What does it take to get the Feds attention?

[NW_Pilot]

If you have his name, and you call someone you know at the FSDO and tell them what you have heard, and you are someone whom they believe, I gaurntee you that they will keep a close watch on this guy and his tail number. Dont sit back and mind your own business, I dont care if he kills himself, but dont take me down with you. Last week I got a traffic call out, "VFR traffic at your 10 3 miles same altitude opposite direction." Now I was in IMC came down from 10,000 solid, and now I was at 5,000 solid all the way down, and bottoms were being reported at 1500, I told the controller that I was solid, and that this guy was VFR in IMC, and that he is not being safe, they said that they were going to follow his target and see where he landed. I hope they found the prick and pulled his certificate, to keep me away from him they gave me a "climb to 7,000 best rate"

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

 

[FN FAL]

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

In reality, if SIU was in a cloud and 500 feet away from it's boundary and the VFR plane was 3 miles away and had the required flight vis and maintained horizontal and vertical separation from surrounding clouds, the "VFR" plane could be "VMC" by a wide margin.

The controller was merely providing the required separation services to an IFR flight by requesting that SIU climb.

We get this type of problem at the drop zone all the time. Some joker in an airliner 5 miles away, will look straight down and see an undercast when he is advised by ATC of our traffic. Meanwhile, over our dropzone, there is the required vfr cloud clearance requirements being met.

They will always make some unbased comment to the controller. I wish they would just do their job and either report "traffic in sight" and take responsiblity for their own separation, so I can continue my climb and they continue their descent. Or, they should just shut the hell up, because they are just tying up the frequency.

 

[PolarTwins55]

i had a teacher threaten to turn me in to the feds today. she told me "i used to live in washington, and someone two doors down from me worked with the faa, and i'm sure they wouldn't be happy to hear about your 'attention' problems'"

boy am i scared.

 

[siucavflight]

So you would rather be flying up there with someone with no certificate in IMC than someone with? Maybe at your 10 and 3 miles away it was VFR were you there in his exact location to know he was IMC?

It was solid IMC from at least 10000 down do about 1200 feet, and I was in it for at least 200 miles, and another 50 or so past that, maybe this guy was in the one hole, but somehow I doubt it, but either way I hope he was violated.

 

[flyinlow67]

I say let's not say anything to anyone and let these idiots spin out of control into a school, and then just take our lumps from the "experts" on CNN who know everything about aviation. That should do wonderous things for our lively hood.
Yeah, the bury my head in the sand option sounds real freakin good!

 

[fastback]

You can fly in IMC conditions outside of controlled airspace with no IFR flight plan, so long as the pilot is IFR rated and the aircraft meets IFR requirements. In which case, there is no talking to controllers, unless you just want to tell them "hi!"

This is one of the most commonly repeated misrepresentations of the FARs regarding IFR. I think you are referring to this rule:

§ 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.


Pilots still have to adhere to 91.155, and with no IFR clearance in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, a pilot would be violating Class G cloud/vis mins.

 

[unreal]

Maby Wells should have said 2014 instead of 1984 hehehehe

...Orwell.

Carry on.

 

[FN FAL]

This is one of the most commonly repeated misrepresentations of the FARs regarding IFR. I think you are referring to this rule:

§ 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.


Pilots still have to adhere to 91.155, and with no IFR clearance in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, a pilot would be violating Class G cloud/vis mins.

Nice guess, but you guessed wrong.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF

6096​

Respondent has appealed from the oral initial decision
issued by Administrative Law Judge Joyce Capps at the close of an
​

evidentiary hearing held in this matter on July 8, 1991.

In that decision the law judge found that respondent's takeoff from
an uncontrolled airport into clouds without a clearance or
release from air traffic control (ATC) was not a violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.155(a), but was in violation of 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a).​

She ordered a 90-day suspension of respondent's commercial pilot certificate in lieu of the 180-day suspension sought in the Administrator's order. For the reasons discussed below, we deny respondent's appeal and affirm the initial decision.​

The Administrator's complaint in this case alleged as...​

 

[FN FAL]

If ATC cannot and does not guarantee aircraft separation below the base of controlled airspace, that would mean an IFR flight departing an uncontrolled field or arriving at one with an ATC clearance, would have to assume that it is possible that someone else could be out there flying in IMC conditions outside of controlled airspace without a clearance. Which would make such an operation reckless as well.

 

[FN FAL]

Page 2, 4th paragraph...AOPA's Air Safety Foundation's own words...

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa02.pdf

Many pilots do not know that IFR flight without a clearence is permitted in uncontrolled airspace, provided that the pilot is instrument-rated and the aircraft is equipped for instrument flight.​

A OPA A i r S a f e t y F o u n d a t i o n - S a f e P i l o t s . S a f e S k i e s .​

Copyright 2005, AOPA Air Safety Foundation​

421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD 21701​

Phone: (800) 638-3101 • Internet: www.aopa.org/safetycenter • E-mail: [email protected]
Publisher: Bruce Landsberg • Editors: Kevin D. Murphy and Leisha Bell​

 

[fastback]

Nice guess, but you guessed wrong.

Not a guess at all, and I was not in error. Read 91.155, it is very cut and dry. The FAA originally violated the PIC for violating 91.155 and 91.13, and later dropped the 155 violation. It is very common for the FAA to staple a careless/reckless violation to another violation, like VFR mins, right of way rules, minimum safe altitudes, etc, and then drop 1 charge [on appeal] but press with the careless/reckless. I stand by my original post.

 

[A Squared]

I stand by my original post.

well, if you're gonna be wrong, you might as well insist on remaining wrong.

Yes you may fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace, as long as you meet the requirements for IFR flight which are applicable to uncontrolled airspace. Read 91.167-91.193, the instrument flight rules. Notice that some are applicable only in controlled airspace, some are applicable in only uncontrolled airspace, and some are applicale in both.

Now ask yourself, why would the FAA write regulations for IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace, if there is no IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace?

Got a snappy answer for that?

Also, you can't *get* a clearence for IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace. That is what uncntrolled airspace *IS*, airspace where Air traffic *CONTROL* nas no control. ATC doess not have the ability or authority to provide seperation to IFR traffic in uncontrolled airspace That's why it's called uncontrolled.

Here's the deal; in some places, Alaska is one, there are large areas of uncontrolled airspace. IFR flight is perfectly legal, as long as you're IFR rated and equipped, and fly at the correct altitude for IFR flight iin uncontrolled airspace (91.179(b)) You can't get a clearance for it, because ATC has no authority there.

You're spouting off about something you have no experience in. I fly where it is common. I can tell you with absolute certainty, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dangerkitty]

This is one of the most commonly repeated misrepresentations of the FARs regarding IFR. I think you are referring to this rule:

§ 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.


Pilots still have to adhere to 91.155, and with no IFR clearance in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, a pilot would be violating Class G cloud/vis mins.

Why in the heck are your posting references to regulations that refer to IFR in controlled airspace when the discussion at hand is refering to UNCONTROLLED airspace?

 

[ultrarunner]

There's some guy sitting two tables down bragging to his buddy about how he flies VFR through IMC all the time and giving him helpful hints about what to say to controllers.

It's the only legal requirement to be under an IFR flight plan when flying IFR is that you are in controlled airspace?

It's been a long time, but I can remember blasting around a few times IFR in uncontrolled airspace. Wasn't a big deal.

 

[leardawg]

There is no requirement to get an ATC clearance for IFR flight in Class G airspace. Period. That's why clearances obtained on the ground from airports in Class G airspace will often include the statement "upon entering Class E (or controlled airspace) fly a heading of xxx". It's a reflection of the fact that Class G is not part of the controlled airspace system. It's in effect saying "we can't control what you do in Class G airspace, but as soon as you enter OUR airspace here's what we want you to do."