I hate when that happens.
Scud-running: Definitely Bad, but is it legal?
- Thread starter SbestCFII
- Start date
I hate when that happens.
Why can't you call FSS ot ARTCC for a clearance from the ground?
I suspect the NTSB and FAA administrator would not agree with you that launching IMC into Class G without a clearance was acceptable, and if this was brought to the attention of the FSDO would almost certainly result in enforcement action.
So I don't believe this happens quite often, at least not in the zones where Class G only goes to 1200 or 700 AGL. The big brown areas on the enroute charts is a different story.
That's what I was getting at earlier with coordinating the departure before launching. There is a procedure in place to make this happen without violating anything.
Yes, but in that case you have a clearance. The clearance starts in class E, but you do have a clearance before you take off. Assume though that your whole trip was in class G, and so you couldn't be given a clearance. According to the NTSB and the FAA, that is a per se violation of the reckless catch-all.
Agreed. In the Murphy case, the pilot called for a clearance, and the only reason he was denied was because his destination was below IFR minimums, and was not accepting any additional traffic.
Again, that's not what the case says. It says unequivocally that taking off into Class G in IMC without a clearance is unequivocally a violation. It doesn't matter why. If you go in trying to distinguish it, you would lose. Plus, you haven't read Vance.
You are basically reading qualifying into the case that isn't in the NTSB's language.
"An instrument-rated pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) [is] technically legal under the predecessor section to section 91.155(a), but [is] nonetheless careless, in violation of the predecessor to section 91.13(a)"
"[A] takeoff into uncontrolled airspace under IFR without an ATC clearance constitutes an independent violation of section 91.13(a)." Period
It doesn't say "constitutes an independent violation if the destination isn't accepting traffic or if blah blah blah." It is an unequivocal holding.
Last edited:
It may be moot by now, at least in the U.S., since as John Saubak pointed out, the areas where class G goes up to 14,500 MSL are getting smaller and smaller. Even in Alaska, I couldn't find any that have charted airports in them.
L05 to L09. Good luck flying at 14k feet though. Actually you couldn't because of the 2k feet mountainous terrain requirement.
Looking at skyvector I actually don't see any brown areas in the US with airports that would allow you to fly from/to another airport IFR below 14.5k while observing terrain clearance reqs. So I think it is a moot point now, and IFR in Class G without a clearance is simply illegal, with no exceptions.
Last edited:
I can't say as I feel in any way deprived by not being able to fly IFR between those two airports! 
Also, at the destination, you would have to have VFR conditions up to the minimum IFR altitude, since there are no published approaches.
Also, at the destination, you would have to have VFR conditions up to the minimum IFR altitude, since there are no published approaches.I can't say as I feel in any way deprived by not being able to fly IFR between those two airports!
Who needs published approaches if you're scud running? Haven't you ever heard of a contact approach? Jeez wut a nube
Exactly, makes perfect sense, if you don't have the clearance ready to get out of the IMC in G situation, that's reckless.
I don't disagree, but I think in any case where the FAA is going to establish a bright line rule like that, the FAA should just codify it in the regs. For example, amend 91.173 to say:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled OR uncontrolled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.
As it is, 91.173 certainly implies that operating in Class G without an ATC clearance is acceptable.
I thought we were talking legality. A contact approach is only allowed when a published approach exists for that airport.
Was kidding
I'm still not convinced by the "no exceptions" conclusion, because there are areas in Alaska where people could be taking off from places other than airports, and when it gets that remote, it would be a lot harder to justify saying that the pilot is endangering "the life or property of another." I also suspect the FAA might not want to go on record as prohibiting IFR departures altogether in areas like that, which is what they would be doing if they said you had to have a clearance but were unwilling to provide one.
http://skyvector.com/?ll=68.6097229...40795&chart=301&zoom=9&plan=A.K2.L05:A.K2.L09
http://skyvector.com/?ll=66.9055091...27833&chart=301&zoom=9&plan=A.K2.L05:A.K2.L09
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
1000 above, 500 below and 2000 laterally from clouds gives you time to see and avoid an airplane popping out of that cloud. Just clear of the cloud does not. If flying in a cloud knowing that another airplane may be just on the edge of that cloud about 1 second away when you fly out of it isn't careless and reckless, what is? Look at the flip side. Is flying VFR, clear of cloud, knowing that another airplane may pop out of that cloud without time for you or him to see and avoid each other careless and reckless? Is flying a published instrument approach into airspace where other aircraft may legally be "just clear of clouds" careless and reckless? Is Publishing such an approach careless and reckless? Is the FAA being careless and reckless when they Publish an approach with an MDA that is in uncontrolled airspace? There are a lot of them now. GPS has made it so easy to build an Approach into about any airport. And it's being done. And some them have MDA's that are lower than the floor of controlled airspace because there is no Surface Area. There is a reason you may not operate beneath a reported ceiling less than 1000 feet in a Surface Area regardless of your flight conditions.