fly legally fly up there too. Getting there is another question alltogether

 

[spike]

Response to VIK

Ha, ha, ha

Ever tried to call 5 or 6 FSDO's with the same question. You will never get the same answer every time. Especially with any GOOD question.

The only legally binding answer from an FAA person has to come from the legal department in Atlanta. you have to write them and wait 4-6 weeks.

Call a FSDO and ask, that is a good one. Sorry to sound condescending, but I thought that is what you do. Then I asked CFI recert questions and called FSDOs from around the question and MAN they all gave me different answers and the best thing was that most backed them up with different parts of the DE handbook.

Remember we are dealing with the FAA.