Pop up IFR and currency.

[Palmpilot]

But how would you know if you can maintain terrain/obstruction clearance if you're in the clouds??? :wink2:

You have to know where you are in relation to any obstacles that are high enough to be a factor, and you have to have a plan for avoiding them that provides an ample safety margin. If you don't, then it should not be attempted unless it's an emergency with no better solution available.

A real world example occurred years ago on a flight from Seattle to Portland. I requested a pop-up IFR clearance under an MVFR ceiling south of Bremerton. I knew where the Olympic mountains were, and that flying direct from my present position to Olympia VOR would take me away from them. I could see many miles in that direction under the ceiling, and it was obvious from that and from the sectional that there was nothing to hit. When the controller asked if I could provide my own terrain and obstruction clearance to the MVA, I said I could do that by flying direct Olympia. (I told the controller what my plan was so that he would have some idea of whether I was about to kill myself on his watch.)

 

[Palmpilot]

Efficient? Maybe, but it does not meet the requirements of an IFR clearance.

Yeah, when I read that, I thought, "How does one maintain IFR without a clearance limit, etc.?"

 

[roncachamp]

Oh Steven you know we've gone way past what the original post is about.

Then the discussion is now unrelated to the thread title.

 

[Palmpilot]

My thinking is, if conditions are so low you can't maintain terrain/obstruction clearance visually up to the MIA, then you have no business being there trying to get a pop-up. You're scud running. You should have filed and picked up your IFR clearance on the ground, with a void time if necessary, and followed the ODP.

There are situations when it's less safe to pick up the IFR clearance on the ground.

Back when South Lake Tahoe (TVL) had a tower, a fairly stout wind was favoring takeoff to the south, but the C-172/RG I was flying would have been unable to meet the required climb gradient in that direction. I departed VFR, made a downwind departure (to the north), and climbed over the lake to request a popup clearance. Lake Tahoe is pretty big, and it was a simple matter to maintain terrain clearance by staying on the side of the localizer that was away from the mountains.

On a flight from Truckee (TRK) to the SFO area, the weather was plenty good enough to get out of the mountains VFR, but I'm not sure the plane I was flying would meet the required climb gradient, and I was going to need an approach to get into the SFO area.

Another issue is that it's possible for icing to be likely in the departure area, but not at the destination, especially when departing from mountain airports.

There are also situations where departing IFR adds unnecessary delay. For example, it is pretty common for weather to be plenty good enough to depart VFR from the south San Francisco Bay area and fly over the coastal mountains, but an approach is needed to get into coastal airports like Monterey or Watsonville. Since there are three airline airports in close proximity, delays for IFR departures are fairly common, and under these conditions, it's easy to maintain VFR if there is a delay in getting the clearance. (I've never had that happen though.)

It's also possible to have a prefiled flight plan that starts from a point in the air.

I'm guessing that when IFR conditions exist where you live, they tend to be more widespread, and I can see how that might affect your choices.

 

[Velocity173]

You have to know where you are in relation to any obstacles that are high enough to be a factor, and you have to have a plan for avoiding them that provides an ample safety margin. If you don't, then it should not be attempted unless it's an emergency with no better solution available.

A real world example occurred years ago on a flight from Seattle to Portland. I requested a pop-up IFR clearance under an MVFR ceiling south of Bremerton. I knew where the Olympic mountains were, and that flying direct from my present position to Olympia VOR would take me away from them. I could see many miles in that direction under the ceiling, and it was obvious from that and from the sectional that there was nothing to hit. When the controller asked if I could provide my own terrain and obstruction clearance to the MVA, I said I could do that by flying direct Olympia. (I told the controller what my plan was so that he would have some idea of whether I was about to kill myself on his watch.)

Yeah I was just being sarcastic. I've done it a few times myself. Like the reference I gave from the .65, the whole point is you can't maintain VMC in the climb. The controller then must ask if you can at least maintain your own terrain and obstruction clearance during the climb to the MIA. If you know your aircraft and your area, it's not a problem.

 

[Velocity173]

Then the discussion is now unrelated to the thread title.

No, now it's officially not related to the thread title because we're currently discussing a pop up clearance below the MIA.

 

[gismo]

Originally Posted by azure
But that's the point, I don't think he is talking only about routine pop-up requests. He's saying that the interpretation of paragraph 10-2-8 that you and BradZ are going by is wrong. According to Steven, the policy does NOT tell controllers to ask about qualifications if a VFR pilot encountering deteriorating weather specifically requests an IFR clearance, only when the nature of the requested assistance is unclear and the controller needs to know if he can OFFER a clearance as a way out.
'Zackly.

That actually makes a lot of sense. When a pilot asks for "radar assistance" without requesting an IFR clearnce and there's IMC along the path ATC might assign, I would imagine that someone at the FAA ATC policy making level didn't want a controller to offer an IFR clearance unless the pilot has acknowledged that the pilot and aircraft are IFR capable. Otherwise a controller might be held responsible for "pushing" the pilot into violating FARs with the pilot thinking he's off the hook because ATC was the one who suggested going IFR.

As to the speculation that some controllers query a pilot's IFR capabilities when the pilot asks for a pop-up clearance because said controller was in that frame of mind having made the same query when a previous pilot asked for radar assistance, I can see the likelihood of that but that's only one possibility among many AFaIK.

But after all that, I don't really care when and if ATC asks me if I'm "IFR capable and equipped", I'm happy to answer any questions if it facilitates my getting a clearance sooner.

 

[Velocity173]

Hey Steven gotta serious question for ya. You got a guy who's inbound to GRB VFR over the top. He says he's low on fuel and can't make it back to VMC and reports he's not instrument rated but he has had instrument lessons. He requests immediate vectors for an instrument approach. So there's no doubt he's not qualified but his aircraft is equipped. The question is, do you clear him to the airport or do you stick with "radar assistance techniques" until his fuel is exhausted?

 

[mcheathe]

The way the controller is going to handle you is entirely dependent upon the verbiage you use when you request “assistance”.

If you state, imply or the controller suspects, by the words or actions of the pilot/aircraft, that the pilot or aircraft may not capable of conducting IFR flight, he is required to ask “if the pilot is qualified for and capable of conducting IFR flight”.

Word your request for service carefully if you want to avoid the question as to qualifications.

From FAA ATP Manual 7110.65U

10−2−8. RADAR ASSISTANCE TO VFR
AIRCRAFT IN WEATHER DIFFICULTY
a. If a VFR aircraft requests radar assistance when
it encounters or is about to encounter IFR weather
conditions, ask the pilot if he/she is qualified for and
capable of conducting IFR flight.

b. If the pilot states he/she is qualified for and
capable of IFR flight, request him/her to file an IFR
flight plan and then issue clearance to destination
airport, as appropriate.

c. If the pilot states he/she is not qualified for or not
capable of conducting IFR flight, or if he/she refuses
to file an IFR flight plan, take whichever of the
following actions is appropriate:

1. Inform the pilot of airports where VFR
conditions are reported, provide other available
pertinent weather information, and ask if he/she will
elect to conduct VFR flight to such an airport.

2. If the action in subpara 1 above is not feasible
or the pilot declines to conduct VFR flight to another
airport, provide radar assistance if the pilot:

(a) Declares an emergency.

(b) Refuses to declare an emergency and you
have determined the exact nature of the radar services
the pilot desires.

3. If the aircraft has already encountered IFR
conditions, inform the pilot of the appropriate
terrain/obstacle clearance minimum altitude. If the
aircraft is below appropriate terrain/obstacle clearance
minimum altitude and sufficiently accurate
position information has been received or radar

identification is established, furnish a heading or
radial on which to climb to reach appropriate
terrain/obstacle clearance minimum altitude.

d. The following must be accomplished on a
Mode C equipped VFR aircraft which is in
emergency but no longer requires the assignment of
Code 7700:

1. TERMINAL. Assign a beacon code that will
permit terminal minimum safe altitude warning
(MSAW) alarm processing.

2. EN ROUTE. An appropriate keyboard entry
must be made to ensure en route MSAW (EMSAW)
alarm processing.

​

​

​

​

​

 

[roncachamp]

Hey Steven gotta serious question for ya. You got a guy who's inbound to GRB VFR over the top. He says he's low on fuel and can't make it back to VMC and reports he's not instrument rated but he has had instrument lessons. He requests immediate vectors for an instrument approach. So there's no doubt he's not qualified but his aircraft is equipped. The question is, do you clear him to the airport or do you stick with "radar assistance techniques" until his fuel is exhausted?

An emergency is declared, we are now free to deviate from Order JO 7110.65 and FAR Part 91. I'd give him vectors to the approach of his choice, clearing him to the airport would be a waste of words.

 

[Velocity173]

An emergency is declared, we are now free to deviate from Order JO 7110.65 and FAR Part 91. I'd give him vectors to the approach of his choice, clearing him to the airport would be a waste of words.

Would you clear him for the approach?

 

[roncachamp]

Would you clear him for the approach?

If he asked for approach clearance, yes, but it's rather meaningless under these conditions.

 

[Palmpilot]

If he asked for approach clearance, yes, but it's rather meaningless under these conditions.

I assume that's because 91.3(b) is all the clearance he needs under those conditions?

 

[azure]

I'm guessing that when IFR conditions exist where you live, they tend to be more widespread, and I can see how that might affect your choices.

Usually but not always. Sometimes conditions vary a lot over a few miles. Home base can be VFR but KPTK is socked in, or vice versa. I should have been clearer, but I was talking about someone trying to pick up a clearance in the air (thus being asked if they can maintain terrain/obstacle clearance to the MVA) when the bases are below the MVA. The difference is that around here, the MVAs are pretty low. So that sounds to me like asking for trouble unless the low ceilings are very localized and I know the area well.

I don't understand your first example, since if you're departing a particular runway (say 27) but your route of flight is in the opposite direction, can't you ask for an immediate turn to enter controlled airspace on a heading where you can meet the required climb gradient? On the other hand, if you can climb VFR, then that's not the kind of situation I was talking about.

Your Truckee example is one I hadn't thought of -- conditions are VFR and you can safely depart VFR but can't meet the required IFR climb gradient. That sounds like an issue you're more likely to encounter in mountainous areas.

Ditto a case where you need to avoid icing in the mountains. There you're not scud running, it's just that IFR altitudes are a lot higher than where I fly.

And yes, the delay problem exists around here (near KDTW). Going downriver from Detroit (down the Detroit River toward lake Erie) I'd expect to get vectored around pretty badly if I went IFR, and would prefer to depart VFR if possible until away from the Bravo. Here, if it was too low to do that, I'd be scud running so I might have to accept the delay.

Thanks for the input, you've given me a lot to think about.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't understand your first example, since if you're departing a particular runway (say 27) but your route of flight is in the opposite direction, can't you ask for an immediate turn to enter controlled airspace on a heading where you can meet the required climb gradient?

If you're talking about my Tahoe departure, it was a towered airport at that time, so there was controlled airspace down to the ground. My recollection is that there was no ODP to the north back then. There may have been a SID.

With the procedures as they exist now, and with no tower, I suppose one could just turn downwind and join the ODP for Rwy 36, which has a very benign climb gradient. If there were still a tower, then I assume one would need to ask permission to do that on an IFR departure.

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CA
LAKE TAHOE (TVL)
AMDT 6 12040 (FAA)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 18, std. w/min. climb of
832' per NM to 11500, or 1700 - 3 w/min. climb of
715' per NM to 11500. Rwy 36, 300 - 2 or std w/min.
of 215' per NM to 6500, alternatively, with standard
takeoff minimums and a normal 200' per NM climb
gradient takeoff must occur no later than 1400' prior
to DER.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 18, climb heading
177° to 7900 then climbing right turn to intercept
SWR R-133 to SWR VOR/DME ...
Rwy 36, climb heading 357° to intercept SWR R-113
to SWR VOR/DME ...
... then proceed on course.
NOTE: Rwy 18, multiple trees beginning 10' from
DER, 172' left and 113' right of centerline, up to 85'
AGL/6415' MSL. Rwy 36, multiple trees beginning
166' from DER, 14' left and 97' right of centerline, up
to 45' AGL/6405' MSL.​

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

On the other hand, if you can climb VFR, then that's not the kind of situation I was talking about.

It was not possible to climb VFR to the MVA on that day.

Does that clear up the confusion?

 

[azure]

TAKEOFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 18, std. w/min. climb of
832' per NM to 11500, or 1700 - 3 w/min. climb of
715' per NM to 11500.

That is one HECK of a climb gradient -- especially considering the elevation at Tahoe.

It was not possible to climb VFR to the MVA on that day.

No, but you could climb VFR to a safe altitude, apparently. Here the MVAs are about 500 feet above some of the higher obstacles. If you can't reach MVA VFR, you really are scud running. I guess that's not true everywhere.

Does that clear up the confusion?

Yes -- I was thinking very locally. Mea culpa.

 

[pericynthion]

That is one HECK of a climb gradient -- especially considering the elevation at Tahoe.

For a single engine piston, yes. Piece of cake for a jet.

 

[Palmpilot]

That is one HECK of a climb gradient -- especially considering the elevation at Tahoe.

Yes, and the scary part is this: Part 91 operators are not legally bound by takeoff minimums under 91.175(f), and other than ones that are associated with SIDs, the minimum climb gradients are published in the takeoff minimums section. This led me to overlook the fact that if you don't meet or exceed those gradients, the ODP does not guarantee terrain and obstacle clearance!

I think the AIM language nowadays is clearer about the linkage between specified climb gradients and ODPs.

Fortunately, the tower controller warned me about a squall line to the south, or else I probably wouldn't be here to tell the story.

No, but you could climb VFR to a safe altitude, apparently. Here the MVAs are about 500 feet above some of the higher obstacles. If you can't reach MVA VFR, you really are scud running. I guess that's not true everywhere.

As I was turning downwind, it became apparent that the bottoms of the clouds were poking down to about 900 AGL, which was considerably lower than what the ATIS claimed. So that part would fit my definition of scud running, but visibility was good under the clouds, and the ceiling was VFR over the lake (although still not high enough to reach the MVA in VFR conditions). When I asked Oakland Center for my clearance, the controller said they usually prefer people to get their clearances on the ground. Rather than get into an involved discussion about why I hadn't done that, I just volunteered that I could maintain my own terrain and obstruction clearance (for which I already had a plan in mind) and she gave me my clearance.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That is one HECK of a climb gradient -- especially considering the elevation at Tahoe.

It is. The other use for that information is considering whether you want to fly IMC into that airport. Although the required climb to safely execute the missed is not listed on the approach, the required ROC for departure is a good clue to at least think in those terms.

 

[Palmpilot]

It is. The other use for that information is considering whether you want to fly IMC into that airport. Although the required climb to safely execute the missed is not listed on the approach, the required ROC for departure is a good clue to at least think in those terms.

The missed approach points range from 2.6 to 4.4 nautical miles from the airport, and all the missed approaches turn north to climb over the lake. The IFR minimums for most of the approaches are higher than VFR minimums!

http://www.aopa.org/airports/KTVL

Especially now that there is an ODP to the north with quite benign climb gradient requirements, the main issues in my mind for whether I want to fly in there on any given day are winds, icing, density altitude, and thunderstorms.