Transponder setting in IMC while in Class G

Ron Levy said:
If you're operating IFR through uncontrolled airspace with an ATC clearance to enter/re-enter controlled airspace, you squawk as assigned by ATC. Outside of that, I think what the FAA is telling you is that they really don't want you operating out there, and if you do it, they don't want to know about it. But if you choose to do so anyway, don't squawk something which could make it seem like you're operating VFR in IMC, and 1200 is an announcement that you're operating VFR.
Click to expand...

Ron --relax -- it's a hypothetical question.

I don't take off IFR without a clearance unless it's good VFR. I'll file with 3 and a 1000 and call for my clearance on the ground.

I've tried the "fly along VFR until you get cleared" thing -- it's pointlessly risky. I don't do revised clearances as well in the air as I do on the ground, and I don't like dodging towers and ridges.

I prefer to climb to controlled airspace. Soon enough I'm cleared to my requested altitude (or thereabouts, +/- a few thousand) and heading.

The point of this little exercise was made -- there is a tiny crack in the regs that may or may not have been accounted for. Given the discussion so far, I'd say it has not.
 
According to the Aeronautical Information Publication, transponders should be on in Class G airspace unless otherwise requested by ATC.

37.7.1.3 Civil and military transponders should be
adjusted to the “on” or normal operating position as
late as practicable prior to takeoff and to “off” or
“standby” as soon as practicable after completing
landing roll, unless the change to “standby” has been
accomplished previously at the request of ATC. IN
ALL CASES, WHILE IN CLASS A, B, C, D, AND
E AIRSPACE EACH PILOT OPERATING AN
AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH AN OPERABLE
ATC TRANSPONDER MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH 14 CFR SECTION 91.413
SHALL OPERATE THE TRANSPONDER, INCLUDING
MODE C IF INSTALLED, ON THE
APPROPRIATE CODE OR AS ASSIGNED BY
ATC. IN CLASS G AIRSPACE, THE TRANSPONDER
SHOULD BE OPERATING WHILE
AIRBORNE UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUESTED
BY ATC.

Still don't know what code it should be squawking.
 
Unbeliever said:
Wow. Save this thread. Ronca and Ron agreeing with each other. Which way is up? :confused:
Click to expand...

If you do a search of archived messages you'll find Cap'n Ron and I have always agreed when he was right.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
If a transponder code is squawked but no one is around to receive it, does it matter?:smile:
Click to expand...

No, and that's probably why no transponder code was ever assigned for IFR operations in Class G airspace. The Class G airspace where aircraft can legally operate IFR tends to be without ATC radar coverage so there was no point in such a code. The advent of TCAS changed that.
 
roncachamp said:
No, and that's probably why no transponder code was ever assigned for IFR operations in Class G airspace. The Class G airspace where aircraft can legally operate IFR tends to be without ATC radar coverage so there was no point in such a code. The advent of TCAS changed that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like rationale for designating a code. The only question is whether you would switch back and forth between 1200 and the new IFR code depending on whether you were in VMC or IMC conditions.
 
kkoran said:
Sounds like rationale for designating a code. The only question is whether you would switch back and forth between 1200 and the new IFR code depending on whether you were in VMC or IMC conditions.
Click to expand...

Maybe. The only thing I would care about is if the other traffic is conflicts with me or will conflict if I change course. Will a new code help determine this? If so, how? I don't see how a new code provides any new information.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Maybe. The only thing I would care about is if the other traffic is conflicts with me or will conflict if I change course. Will a new code help determine this? If so, how? I don't see how a new code provides any new information.
Click to expand...

Good point -- in the hypothetical case proffered here, let's say Bubba takes off squawking 1200, flies 500' AGL from his private field to a buddy's place 8 miles away.

If Bubba is in VMC, 1200 is fine.

If he's in IMC (2 mile vis in a light fog, let's say), but continues squawking 1200, is he causing anyone any heartburn?

If he turns off his transponder, he won't show up on TCAS (But who's looking for TCAS hits at 500' AGL in IMC in Class G?)

So, it would seem, that absent any other code, Bubba would be better off -- and marginally safer -- squawking 1200 in the hypothetical situation we're discussing.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
The only question is whether you would switch back and forth between 1200 and the new IFR code depending on whether you were in VMC or IMC conditions.
Click to expand...

Switching should depend on whether you were operating IFR or VFR.
 
dmccormack said:
Interesting -- is 1200 an anouncment that you are VMC? Or simply not assigned a squawk code by ATC?
Click to expand...

its is not necessarily an announcement that you are VMC...but you should be....1200 is for VFR meaning VFR/VMC..etc

Clay
CFI/II/MEI
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Good point -- in the hypothetical case proffered here, let's say Bubba takes off squawking 1200, flies 500' AGL from his private field to a buddy's place 8 miles away.

If Bubba is in VMC, 1200 is fine.

If he's in IMC (2 mile vis in a light fog, let's say), but continues squawking 1200, is he causing anyone any heartburn?

If he turns off his transponder, he won't show up on TCAS (But who's looking for TCAS hits at 500' AGL in IMC in Class G?)

So, it would seem, that absent any other code, Bubba would be better off -- and marginally safer -- squawking 1200 in the hypothetical situation we're discussiong.
Click to expand...

2 miles viz in Class G airspace is VMC. If Bubba actually was operating IFR at 500' AGL he'd be in violation of FAR 91.177.
 
taters said:
Its an announcment that you are VFR, not in contact with ATC , and you better be VMC.
Click to expand...

"Better be"? I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a reg that prohibits squawking anything you want to in class G airspace in the absence of an ATC instruction.
 
roncachamp said:
2 miles viz in Class G airspace is VMC. If Bubba actually was operating IFR at 500' AGL he'd be in violation of FAR 91.177.
Click to expand...


Type --should have been 1/2 mile vis...

Though I'd love to have someone show me the difference -- in flight -- between 1 and 3/4 mile vis. It all looks pretty tight to me.

Coming into a lit up runway is one thing, and I get RVR -- but "in flight visibility" of 1 mile is sure close to IMC, as far as I can tell.
 
roncachamp said:
Switching should depend on whether you were operating IFR or VFR.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between IFR and VFR in Class G other than the WX you're operating in? How do you define IFR in Class G?

[EDIT] That said, it really doesn't matter since the only reason for squawking is so planes with TCAS and other active traffic devices can see you.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
What's the difference between IFR and VFR in Class G other than the WX you're operating in?
Click to expand...
Aircraft certification and equipment requirements. Pilot certification and recent experience requirements. Also cruising altitudes, minimum altitudes, and fuel requirements.
How do you define IFR in Class G?
Click to expand...
Flight in less than VMC as defined by 91.155.
 
How would you fly an IFR/IMC trip from Dixon, WY (9U4) and the A-A ranch (pvt) around 60 K east, Cheyenne sectional. This is about 80k west of Laramie. Class G to 14,500. I think it can be done obeying all the rules. Again, all theoretical.
 
ejensen said:
How would you fly an IFR/IMC trip from Dixon, WY (9U4) and the A-A ranch (pvt) around 60 K east, Cheyenne sectional. This is about 80k west of Laramie. Class G to 14,500. I think it can be done obeying all the rules. Again, all theoretical.
Click to expand...

Climb to cruising altitude of 13,000, let down to 10,200, find VMC, land.
 
dmccormack said:
If he turns off his transponder, he won't show up on TCAS (But who's looking for TCAS hits at 500' AGL in IMC in Class G?)
Click to expand...

That could be me looking for hits when flying an approach that drops me into class G if "he" flies near an airport with an approach (probably not a good idea in the first place). Also keep in mind that there are places where class G extends much higher than 500 AGL.
 
gismo said:
That could be me looking for hits when flying an approach that drops me into class G if "he" flies near an airport with an approach (probably not a good idea in the first place). Also keep in mind that there are places where class G extends much higher than 500 AGL.
Click to expand...

True.

Here in the East that's not too common, but out West...
 
ejensen said:
How would you fly an IFR/IMC trip from Dixon, WY (9U4) and the A-A ranch (pvt) around 60 K east, Cheyenne sectional. This is about 80k west of Laramie. Class G to 14,500. I think it can be done obeying all the rules. Again, all theoretical.
Click to expand...

Here's the sectional for the departure airport. (Click and drag to find the destination to the east.)

http://skyvector.com/#49-11-2-2095-4132
 
Palmpilot said:
Here's the sectional for the departure airport. (Click and drag to find the destination to the east.)

http://skyvector.com/#49-11-2-2095-4132
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the chart. I didn't have time last week.

This was just the first example I could find. I've talked with a couple rancher/pilots that have home rolled routes totally in class G, private strips to town.
 
ejensen said:
Thanks for posting the chart. I didn't have time last week.

This was just the first example I could find. I've talked with a couple rancher/pilots that have home rolled routes totally in class G, private strips to town.
Click to expand...

Heck...you want one with two public airports...

3U8-JDN, MORAs under 9,000' too.
 
Whew, I got exhausted just reading this...
The ruling in Murphy says flying IMC in class G without filing/talking to ATC is reckless and careless ... It is therefore not legal...

As far as the transponder code, seems to me that 7700 would work just fine for this situation :()

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
Whew, I got exhausted just reading this...
The ruling in Murphy says flying IMC in class G without filing/talking to ATC is reckless and careless ... It is therefore not legal...

As far as the transponder code, seems to me that 7700 would work just fine for this situation :()

denny-o
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the Murphy ruling says that. Murphy departed in IFR with a class G ceiling of 700 feet. He claimed that he was in VMC before he hit 700 feet therefore not violating any FAR. The NTSB called bull**** on this saying that assuming you'd be in VMC before the ceiling is reckless. Plus there was plenty of evidience to suggest he wasn't in VMC.

There is a clear difference between doing the above and operating IFR between two class G airports where the class G ceiling is much higher and you remain in class G at an acceptable altitude the entire time. This is much less reckless than the above.
 
jesse said:
I'm not sure that the Murphy ruling says that.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think it does, and sometimes I think it doesn't. For those who want to read it and make up their own minds, see post #3 for a link to the case.
 
Palmpilot said:
Sometimes I think it does, and sometimes I think it doesn't. For those who want to read it and make up their own minds, see post #3 for a link to the case.
Click to expand...
I read it and it does not read as a blanket condemation of IFR in class G. There was more than one other aircraft and 700/1200 ceilings all around. No way to comply with several regs while waiting for a clearance. Could you even get a clearance in G to G situations. By definition, no.
 
Denny,

There are still wide swaths of America where class E starts much higher than 700 or 1200 feet, and talking to any FAA person on the radio other than maybe a FSS specialist on a distant scratchy RCO is a pipe dream.. 90% or so of small GA pilots never experience it - I know - but it is there nonetheless :) I don't think that the NTSB ever intended their ruling to be all-encompassing. Legal cases mean what they say and little more. The Murphy ruling should be applied narrowly.
 
Last edited:
ejensen said:
I read it and it does not read as a blanket condemation of IFR in class G. There was more than one other aircraft and 700/1200 ceilings all around. No way to comply with several regs while waiting for a clearance. Could you even get a clearance in G to G situations. By definition, no.
Click to expand...

But you could file a flight plan and I think you could get a squawk code prior to entering IMC regardless of the airspace class involved.
 
gismo said:
But you could file a flight plan and I think you could get a squawk code prior to entering IMC regardless of the airspace class involved.
Click to expand...
Not that I see myself ever needing to do it, but that would be an interesting conversation with ATC. Call for a non-clearance squwak. 'Proceed as filed, squwak 1234'?
 
ejensen said:
I read it and it does not read as a blanket condemation of IFR in class G. There was more than one other aircraft and 700/1200 ceilings all around. No way to comply with several regs while waiting for a clearance. Could you even get a clearance in G to G situations. By definition, no.
Click to expand...

My reading is that he was reckless in that he did not have a plan for entering controlled airspace, along with the fact that remaining outside of controlled airspace was not really an option. In the land of open Class G out west, that wouldn't have been an issue. In fact, if you plan the terrain right, you could probably sneak under the 1,200 AGL on the airways while maintaining your 1,000 above obstacles altitude and make a lot of flights without ever touching controlled airspace.
 
ejensen said:
Not that I see myself ever needing to do it, but that would be an interesting conversation with ATC. Call for a non-clearance squwak. 'Proceed as filed, squwak 1234'?
Click to expand...

"Proceed as filed" is a clearance, and ATC cannot issue a clearance for uncontrolled airspace.

For a "pure G" flight, ATC cannot clear you. They have no jurisdiction over the airspace.
 
JeffDG said:
"Proceed as filed" is a clearance, and ATC cannot issue a clearance for uncontrolled airspace.

For a "pure G" flight, ATC cannot clear you. They have no jurisdiction over the airspace.
Click to expand...

This whole discussion seems to beg the question of "Why don't the regs allow ATC to issue clearances in Class G (or it's equivalent)?"

Seems to me that there's no reason for "uncontrolled" airspace to exist at all, at least to the extent that IFR traffic isn't provided with some means of safe separation beyond the big sky concept. Other countries have Class F which in some (but not all) cases allows for exactly that while leaving the less restrictive VFR ops of Class G.

One might argue that ATC control cannot be exercised unless there is radio communication but for a remote area beyond radio range the one-in, one-out method would still work and I'd bet that most areas where Class G reaches 14,500 MSL, communication would be possible at the upper altitudes of the Class G.
 
A bit late to this thread but in order to answer the question I need to know if you took off from a treadmill.:rolleyes:
 
Maybe an enroute CTAF would be the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top