Uncontrolled IFR

iamtheari said:
Oddly enough, there is a big, new piece of class G in western ND, including the Killdeer Mountains, which brought me back to this thread. I don't know when this area popped up but I think it was in the past year. S25-9Y1 at non-oxygen altitudes is now more than 50% in class G airspace.
Click to expand...
That area didn't just pop up. It's an artifact that remained after the extensive Class E rulemaking circa 2013-2017.
 
aterpster said:
That area didn't just pop up. It's an artifact that remained after the extensive Class E rulemaking circa 2013-2017.
Click to expand...
I don't remember seeing this wedge until very recently. I started flying in 2015 so I'll have to see if I can find my old paper sectionals and compare. Most of the smaller wedges I remember seeing have disappeared over the past few years, but this one is relatively large and new. Maybe it took a couple years after rulemaking to show up on the charts? It is also a bit unusual because the southeast edge of it is convex. Usually the edges of class G wedges like this are concave because of how the class E that doesn't quite cover them is defined.
 
iamtheari said:
I don't remember seeing this wedge until very recently. I started flying in 2015 so I'll have to see if I can find my old paper sectionals and compare. Most of the smaller wedges I remember seeing have disappeared over the past few years, but this one is relatively large and new. Maybe it took a couple years after rulemaking to show up on the charts? It is also a bit unusual because the southeast edge of it is convex. Usually the edges of class G wedges like this are concave because of how the class E that doesn't quite cover them is defined.
Click to expand...

Look further West in Western Montana. They popped up there also.
 
luvflyin said:
Look further West in Western Montana. They popped up there also.
Click to expand...
Those were on the IFR low en route, but not the sectional. That error was brought to their attention a couple of months ago.
 
So, is it legal for an Instrument rated pilot in an instrument capable airplane on a VFR flight to momentarily fly through IMC in Class G airspace (say 1000’ AGL) in order to punch through to VFR conditions?

Asking about legality, not wisdom.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So, is it legal for an Instrument rated pilot in an instrument capable airplane on a VFR flight to momentarily fly through IMC in Class G airspace (say 1000’ AGL) in order to punch through to VFR conditions?

Asking about legality, not wisdom.
Click to expand...

You’d have to be on a course of 000 clockwise through 179 and there couldn’t be any obstacles sticking up above the ground within 4 miles either side of your course and you couldn’t be in designated mountainous area. Other than that, yeah, go for it.
 
aterpster said:
Those were on the IFR low en route, but not the sectional. That error was brought to their attention a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...

I’m having trouble making sense of this. Did they just flip a coin and it came up heads, the En Route Chart was right and the Sectional wrong? If it was tails would they have fixed the En Route Chart and left the Sectional as it was? What ain’t passing the logic check here is what’s so different about Montana? The FAA went on a rampage a few years back to eliminate Uncontrolled Airspace above 1200 across the country. And seemed successful at it. Other than a very few isolated pieces, G above 1200 disappeared from the Sectionals. And it’s gone from the En Route Charts also, except for those few pieces and all that stuff in Western Montana. Has all that G up there been on the En Route Charts for a long time? Or did it pop up a revision or two ago?

EDIT: Just found some more in Michigan around SAW. On the En Route but not on the Sectional.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
So, is it legal for an Instrument rated pilot in an instrument capable airplane on a VFR flight to momentarily fly through IMC in Class G airspace (say 1000’ AGL) in order to punch through to VFR conditions?

Asking about legality, not wisdom.
Click to expand...

"Clear of clouds" is still a legal requirement in G below 1200 ft. in daytime.
 
IK04 said:
"Clear of clouds" is still a legal requirement in G below 1200 ft. in daytime.
Click to expand...
It’s a requirement for VFR flight in class G. Is it a requirement for IFR flight in class G?
 
iamtheari said:
It’s a requirement for VFR flight in class G. Is it a requirement for IFR flight in class G?
Click to expand...
Nope, but as I mentioned earlier.

However the downsides:

1. If you are heading for controlled airspace, the FAA has held that not having obtained a clearance for that airspace prior to launching into uncontrolled IFR is a 91.13 violation.
2. Remember that you still need a legal approach to an airport you intend to land at if not in VMC
3. You need to meet the IFR fuel requirements including alternates.
4. You need to respect the IFR minimum altitudes and cruising altitude rules. Note there's no exemption for being below 3000' like there is VFR.
 
IK04 said:
Nope. You will have a clearance prior to departure.
Click to expand...
But it’s not your clearance that allows you into the clouds.

Back in the day, an IFR clearance from class G airspace started with “enter controlled airspace heading xxx”...

If still in class G there was no clearance required to enter clouds.
 
luvflyin said:
I’m having trouble making sense of this. Did they just flip a coin and it came up heads, the En Route Chart was right and the Sectional wrong? If it was tails would they have fixed the En Route Chart and left the Sectional as it was? What ain’t passing the logic check here is what’s so different about Montana? The FAA went on a rampage a few years back to eliminate Uncontrolled Airspace above 1200 across the country. And seemed successful at it. Other than a very few isolated pieces, G above 1200 disappeared from the Sectionals. And it’s gone from the En Route Charts also, except for those few pieces and all that stuff in Western Montana. Has all that G up there been on the En Route Charts for a long time? Or did it pop up a revision or two ago?

EDIT: Just found some more in Michigan around SAW. On the En Route but not on the Sectional.
Click to expand...

NBAA got it to the correct department. It took them a week, or so, to get back. They said they went through all the pertinent final rule dockets for the "eliminate Class G above 1,200" program and determined that the sectionals were in error. I am not convinced they are right. I worked all those cases for NBAA circa 2013-2017. I drew them out in my GIS program. I recall they had filled all of them in except for a hedge SW of ABQ. I have all that stuff on an old PC. I wasn't motivated to sort through it though. I was on the clock when I did it before.
 
aterpster said:
NBAA got it to the correct department. It took them a week, or so, to get back. They said they went through all the pertinent final rule dockets for the "eliminate Class G above 1,200" program and determined that the sectionals were in error. I am not convinced they are right. I worked all those cases for NBAA circa 2013-2017. I drew them out in my GIS program. I recall they had filled all of them in except for a hedge SW of ABQ. I have all that stuff on an old PC. I wasn't motivated to sort through it though. I was on the clock when I did it before.
Click to expand...
Given the stated goal, I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just adopt a regulation that all class E airspace shall have a floor no higher than 1200 AGL.
 
Palmpilot said:
Given the stated goal, I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just adopt a regulation that all class E airspace shall have a floor no higher than 1200 AGL.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. But, apparently they have to be done by the appropriate service office (three for the continental U.S.). Each NPRM had many lines of LAT/LON. And, they had to be careful not to venture into Canada or Mexico.

Attached is one.
 

Attachments

  • 2017-04783_unlocked.pdf
    61.8 KB · Views: 8
Palmpilot said:
Given the stated goal, I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just adopt a regulation that all class E airspace shall have a floor no higher than 1200 AGL.
Click to expand...

It’s been done to certain extent. There was one a few years ago that covered all of Los Angeles Centers airspace. It eliminated the ‘crumbs’ leftover from all the many of ‘this radius from that airport and miles this side of that radial and this lat/long thence to that lat/long’ E designations that were already out there. I first heard about it here, or maybe another forum. And those crumbs disappeared on the next Sectional. And a lot of other crumbs started disappearing across the Country in the months following. I assumed it had been done in a lot of other Center Airspace boundaries like at Los Angeles.
 
aterpster said:
That's what I thought. But, apparently they have to be done by the appropriate service office (three for the continental U.S.). Each NPRM had many lines of LAT/LON. And, they had to be careful not to venture into Canada or Mexico.

Attached is one.
Click to expand...
It just seems like there ought to be a less labor-intensive way to accomplish "All airspace within the contiguous U.S. ADIZ shall have a floor of class E airspace no higher than 1200 AGL." That would leave only the exceptions (e.g. class E to 700 AGL, surface areas, class B, C, and D areas, etc.) to be defined in detail.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
That's what I thought. But, apparently they have to be done by the appropriate service office (three for the continental U.S.). Each NPRM had many lines of LAT/LON. And, they had to be careful not to venture into Canada or Mexico.

Attached is one.
Click to expand...

I may think I may know what may have happened, maybe. Great Falls Center. Salt Lake City Center absorbed a lot of it around 1975 I think. Maybe someone was plotting out a ‘catch all the crumbs’ E designation like I know happened at ZLA. And that NPRM you attached looks like it is the ZOA sky. I’m plotting it, it’ll take awhile. Maybe they did one at ZLC and the guy who was doing it found a stray list of boundary coordinates from the old ZLC, minus the Great Falls addition, and plugged those in.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
It just seems like there ought to be a less labor-intensive way to accomplish "All airspace within the contiguous U.S. ADIZ shall have a floor of class E airspace no higher than 1200 AGL." That would leave only the exceptions (e.g. class E to 700 AGL, surface areas, class B, C, and D areas, etc.) to be defined in detail.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
Palmpilot said:
It just seems like there ought to be a less labor-intensive way to accomplish "All airspace within the contiguous U.S. ADIZ shall have a floor of class E airspace no higher than 1200 AGL."
Click to expand...
I don't believe they can designate controlled airspace out to the ADIZ.
 
luvflyin said:
I may think I may know what may have happened, maybe. Great Falls Center. Salt Lake City Center absorbed a lot of it around 1975 I think. Maybe someone was plotting out a ‘catch all the crumbs’ E designation like I know happened at ZLA. And that NPRM you attached looks like it is the ZOA sky. I’m plotting it, it’ll take awhile. Maybe they did one at ZLC and the guy who was doing it found a stray list of boundary coordinates from the old ZLC, minus the Great Falls addition, and plugged those in.
Click to expand...

EDIT: This doesn't seem to be the case. I've searched for a 'wholesale catch all the crumbs' E designation in ZLC’s sky and don't see one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top