Someone needs to learn lesson

[Palmpilot]

For what it's worth, there is at least one NTSB opinion (which was upheld on appeal, I believe) finding that a pilot violated 91.13 because the pilot was in IMC in class G not on an IFR flight plan.

Murphy

 

[Mike Smith]

Anytime the FAA wants to get you, they will, and 91.13 is the tool they will use. You may not have violated a reg, but you were careless and/or reckless.

 

[PPC1052]

Murphy

That's the one. The guy took off from an uncontrolled airport in IMC without an IFR clearance which was not issued because his destination was below IFR minimums for the approach. He entered VFR conditions before entering controlled airspace, and it was agreed that he had not violated 91.155

 

[PPC1052]

I remember reading that, but I don't think it was one of those oddball mountain-west situations, it was in a pretty congested area and I think what got him was minimum altitude requirements in combination with 91.13 because he really should have been in controlled airspace.

I don't think there was evidence that it was a particularly congested area. The opinion merely states that when the pilot takes off into the clouds there was no assurance that VFR conditions would prevail when he reaches controlled airspace. Also, the see and avoid concept would not apply, and there would be no other way to insure avoidance of other aircraft. These hazards would exist any time one takes off into the clouds not on an IFR clearance even where you comply with all of the regulatory requirements for flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace. But don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing that the result was correct. I am just simply advising people that merely staying in Class G airspace isn't necessarily going to be a safe harbor.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's the one. The guy took off from an uncontrolled airport in IMC without an IFR clearance which was not issued because his destination was below IFR minimums for the approach. He entered VFR conditions before entering controlled airspace, and it was agreed that he had not violated 91.155

The conclusion that he didn't violate 91.155 was in error, because with the 200-foot ceiling that the respondent described, there's no way that he could have been 1000 feet above the cloud tops when he entered class E airspace (which started at 700 AGL). So resorting to 91.13 was unnecessary.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The conclusion that he didn't violate 91.155 was in error, because with the 200-foot ceiling that the respondent described, there's no way that he could have been 1000 feet above the cloud tops when he entered class E airspace (which started at 700 AGL). So resorting to 91.13 was unnecessary.

There's a bit of ambiguity there, though, at airspace transitions. 91.155 isn't particularly clear on that. I think you'd agree that the FAA's intent would not be for an airplane flying *closer* to clouds to be legal when flying farther from them is not. The extreme example would be an airplane flying right at 1200 AGL at the border between E and G (which 91.155(e) says means the plane is in G) and dragging its landing gear through the clouds but the cockpit in the clear. It would seem that the FAA would probably prefer that you continue to climb into the E-space at that point, provided the clouds don't go up at all.

Both the FAA and NTSB agreed in that case that it wasn't a 91.155(a) violation, which would seem to indicate the same.

 

[Palmpilot]

There's a bit of ambiguity there, though, at airspace transitions. 91.155 isn't particularly clear on that. I think you'd agree that the FAA's intent would not be for an airplane flying *closer* to clouds to be legal when flying farther from them is not. The extreme example would be an airplane flying right at 1200 AGL at the border between E and G (which 91.155(e) says means the plane is in G) and dragging its landing gear through the clouds but the cockpit in the clear. It would seem that the FAA would probably prefer that you continue to climb into the E-space at that point, provided the clouds don't go up at all.

Both the FAA and NTSB agreed in that case that it wasn't a 91.155(a) violation, which would seem to indicate the same.

You have more faith in FAA and NTSB lawyers than I do. I've seen too many Chief Counsel interpretations in which the FAA relied on the letter of the reg and ignored nice reasonable interpretations like yours.

As for the ambiguity that occurred when part of the airplane was in class G and part of it was in class E, that went away as the plane continued to climb. For example, when the plane was 100 feet above the floor of class E, it was less than 600 feet above the cloud tops, and the minimum allowable cloud spacing over the top is 1000 in class E.

I think this issue just didn't occur to them. As I recall, the case decision has no discussion of the plane's distance above the cloud tops, so there's no evidence that they considered and rejected it as a factor.

 

[Zeldman]

Anytime the FAA wants to get you, they will

And add "by hook or by crook to that''.

 

[OPhere]

Happy to report that I got a call from my CFI to talk about an upcoming lesson for and he mentioned that he was up with my buddy starting his IFR training. If fact he just dismissed his second lesson today. While it’s not compete by far...it’s a start and talked to my buddy and he seems motivated to get it done.

 

[Kritchlow]

For what it's worth, there is at least one NTSB opinion (which was upheld on appeal, I believe) finding that a pilot violated 91.13 because the pilot was in IMC in class G not on an IFR flight plan.

No clearance required in class G

 

[deyoung]

No clearance required in class G

Can you be in IMC (legally) in class G without a clearance? I'm thinking no, because you can't legally be VFR if your cloud clearance is 0, and you can't be IFR without a clearance in any airspace class. No?

 

[Palmpilot]

§91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

[emphasis added]​

There's no corresponding requirement for uncontrolled airspace.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

§91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan required.

No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

[emphasis added]​

There's no corresponding requirement for uncontrolled airspace.

So an autonomous drone can operate IFR anywhere, apparently.