Air Wagner..... He’s baaaaackk.

MauleSkinner said:
Wow…I assume the vis increased rapidly before takeoff? Or was his reported 1/4 mile vis a lie, too?
Click to expand...

Watch the vid. Several runway stripes. Now, of course, the eye sees differently than the camera, but I can pretty much guarantee it wasn’t more than 1/4.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Apparently. It was clearly stated that he was taxiing in 0/0
Click to expand...

My fault. But I operate under JFR. where you can make up things like minimums, visibility and ceilings. Under FAA-approved rules and definitions... yeah, I guess it wasn't 0/0. But this is JFR, ya'll...
 
Oh my, lol, he was in a left turn immediately after liftoff when he should have been straight.
 
ASOS reported visibility of greater than 10 and doesn't report ceiling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
MauleSkinner said:
But do the requirements of a DP apply to Part 91?
Click to expand...
That raises an interesting set of questions. Part of the freedom of part 91 is that departure minimums don’t apply so you can take off 0/0 if you want- not wise but can be below minimums if you wanted to go.
if you get a clearance that includes a DP- I think you are bound to those minimums as they are designed with that in mind.
So if you want to take off and are below the DP minimums can you just refuse that clearance and state why???
 
benyflyguy said:
That raises an interesting set of questions. Part of the freedom of part 91 is that departure minimums don’t apply so you can take off 0/0 if you want- not wise but can be below minimums if you wanted to go.
if you get a clearance that includes a DP- I think you are bound to those minimums as they are designed with that in mind.
So if you want to take off and are below the DP minimums can you just refuse that clearance and state why???
Click to expand...
Seems to me the “weather minimums…for the airport” per 91.175 are different than DP minimums, but…:dunno:
 
MauleSkinner said:
But do the requirements of a DP apply to Part 91?
Click to expand...

The takeoff minimums do not. However, pilots should determine that their aircraft meets the climb gradient, and must fly the routing since it was part of an ATC clearance.

MauleSkinner said:
Seems to me the “weather minimums…for the airport” per 91.175 are different than DP minimums, but…:dunno:
Click to expand...

The 300-1 is listed on the DP under "Takeoff Minimums".

Now, you and I both know that the takeoff minimums in general could be different for each runway at an airport, that doesn't mean that these minimums are somehow distinguished from "weather minimums for that airport" that 91.175 talks about.

If you still are having trouble, consider the following thought experiment. 14 CFR 91.175 requires approach and landing minimums to be complied with, and takeoff minimums "for the airport" for 121, 125, 129, or 135 operations. Which regulation would require a Part 91 operator to comply with "takeoff minimums for a departure procedure"?
 
We’re really splitting hairs here on the legalese, which is obviously gray (and a solid discussion point).

However, the larger picture is that this is neither solid ADM nor solid execution of many aspects of flying. Due to that and the ignorance/hubris involved in producing the videos, it should not be held as an example of what to do as a pilot (as it pertains to the fact that it’s on a popular YT channel), and in fact should be held as an example of what not to do.

If Mr. Wagner were more humble and open about his flying, we’d be having a different discussion.
 
dmspilot said:
Which regulation would require a Part 91 operator to comply with "takeoff minimums for a departure procedure"?
Click to expand...
The same one that would require 1xx operators to comply with them.

91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The same one that would require 1xx operators to comply with them.

91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
Click to expand...

Never heard ATC clear a pilot for weather minimums, or instruct them to adhere to a particular set of minimums. How does that even make sense?

They are takeoff weather minimums, 91.175(f) tells you who has to follow them and who doesn't.
 
So, to be clear, we’re cool with picking and choosing which parts of a published procedure we’re going to follow?
 
dmspilot said:
Never heard ATC clear a pilot for weather minimums, or instruct them to adhere to a particular set of minimums. How does that even make sense?
Click to expand...
If the DP is part of the ATC clearance, and the minimums are a part of the DP, it seems that anyone, regardless of which Part their operating under, must comply with them.
 
N1120A said:
ASOS reported visibility of greater than 10 and doesn't report ceiling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
yeah, but you (I mean Jerry) knew that wasn’t true as you (I mean he) said “1/4 mile” to ATC.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If the DP is part of the ATC clearance, and the minimums are a part of the DP, it seems that anyone, regardless of which Part their operating under, must comply with them.
Click to expand...

They are takeoff weather minimums, other than VFR or IFR ATC has no jurisdiction in dictating what a pilot's weather minimums are, the FARs do that. That's in addition to the fact that the takeoff is occurring in Class G airspace where ATC also has no jurisdiction.
 
dmspilot said:
They are takeoff weather minimums, other than VFR or IFR ATC has no jurisdiction in dictating what a pilot's weather minimums are, the FARs do that. That's in addition to the fact that the takeoff is occurring in Class G airspace where ATC also has no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
So climb requirements of the DP are optional as well?
 
Flying Keys said:
So, to be clear, we’re cool with picking and choosing which parts of a published procedure we’re going to follow?
Click to expand...

No one is picking, the FARs do that for you.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Takeoff minimums do not apply to Part 91.
Click to expand...

I agree with DMS Pilot.

In 1999, an individual queried the FAA as to whether ceiling and visibility minima contained in SID's were binding upon Part 91 pilots. The FAA responded,

"... I am constrained to agree with your analysis that a Part 91 flight can depart in weather conditions less than the minima prescribed for the SID."​

A SID can only be flown as part of a clearance. Thus, the FAA interpretation says that the departure procedure weather minima are not applicable even when that procedure is part of an IFR clearance. I understand that a SID isn't an ODP (like the one that Wagner was assigned in his video), but it's pretty close. If someone was dragged before an ALJ over this question, I think that that same interpretation that was applied to the SID, would also be found to apply similarly to the "less formal" ODP.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Wanna try again? ;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I'm talking about takeoff minimums. The FARs are clear who they apply to and who they don't apply to. You want to deflect and argue about something else.
 
Squirrelfury said:
… If someone was dragged before an ALJ over this question, I think that that same interpretation that was applied to the SID, would also be found to apply similarly to the "less formal" ODP.
Click to expand...

The only gotcha is that FAA interpretation of their own regulations is now questionable in the courts.
 
dmspilot said:
No, I don't. I'm talking about takeoff minimums. The FARs are clear who they apply to and who they don't apply to. You want to deflect and argue about something else.
Click to expand...

Technically they are only clear as to who they apply unless specifically exclusive.

Who they exclude, in the presence of other potentially applicable FARs and procedures, is an obvious matter of debate.
 
They would not bust a Part 91 operator for violating take off minima. If something bad happened, they would bust him on 91.13. That's the Disorderly Conduct of aviation, meaning you're arrested if you do something the cops don't like, and you're convicted if it's something the judge doesn't like.
 
Flying Keys said:
Technically they are only clear as to who they apply unless specifically exclusive
Click to expand...

"Aircraft operating under 14 CFR Part 91 are not required to comply with established takeoff minimums. Legally, a zero/ zero departure may be made."

Federal Aviation Administration
Instrument Procedures Handbook
 
LesGawlik said:
They would not bust a Part 91 operator for violating take off minima. If something bad happened, they would bust him on 91.13. That's the Disorderly Conduct of aviation, meaning you're arrested if you do something the cops don't like, and you're convicted if it's something the judge doesn't like.
Click to expand...
actually, 91.13 is pretty much identical to "reckless driving" statutes in many states.
 
TCABM said:
The only gotcha is that FAA interpretation of their own regulations is now questionable in the courts.
Click to expand...
Always have been. The degree of deference given them can vary with the type of regulation but the ability to question regulatory agency's interpretations has been around for a long, long time.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Pilot Bill of Rights legislation which removed the requirement for the NTSB to automatically follow FAA interpretations?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Always have been. The degree of deference given them can vary with the type of regulation but the ability to question regulatory agency's interpretations has been around for a long, long time.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Pilot Bill of Rights legislation which removed the requirement for the NTSB to automatically follow FAA interpretations?
Click to expand...

It was an attempt to pole fun at the Warbirds/LODA FAA interpretation.
 
Here’s the hazardous attitude. Gets called out on the wrong turn and rationalizes (denial), “I wanted to get away from the terrain.” Well, that’s what the procedure is for, it’s literally an obstacle departure procedure. If you accepted the procedure, you don’t get to make up your own. But even more strange is that now it was a deliberate turn versus being an error? Come on, man, we clearly see you were confused.

Also retconning a few things regarding minimums (denial again), regardless of legality.

Wonder if he’s reading this thread. Jerry, it’s not okay behavior. Your lax attitude and excuses set a hazardous example to burgeoning pilots. A proper response would be “I did not take the time to understand the departure and was distracted by all my behavior in what should have been a sterile cockpit period, exacerbated by get-there-itis due to lowering minimums.”
 

Attachments

  • 518BF94D-3143-4829-8723-29C0BD2E86FF.jpeg
    518BF94D-3143-4829-8723-29C0BD2E86FF.jpeg
    339.3 KB · Views: 29
Funny. Lord knows I'm no fan of Jerry's IFR flying. But I didn't see the horrors in this one others did. Thought it pretty benign as Jerry flights go. Low vis takeoff. Making an unnecessary turn and then turning back because he didn't realize the course to EBYIB was really just runway heading with positive RNAV course guidance right there on his HSI, but understanding procedures has never been a strong point for him. Pretty ho-hum.
 
midlifeflyer said:
... But I didn't see the horrors in this one others did.....
Click to expand...

you kinda say the same thing just about every time. however, understand that we ALL make mistakes, but jerry does the same stuff over and over and over, and some stuff is MUCH worse than others. so then it becomes easy to pick out even the minor stuff and give him a hard time about it. if you watched someone's videos and they were almost always a solid pilot, you wouldn't really think twice about a minor mistake they made. when you're the king of crap piloting, the little stuff will also be brought to the table. and he deserves it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top