I think Administrator v. Murphy also said you can't do it in "G below 1,200" too, as it's almost impossible to remain legal.
I think Administrator v. Murphy also said you can't do it in "G below 1,200" too, as it's almost impossible to remain legal.
Maintaining 1,000 above the highest terrain or obstacle withing 4nm of your course, with the fact that towers of 199' can be there uncharted gives you ~1 foot of wiggle room...
The circumstances under which Mr. Murphy was operating.
I suggest re-reading the first sentence of 91.177 -- the part about "except when necessary for takeoff and landing..." Further, 91.177 says nothing about the presence or absence of an ATC clearance. Or are you suggesting that an ATC clearance can somehow override the requirements of 91.177? I think not. The FAA's contention in Murphy was limited to airports where instrument approach/departures under ATC clearances were in progress. In that Boondock, Montana, case, no such conflict would exist, since ATC doesn't clear people for departures/approaches in such cases.
So I can legally operate under IFR in IMC within 700' of the surface if I limit my operations to takeoffs and landings?
How do you comply with 91.177 where Class E airspace begins at 700' AGL without an ATC clearance?
Yes, I know.
Good -- we agree.
No.
You can't.
The point that it's not always illegal or always legal to fly IFR in IMC in uncontrolled airspace without a flight plan or clearance. It's all situations.
Since I have not changed my position on this issue, I don't see how you can say I've learned anything from you on the point. I'll say it one more time: Depending on the circumstances, it's sometimes possible to operate IFR in Class G airspace legally without either a flight plan or a clearance. The Murphy case shows one situation where it's not legal. There are other situations where it is. Underneath the 700-foot floor of E-space over an airport with instrument approaches is not one of them. Out in the big brown areas on the L-charts where the floor of E-controlled airspace is 14,500 and you can fly from Point A to Point B at a 91.177-legal altitude without underflying any published instrument approaches or crossing any controlled airspace and you'll be VMC before you descend below the 91.177 minimum altitude at your destination (so you don't have to make an instrument letdown) appears to be one where it's legal.
What were you trying to say when you wrote:
In other words, one can legally operate under Instrument Flight Rules without an IFR flight plan or clearance in Class G airspace.
It's always legal to operate in IMC in Class G airspace when it can be done in accordance with all applicable FARs.
That statement is not true without qualification.
Sounds like you're saying it's legal to do anything you want as long as it's done legally. I prefer to provide a more useful contribution to the understanding of the issues involved in operating legally.
Do you dispute that?
It appears you simply prefer to provide as many "contributions" as possible, whether or not you have anything useful to add.
This is why it would be nice to have that ignore thread feature. You could just put these types of threads on ignore and they cease to exist in the way that if a tree fall in the forest and only two people are there, they can argue if they heard it, vein.
