What does it take to get the Feds attention?

[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."

 

[pilothouston123]

FN FAL... You might be a flight info junkie if you have more post than TT..

Too funny about the redlight with ATC

 

[Lead Sled]

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.

You don't get to do that stuff much any more here in the U.S. You get to do it a lot in certain parts of the world - like South America. It can be a real "eye opener" in some countries when you enter uncontrolled airspace below 10,000' MSL.

'Sled

 

[FN FAL]

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."

Exactly, so once again; does an IFR flight on an IFR flight plan, violate 91.13 by flying in uncontrolled airspace when departing or arriving at an airport, especially when it is a known that ATC cannot nor does not have the authority to provide separation from non-participating aircraft?

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]

FN FAL... You might be a flight info junkie if you have more post than TT..

Too funny about the redlight with ATC

Actually, I got about 7,000 hours, but FI won't update my log book for me.

 

[FN FAL]

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

Yes you may fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace...

What's interesting about that NTSB case I provided a link to, you have to notice what dambed the guy...his own words. I didn't memorize the case, but if I remember correctly, his sole intention for departing would have made it clear that he "intended" to enter controlled airspace in order to obtain his IFR flight plan.

This guy wasn't "intending" to fly from uncontrolled airport to uncontrolled airport by flying an IFR airplane as an IFR pilot without an ATC clearance or flight plan filed. He was attempting to make a shortcut to getting his IFR clearance.

It was his own words and his intentions that got him the 91.13 violation.

Like I said, I didn't memorize the case and I'm not an attorney, but there is something different about this case...or AOPA wouldn't still be saying it was legal 14 years later. They got lawyers, doncha know.

Thanks for stepping up to the plate avbug.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

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

Hey A Squared, good to hear from you again. Man it must be pretty cool to fly up in Alaska and not only be able to see how the regs apply to every situation, but also get your own special regs. I sincerely mean that! Gees, don't you guys even get special sections or deviations for increased MTOW? Don't know if I could handle the long winter nights though.

The case that FN FAL has pointed out is very interesting. More so because if you really read it, it sounds like this Blaha guy or his co-pilot is the one that called the FAA. This goes back to what originally started this thread. Although, the difference is that these two guys actually witnessed the event.

I happen to be familiar with the Robinson, IL area where this happened. The one thing that strikes me is that there are a lot of refineries around that area. How would you assure that you meet your obstacle clearance requirements? The AIM specifically states that you must still meet 91.177 under IFR ( or are you VFR in IMC and this does not apply) in class G. Although the administrator did not bring this up.

It would be interesting to know if this guy would have called Terra Haute approach to see if there were any inbounds/outbounds, had TCAS/TCAD/TIS (not available then), and had GPS and TAWS (also not available then) if they could still go after him/people. The only other variable would be if you think that you would be unlucky enough to have another idiot out there at the same time doing the same thing.

Hey A Squared, what about this 91.13 violation this guy got. This goes back to a previous conversation we had. Although I don't know if I think this guy deserved to be violated for this, it does bring up some questions. IMHO, I don't think that the FAA should be able to violate you for just 91.13 alone. I mean, if I did something that the regs did not have any rules on, then I don't know...who is careless? Me or the administrator for not seeing the problem? Also, aren't there a lot of things in aviation that are careless or reckless? For instance, flying a single engine airplane, what if the engine quits...you don't have another one. Flying over a major city below an altitude that would allow you to glide away from the city. Flying a light twin at max T.O. weight, high airport elevation, and on a hot day. Well, you guys get the point and as the pilot in question stated, it is all about calculated risks. Anyway, they can't possibly foresee all the possible scenarios, but we still look towards the regs for guidance. Also, wasn't 91.13 called Careless and Reckless? Now they call it Careless or Reckless. That was kind of what I was talking about before A Squared.

 

[leardawg]

The careless/reckless operation rule is rather subjective, and sometimes serves as the "we think you did something wrong, although we can't reference any other particular FAR" rule. If all this guy did, however, is fly IFR in class G airspace without a clearance, that's not illegal (assuming he's instrument rated and current). I don't see how that in itself can constitute "Careless or Reckless" if it's legal. There would have to be some more to the situation, I would think, but I don't have an FAA brain.

 

[kaj837]

It seems obvious that a clearance cannot be had for flight in uncontrolled airspace, but I always thought that it was necessary to file a flight plan, and to be instrument rated. Is this incorrect?

 

[FN FAL]

It seems obvious that a clearance cannot be had for flight in uncontrolled airspace, but I always thought that it was necessary to file a flight plan, and to be instrument rated. Is this incorrect?

I think when I was researching this subject, I saw where the Canadian rules had that stipulation. If you were going to fly IFR in uncontrolled air space, they wanted an itinerary filed.

 

[fastback]

I'm gonna hang my head in shame and admit that I was wrong. Thanks for the education.

 

[Dangerkitty]

I'm gonna hang my head in shame and admit that I was wrong. Thanks for the education.

Dont hang your head in shame. You were wrong, no big deal. Who cares? You were a little stubborn about it but other than that you were cool. Now go out and be wrong about something else.

 

[fastback]

Dont hang your head in shame. You were wrong, no big deal. Who cares? You were a little stubborn about it but other than that you were cool. Now go out and be wrong about something else.

I would but I've met my quota for the month. Thanks and cheers!!

 

[FN FAL]

I'm gonna hang my head in shame and admit that I was wrong. Thanks for the education.

How do you know you're wrong?

 

[ReverseSensing]

Now go out and be wrong about something else.

Or stick around here for awhile, and everybody that was right will eventually be wrong about something.

 

[FN FAL]

Or stick around here for awhile, and everybody that was right will eventually be wrong about something.

I can dig it...

:laugh: