I think the risk is minimal. You are probably more knowledgeable than I am concerning traffic density in the U.P. but I don't think there is much risk in flying through a small cumulus cloud for fun. I enjoy zipping around or through cumulus clouds when on an IFR flight paln and am trying to determine if I can do this in Class G without one.
I ocassionally file IFR in VMC so why can't I fly under IFR in Class G in VMC for fun?
I have some bad news for you. There is no activity that is perfectly safe or without some risk, there are only varying degrees of risk. I accept some risk when I get into my airplane to fly anywhere. I am more concerned about midair collision when flying VFR to KARR under Chicago Class B than if I were to fly through an occasional cumulus in high Class G.
I am here to have fun at what I determine to be an acceptable level of risk. I like flying around and through clouds and want to know if and how this can be done in the Class G airspace near where I live. I do not want to violate any FARs even if I feel the risk is minimal, that is why I started this thread.
But that route also increases the distance over water. So now you're trying to balance those two risks. Gary likes going through clouds, and who can blame him!
The odds of an FAA Inspector waiting for you at one of the airports under that airspace is awfully small, but if it happens, yes, that's your reply. Of course, that may lead to other questions, but if you dotted your i's and crossed your t's, you should be fine. You should be ready to explain that all your flying in IMC was at/above the minimum IFR altitude per 91.177, and that you did not need an instrument letdown from that MIA down to the airport (I don't believe there are any FAA-approved approaches to airport in such airspace). In addition, you'll need to be able to show (if asked) that you met all the legal requirements for IFR flight, like altimeter/static check, alll required 91.205(d) instruments and equipment, 61.57 IFR currency, etc.
Neither would I. But some have read it that way.
Me, neither. But it gives you a hint of the sort of questions they may ask if something bad happens while you're doing it, and the operative reg will be 91.13, which gives the Administrator considerable latitude, so if you're going to do this, anticipate those questions and make sure you have good answers for them.
Link does not work for me.
Then somebody needs to rewrite this FAA publication. I would like to know their justification or reasoning.
That might be true but it will probably not stop me. I think that is fairly clear that it is legal and I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me otherwise.
Then read the Murphy decision linked above. They discuss their concerns in detail, and explain why although it appears legal per the IFR and airspace rules, they still believe it is careless/reckless in violation of 14 CFR 91.13(a) to do what Murphy did (launch into the goo where aircraft with IFR clearances into/out of the overlying controlled airspace could be anticipated to be operating).
...and most telling:
...which is why the FAA is not going to, and should not, rewrite the publication you cited.
Let's separate the "its." Flying IFR through the big brown areas without a clearance is not in violation of any specific regulation, and I know of no case in which a pilot was violated for doing so. However, that is not true for all G-spaces, particularly the G-space between the surface of an airport and the overlying controlled airspace which is transited by aircraft making IFR departures and approaches with clearance from ATC to enter/exit that overlying controlled airspace -- that conduct has been deemed careless/reckless in violation of 91.13 even though it does not appear to violate any other specific regulation. Are we all clear on both points?
It's really about context. If one thinks "it's the FAA!" take a look at the reckless driving statute in your state. Under most, even technically legal conduct that would not be reckless in one context could be considered reckless in another.
Go to the NTSB Opinions and Orders web site and search on cases involving that word. You will find plenty of discussion on that question.
Thanks, Wally. Then I suppose someone with such a "private" approach could have landed legally in IMC in the big brown area, but it would be a rarity.
So no simple test(s) and you need to be a lawyer to understand.
I wouldn't say that. I would say that if you have to ask the question about something you are about to do, you probably shouldn't do it. However, if you want the legally accepted definition of "reckless" in this context, here it is:
Ferguson v. NTSB, 678 F.2d 821 (1982). Note that the section involved has since been renumbered to 91.13, but the rest remains the same.
FAA Order 2150.3A said:
I disagree. I think about (and may question) the legality and safety of every aviation related activity (and many non-aviation activities) that I am about to engage in and I consider that to be prudent. "Hold my beer and watch this" on the other-hand is usually reckless.
Thanks, more useful but not definitive due to the fact that it is not clear exactly what constitutes "gross disregard" which is subjective.
Well, let's put it another way -- if you do feel the need to ask yourself that question and you need a law library to answer it, don't do whatever it is you were contemplating doing.
There's a ton of case law, not to mention legal dictionaries, where you can discover that. Google will help get you started.
I still disagree, especially on maters where regulations and legality are being considered. Can you try to be a little less condescending?
Only if you try to do your own research instead of using me as a human Google machine.