IFR in/near mountianous terrain

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I'm sure this is a stupid question but it isn't my first nor my last.

I've been watching Alaska Wing Men and Flying Wild Alaska on cable and one thing that I noticed on both shows is an almost total reliance on VFR flying. They seem to treat clouds as if they're radioactive or something.
It seems to me that just a little IFR navigation would allow them to descend into clouds while being aware of where the mountian ranges are.

Is it just too dangerous to try to fly IFR near mountians and into mountian valleys??

 

[alaskaflyer]

I haven't watched the shows but I'll presume most flights are operated under part 135, which requires FAA approved opspecs. I have no detailed knowledge of the typical opspec for SE on-demand and sightseeing operations in Alaska but my guess is the requirements for IMC flight would be draconian. Plus, even in class G airspace you have requirements for enroute terrain clearance.

IOW for the vast majority of flights legal IFR just isn't worth it. Illegal IFR? Well you watched the show didn't you?

 

[steingar]

You can go fly around invisible rocks. Enjoy. Where I am a navigation error will get you lost. There it will really ruin your day.

 

[nddons]

IOW for the vast majority of flights legal IFR just isn't worth it. Illegal IFR? Well you watched the show didn't you?

I noticed that.

 

[Tom-D]

As you watched the 180 land on the ridge, didn't you hear the GPS warning about terrain ??

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'm guessing that Alaska is similar to California in that IFR MEA's over the mountains are high enough that ice is an issue. I generally treat clouds over 10,000 feet to be radioactive too. At least in the winter time.

 

[Palmpilot]

From the charts, it looks like there are places where the mountains are not terribly high, but I suspect that in Alaska, they don't have to be all that high in order for icing to be an issue.

 

[DGlaeser]

Normal IFR minimums put you at 2000' above mountains, which would be great (well, except for the icing...) But then you need to get down - safely - and I haven't seen any instrument approaches to most of the places they want to land.

 

[Tom-D]

Most of time it's too cold to ice up your aircraft, it is too dry.

when its -20F on the ground how cold is it at 5000' ?

 

[jesse]

when its -20F on the ground how cold is it at 5000' ?

like anything, it depends.

 

[dmccormack]

You can go fly around invisible rocks. Enjoy. Where I am a navigation error will get you lost. There it will really ruin your day.

A navigation error IMC even in the flatlands can be deadly.

I departed from Suffolk Executive (KSFQ) in marginal weather and was sure to follow the DP -- there are some mighty tall towers just north of the field (see the sectional -- several 1000' towers around the airport)

And Suffolk, VA is as flat as you can get..

 

[Tom-D]

I haven't watched the shows but I'll presume most flights are operated under part 135, which requires FAA approved opspecs. I have no detailed knowledge of the typical opspec for SE on-demand and sightseeing operations in Alaska but my guess is the requirements for IMC flight would be draconian. Plus, even in class G airspace you have requirements for enroute terrain clearance.

IOW for the vast majority of flights legal IFR just isn't worth it. Illegal IFR? Well you watched the show didn't you?

Is there illegal IFR in Uncontroled airspace?

These guys have GPSs with terrain feature, and fly on the gauges by their own routes. simply because there are no approaches to most of the remote sites they go to.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is there illegal IFR in Uncontroled airspace?

Yes, there is. See Administrator v. Murphy.

As for IFR in/near mountainous terrain, with good nav gear, acceptable weather, and the right procedures, it's no problem at all. However, in many places in Alaska, they often have trouble putting all three together, and then sticking to visual flying conditions is a real good idea.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes, there is. See Administrator v. Murphy.

As for IFR in/near mountainous terrain, with good nav gear, acceptable weather, and the right procedures, it's no problem at all. However, in many places in Alaska, they often have trouble putting all three together, and then sticking to visual flying conditions is a real good idea.

Not sure about that.

The case appears to hinge on the danger posed by the pilot flying into IMC after a clearnace had been denied.

We agree with the law judge that respondent's takeoff into
clouds without an ATC clearance or release was "extremely
dangerous" and in violation of section 91.13(a).

The case also states:

Administrator v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037 (1986), wherein we held that an instrumentrated pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a), but was nonetheless careless, in violation of
the predecessor to section 91.13(a)

The FAA would have to pursue the "careless or reckless" charge in the case of IMC flights in Alaska.

 

[nddons]

Is there illegal IFR in Uncontroled airspace?

These guys have GPSs with terrain feature, and fly on the gauges by their own routes. simply because there are no approaches to most of the remote sites they go to.

See 91.155 for basic VFR Wx minimums. Still have the flight visibility and distance from cloud rules for Class G airspace. If they are in IMC, then they have to fall under 91.167 I would think. If there's no IAP fo their remote sites, then they need to descend from MEA to landing under basic VFR.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not sure about that.

The case appears to hinge on the danger posed by the pilot flying into IMC after a clearnace had been denied.



The case also states:



The FAA would have to pursue the "careless or reckless" charge in the case of IMC flights in Alaska.

The FAA and the NTSB agreed that what Murphy did was both unsafe and illegal, and I think they would both say the same in any future case like it, whether in Indiana or Alaska or any of the other 48 states. You have any case law to suggest otherwise?

 

[poadeleted20]

See 91.155 for basic VFR Wx minimums. Still have the flight visibility and distance from cloud rules for Class G airspace. If they are in IMC, then they have to fall under 91.167 I would think. If there's no IAP fo their remote sites, then they need to descend from MEA to landing under basic VFR.

Actually, unless we're talking military aircraft, I think the relevant reg would be 91.175(a):

Sec. 91.175

Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

[Palmpilot]

If there's no IAP fo their remote sites, then they need to descend from MEA to landing under basic VFR.

Not for the off-airport landings:

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
​

 

[dmccormack]

The FAA and the NTSB agreed that what Murphy did was both unsafe and illegal, and I think they would both say the same in any future case like it, whether in Indiana or Alaska or any of the other 48 states. You have any case law to suggest otherwise?

Your own citation proves my point -- this case did not hinge on the legality of launching into IMC into uncontrolled airspace.

Rather, the pilot was caught by the catch-all provision of careless/reckless.

 

[poadeleted20]

Your own citation proves my point -- this case did not hinge on the legality of launching into IMC into uncontrolled airspace.

Rather, the pilot was caught by the catch-all provision of careless/reckless.

The NTSB Order tells what he did, and that it was illegal. How you parse it is simply immaterial. And there was more to it than it "launching into IMC into uncontrolled airspace" -- it was airspace in which the pilot knew might be occupied by other aircraft flying approaches or departures out of or into that airport. The FAA and NTSB are saying that you're in violation of the regulations if you enter that airspace between the overlying controlled airspace associated with the approach, but you must take appopriate precautions to ensure that nobody's in that space (i.e., obtain an appropriate clearance). Whether it's 91.13, 91.155, 91.175, or something else just isn't really important from an operational standpoint.

And, BTW, Murphy really did violate 91.155 by being less than 1000 above the deck after entering the E-space, but the FAA didn't charge that (probably due to an oversight).

 

[Tom-D]

The FAA and the NTSB agreed that what Murphy did was both unsafe and illegal,

Not true IAW your reference:

In dismissing the 91.155(a) charge and affirming a 90-day
suspension, the law judge relied on our decision in Administrator
v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037 (1986), wherein we held that an instrumentrated
pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into
uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions
(IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a), but was nonetheless careless, in violation of
the predecessor to section 91.13(a).


and I think they would both say the same in any future case like it, whether in Indiana or Alaska or any of the other 48 states. You have any case law to suggest otherwise?

they got him on the 91.13 but not the 91.155.

taking off into the clouds is legal in class G (uncontroiled) airspace, wither or not that is safe is depend and upon the out come of the flight. bust your sweet cheeks and you'll probably loose on 91.13

" what is legal isn't always safe "

 

[dmccormack]

they got him on the 91.13 but not the 91.155.

taking off into the clouds is legal in class G (uncontroiled) airspace, wither or not that is safe is depend and upon the out come of the flight. bust your sweet cheeks and you'll probably loose on 91.13

" what is legal isn't always safe "

Exactly, yet Ron insists in can only be IAW his interpretation (in which he ignores the very case he cites).

 

[dmccormack]

Whatever. The NTSB Order tells what he did, and that it was illegal. How you parse it is simply immaterial.

Good grief, Ron....

"we held that an instrumentrated pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a)"

Your citation.

 

[poadeleted20]

taking off into the clouds is legal in class G (uncontroiled) airspace,

Not when there's overlying controlled airspace as in Murphy's case. It's illegal. The fact that it's a violation of 91.13 rather than 91.155 (which Murphy did violate, but not in the manner charged) is simply irrelevant to the point.

 

[poadeleted20]

Good grief, Ron....

"we held that an instrumentrated pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to
section 91.155(a)"

Your citation.

So you're saying that something which the FAA says is a violation of 91.13 is not illegal if it doesn't violate another rule? Sorry, the NTSB dismissed that argument a very long time ago. You and Tom really need to study some law books and read some case law.

 

[Tom-D]

Actually, unless we're talking military aircraft, I think the relevant reg would be 91.175(a):

I would contend that 91.175 does not apply in un-controlled airspace. because it speaks to instrument approaches, which by nature are in controlled airspace.

and on the north slope of Alaska the only controlled airspace is the class "C" surrounding each airport with a tower. and during the flight the pilot can contact the tower and get a tower controlled approach.

 

[Tom-D]

So you're saying that something which the FAA says is a violation of 91.13 is not illegal if it doesn't violate another rule? Sorry, the NTSB dismissed that argument a very long time ago. You and Tom really need to study some law books and read some case law.

then you should enplane how it is done every day and no one gets busted.

 

[dmccormack]

So you're saying that something which the FAA says is a violation of 91.13 is not illegal if it doesn't violate another rule? Sorry, the NTSB dismissed that argument a very long time ago. You and Tom really need to study some law books and read some case law.

Yeah, studied Law, Ron.

You're conclusions are not supported by the case law cited.

 

[Tom-D]

Yeah, studied Law, Ron.

You're conclusions are not supported by the case law cited.

Ron's pretty good at this , I respect his opinion, but this time I think he is misinterpreted the issue.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not when there's overlying controlled airspace as in Murphy's case. It's illegal. The fact that it's a violation of 91.13 rather than 91.155 (which Murphy did violate, but not in the manner charged) is simply irrelevant to the point.

I find myself wondering if they still would have found that careless or reckless if it had occurred in an area of little or no air traffic, like, say, most of Alaska.

That's the trouble with the careless or reckless clause - it's so subjective.

 

[dmccormack]

Ron's pretty good at this , I respect his opinion, but this time I think he is misinterpreted the issue.

I agree - which is why I responded that his conclusion is not supported by the citation. In fact, it's contradicted.

 

[alaskaflyer]

IMHO Murphy isn't the best case to reference when talking about knuckle heads searching for rocks in clouds in my state. Even though in many areas class E does overly the class G only a few hundred feet up from the ground.

But the terrain clearance requirements for IFR enroute operations in 91.177 apply regardless of the class of airspace. So do equipment requirements, pilot currency, and what your employer's operating certificate says.

 

[Tom-D]

No being the FAR God, some one show me where IFR rules apply to Un-Controlled airspace.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Looking at the charts up there, there are spots where the OROCA's are REALLY high (22,700 feet near Denali would be the highest in the US) and there are not a whole lot of airways out there, plus you'd have to go WAY out of your way to get on, and use, those airways.

Not to mention, I don't think you're gonna hear 'em get cleared for the ILS to Joe-Bob's Gold Mine Strip.

 

[Palmpilot]

No being the FAR God, some one show me where IFR rules apply to Un-Controlled airspace.

Your wish is my command.

§ 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply—
(a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns “VFR conditions on-top,” that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by §91.159.
(b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows:
(1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—
(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or
(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000).
(2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290, and—
(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or
(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220).
(3) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM airspace, and—
(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or
(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).
(4) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace and—
(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410); or
(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 300 (such as 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400).
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–276, 68 FR 61321, Oct. 27, 2003; 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17, 2003; Amdt. 91–296, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
​

 

[Palmpilot]

I would contend that 91.175 does not apply in un-controlled airspace. because it speaks to instrument approaches, which by nature are in controlled airspace.

There are plenty of published instrument approaches that extend into uncontrolled airspace. The nearest one to me is less than ten miles from SFO:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.513444444,-122.501166667&chart=127&zoom=3

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/SW-2/haf_rnav_gps_z_rwy_30.pdf

 

[alaskaflyer]

As has been hammered into me a few times, uncontrolled does not mean unregulated.

If it did, there would not be VFR cloud and visibility requirements for class G which of course there are.

I will be so bold as to say the only thing that is different with IFR flight in class G is you don't have to obtain an ATC clearance for it. And Murphy shows that sometimes you even have to do that

 

[poadeleted20]

I would contend that 91.175 does not apply in un-controlled airspace. because it speaks to instrument approaches, which by nature are in controlled airspace.

You could "contend" that, but I see no legal basis to do so, because the regulation does not limit itself to controlled airspace.

 

[poadeleted20]

No being the FAR God, some one show me where IFR rules apply to Un-Controlled airspace.

Some (like 91.173) specifically exempt IFR operation in uncontrolled airspace. The rest, lacking such exemptions, apply.

 

[PittsDriver]

A few years ago, I spent a week flying in Alaska both training for my ASES and riding shotgun on some flights hauling ice and eggs back and forth. In nearly 20 hours of flying over 7 days, not once did anyone call for a weather brief or file IFR even on the days where more than just the tops of the hills were in the clouds. My impression was that they do things differently there out of necessity and what passes for FAA oversight works differently there for the same reason. I mean, what else could explain the kind of STCs and the shear number of them that have been approved for Super Cubs?

It still works pretty much like frontier country there where the laws of nature and necessity trump everything else. The trick is defining "necessity" properly. I took off in a 206 on floats packed with ice and spent the next hour 50' from the trees winding up valleys where everything above us was in IMC. Every couple of minutes was a decision point - do we keep going or turn around? The pilot knew every ridge and valley because he'd flown it a thousand times and knew if we rounded the next corner and it was obscured to the ground that there would be room to turn around. No DUATS weather report would have been helpful for that flight - it was a "let's go take a look and be prepared with plan B" kind of day.

I don't see that it would be very practical to suggest that any kind of instrument procedures would be helpful either. Their destinations are sand bars, little ponds in the bottom of valleys, and rivers and there's a whole bunch of those out there.