VFR weather minima

[infotango]

I started out by asking just Toby on my other thread, but I'm now really curious, what do people here use as VFR weather minima when deciding to take a trip, and when deciding just to go up around the pattern.
I'm curious about wind speed, x-wind component, visibility and cloud heights. Also how frequently do you need to cancel or delay a trip because of weather, and where do you live? Any interesting stories about close calls?

 

[MSmith]

Taking a trip - at least 2000 foot ceilings above any terrain that I have to cross. Winds no greater than 15-20 knots at either end, and no crosswind component over 17 knots (POH limitation). Visibility at least 8SM.

In the pattern - ceiling at least 500 feet above pattern altitude, winds no greater than 15-20 knots with gusts of less than 10 knots and no crosswind component over 17 knots. Visibility at least 5SM.

Around here, we often have to delay VFR trips due to weather mainly because it seems to rain or snow or be really windy every weekend.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I started out by asking just Toby on my other thread, but I'm now really curious, what do people here use as VFR weather minima when deciding to take a trip, and when deciding just to go up around the pattern.
I'm curious about wind speed, x-wind component, visibility and cloud heights. Also how frequently do you need to cancel or delay a trip because of weather, and where do you live? Any interesting stories about close calls?

I've been known to do 600&1 for short stretches in flat country in my "if things go to crap I can land anywhere" airplane...almost had to do that once, too. You need to have precise navigation skills, and be able to locate yourself within an area smaller than the diameter of a pencil on your sectional chart. Good dead reckoning skills are a must, as well. Meanwhile, you need to be able to do this while looking outside for towers that may or may not be charted. On one trip I added 5 of them to my sectional charts, and they all stuck up into the clouds at 800-1000 feet.

Minimums go up very easily, but never go down from there, and whatever minimums I choose for the particular trip are ABSOLUTE...no waffling, no "it's only a little lower" crap. If it drops a foot below minimums on either ceiling or vis, LAND.

I travel all around the country this way, but I always take a couple more days of vacation than the trip would require. If the weather is bad and I need 'em, it's proper planning. If the weather is good and I don't need 'em, well, I just fly around some more, meet new people, and see exotic places

Fly safe!

David

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The answers you receive will, I suspect, depend largely on whether or not the pilot holds instrument privileges and whether or not the flight will be conducted in a manner such that conversion to IFR would be relatively seamless. IOW, I'll fly some pretty poor VFR weather (as in right down to the FAA minimum numbers) if I'm holding an IFR clearance in the bag, but my minimums jump much higher if VFR is the only option. For example, I once flew with 1 mile, clear of clouds in Class G for well over 10 miles, but I had a controller working my flight and the IFR clearance I held was stated, "...N201RR, if you fail to hear a transmission from me within the preceding 30 seconds, you are cleared to..."

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Winds no greater than 15-20 knots at either end, and no crosswind component over 17 knots (POH limitation).

Mark, the 17 kt demonstrated crosswind component in Warriors and Archers is not a limitation (that's why it's in the normal procedures section of the POH and not in the limitations section).

All it means is that that was the maximum crosswind component the a/c was flown in during certification -- a skilled pilot can safely (and legally) land with a higher crosswind component.

 

[AirBaker]

Tried a VFR flight once here in the bay area during low cielings. Was a little stressful. I had approach dialed in and was ready to ask for a pop up if need be. Definitely would not do it in an area I was not familiar with.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Tried a VFR flight once here in the bay area during low cielings. Was a little stressful. I had approach dialed in and was ready to ask for a pop up if need be. Definitely would not do it in an area I was not familiar with.

That's one of the things I love about helicopters -- it gets too nasty you just set the bird down somewhere

 

[poadeleted20]

All it means is that that was the maximum crosswind component the a/c was flown in during certification -- a skilled pilot can safely (and legally) land with a higher crosswind component.

I think if you said "may be able to" rather than "can," this would be a somewhat more accurate statement. But the original point (that it's a demonstration value, not a limitation) is valid. Just don't nobody go runnin' out to see if they can land in a 40-knot crosswind just because it's legal -- make sure you work your way up, with instructor review of your proficiency, and remember that "gusting to 25" can be tougher than a steady 30-knot wind.

In any event, I don't think I have any specific set weather minima. How I feel that day, what I'm flying, recent flying experience, the trend of the weather, the airport I'm going into (including its instrument approach facilities), and a host of other factors make it a flexible risk assessment rather than a hard go/no-go checklist.

 

[Richard]

That's one of the things I love about helicopters -- it gets too nasty you just set the bird down somewhere

Depends on where you live. Kansas, with 800' ceilings I could do all de day long. Hilly SF Bay country like Chris' story--no way.

My mins are as published. X wnd is whatever I feel comfortable with.

 

[kath]

Since I mostly navigate by pilotage, I want to see "P6SM" in big letters. I flew VFR in haze once and got lost in my own practice area, not fun at all.

I want at least 3000 feet AGL to the cloud bases. Higher if I'm travelling farther. Now that I live in mountainous country, however, this one is being modified...

My FBO doesn't let me fly IFR, so there ya go.

--Kath

 

[Toby]

Did I miss the thread where you asked me? Sorry I didn't answer over there -- I didn't see the question.

For the pattern, if the ceiling is 500 feet higher than TPA and the wind isn't blowing a messy marine layer in from the S or SW, I'm good. Over Long Island, I look for 2500 feet. I don't mind being 500 or 1000 beneath the clouds when I'm near home. Again, it depends on where the wind is coming from and what's blowing in from off shore.

When I go over water I want the ceiling at least 2000 feet higher than the highest altitude I have to use. I also watch out for those days with the scattered fluffy white clouds. I am not fooled by their cute innocent appearance. They play games, moving around and filling in and getting real tall as I get close. I play no games when I am over water.

Wind and gusts, well, when I landed at Cape May a few months ago it was gusting to 28. That was the limit! Seriously, I don't have hard and fast numbers. A gust factor of 8 or above is generally my limit. I basically look at how the windsock is whipping around. I guess I'm pretty subjective about the whole thing and don't have a lot of specific numbers. I do like a visibility of 7 or better, even in the pattern. Or should I say especially in the pattern.

I am not telling my close call story until I get my instrument rating!

 

[Dave Siciliano]

In the planes I fly and the type of trips I take, I pretty much file an instrument flight plan as standard. I will make local VFR flights for short hops or if it's just a great day, but in turboed planes, there's just not much benefit to staying low. I only do it if looking at a property on the ground or it there are strong headwinds. Low, to me is 10,000 feet

I have landed the A-36 in a direct crosswind of 25 knots with gusts to 32. Probably shouldn't have, but did just fine. I decided to try it fully intending to crank in power and go-around if it didn't go right. Turned out, I got the upwind wheel planted and it was a piece of cake from there. The A-36 has about the same demonstrated cross wind component as your plane; the P-Baron has 30 knots.

Best,

Dave

 

[Steve]

I'm with mr Ron on this one. It will vary. Familiarity with the terrain, aircraft capability, pilot physiology, recency of experience, all play a factor.

I don't worry about cloud heights unless I'm trying to dodge thunderstorms.

I started out by asking just Toby on my other thread, but I'm now really curious, what do people here use as VFR weather minima when deciding to take a trip, and when deciding just to go up around the pattern.
I'm curious about wind speed, x-wind component, visibility and cloud heights. Also how frequently do you need to cancel or delay a trip because of weather, and where do you live? Any interesting stories about close calls?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

As long as I'm on top of the game, then the FAA minimums are right about were they should be otherwise, I'll compromise as judged necessary for the moment including scratching the flight if need be.

 

[poadeleted20]

As long as I'm on top of the game, then the FAA minimums are right about were they should be otherwise, I'll compromise as judged necessary for the moment including scratching the flight if need be.

I'll buy that for IFR, but the FAA mins for VFR are a joke. You can get seriously killed rooting around VFR in a lot of legally VMC weather.

 

[SCCutler]

I'll buy that for IFR, but the FAA mins for VFR are a joke. You can get seriously killed rooting around VFR in a lot of legally VMC weather.

Just looking at low "VFR," in the planes I fly (typically, Bonanzas) scares the bejeebers out of me, and I am not at all ashamed to say so. Towers hide well in the haze.

If it is not good VFR, I am filing IFR and enjoying the warm comfort of instrument flying in the ATC system.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'll buy that for IFR, but the FAA mins for VFR are a joke. You can get seriously killed rooting around VFR in a lot of legally VMC weather.

Yep, I kinda hear ya but then, guys regularly get seriously killed flying in CAVU too. When they do, much more often than not it's because they're incompetent in flying and/or judgement. After considerable, no joking professional consideration, boards of pilots and others in the FAA with more combined experience than you and all of us other pilots put together in this forum came up with those WX minima and I've repeatedly found them acceptable, although obviously more highly demanding.

Some experienced FBOs would disagree with even you and would consider you and your judgement to accept "FAA legal IFR minima" as too dangerous of a risk to insure regarding those IFR WX minima. This disapproval of your level of IFR judgement by them is reflected in their restrictive rules for pilots using their aircraft, while many other pilots find only substantially higher VFR WX limits acceptable to them for various personal reasons and it's good that they recognize those personal limits.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, I kinda hear ya but then, guys regularly get seriously killed flying in CAVU too.

Totally irrelevant. The numbers make it clear that the risks go way, way up in low-to-marginal VMC.

When they do, much more often than not it's because they're incompetent in flying and/or judgement.

Sure, but that's not the point. The folks with any real brains and skill do not fly VFR in those awful near-IMC conditions.

After considerable, no joking professional consideration, boards of pilots and others in the FAA with more combined experience than you and all of us other pilots put together in this forum came up with those WX minima

First, I don't think your evaluation of the experience level of the folks who wrote those regs in comparison with mine, Greg Bockelman's, Ed Guthrie's, and a few others around here is at all accurate. Second, they didn't come up with them by saying "Whaddya think is a good, safe minimum for VMC?" Those numbers date back almost to Orville and Wilbur, and the accident rate in those conditions was even worse back then.

and I've repeatedly found them acceptable, although obviously more highly demanding.

Your judgement, not mine. I cannot imagine flying a VFR XC in 1000-3, and I'd disown any former student who'd fly VFR in 1 mile/clear of clouds conditions. Someone almost killed me doing that about 25 years ago -- I was operating IFR, and he wasn't.

Some experienced FBOs would disagree with even you and would consider you and your judgement to accept "FAA legal IFR minima" as too dangerous of a risk to insure regarding those IFR WX minima. This disapproval of your level of IFR judgement by them is reflected in their restrictive rules for pilots using their aircraft, while many other pilots find only substantially higher VFR WX limits acceptable to them for various personal reasons and it's good that they recognize those personal limits.

It's all about risk management, and unlike the folks in the FAA writing the rules, these FBO's are putting their money where their mouths are.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I cannot imagine flying a VFR XC in 1000-3, and I'd disown any former student who'd fly VFR in 1 mile/clear of clouds conditions. Someone almost killed me doing that about 25 years ago -- I was operating IFR, and he wasn't.

Just out of curiosity, Ron...was this VFR pilot legal? I've broken out of the clouds several times under IFR & felt the need for some sort of maneuvering to avoid VFR traffic, but it was always in airspace that required the VFR traffic to be several hundred feet lower than he was. Not that it would make me more happy to die in a midair with a legal pilot than an illegal one.

Fly safe!

David

 

[bbchien]

Your judgement, not mine. I cannot imagine flying a VFR XC in 1000-3, and I'd disown any former student who'd fly VFR in 1 mile/clear of clouds conditions. Someone almost killed me doing that about 25 years ago -- I was operating IFR, and he wasn't.

I just turned down going to the airport after an hour's ground (BFR) on a guy who could not tell me what the magenta line around GBG meant, nor what the note next to it meant, and he was unable to look up VFR minima. I met him for breakfast, he did NOT bring the AFD nor a current sectional that I had told him to do. Hmmn, this is "train to adequacy" thinks I, so we use mine.

Of course, when GBG is between 7A and 11P, is E to the ground. That means 500 under the deck. The pattern is NOT legal, and flying just below the deck at 999 feet is illegal. Not G- a mile and clear of clouds.

That's because when the commuter comes out of the ILS 3 approach and smacks into him the ASOS will testify that this was a bust. He did not pay attention multiple times and did not appear to care. "AFD? Whassat?"

I have subsequently found out from the base mechanic that his Bonanza has more delco-remy parts than GMC and that he would not sign it off. There were 38 deficiencies on the last annual.

The enemy is US.

 

[Richard]

Just looking at low "VFR," in the planes I fly (typically, Bonanzas) scares the bejeebers out of me, and I am not at all ashamed to say so. Towers hide well in the haze.

If it is not good VFR, I am filing IFR and enjoying the warm comfort of instrument flying in the ATC system.

Towers hide well in severe clear too. But 3 HZ is pretty sketchy when in a fast mover so while you're still legal you may not have much margin when moving at a fast clip.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Totally irrelevant. The numbers make it clear that the risks go way, way up in low-to-marginal VMC.

Sure, but that's not the point. The folks with any real brains and skill do not fly VFR in those awful near-IMC conditions.

First, I don't think your evaluation of the experience level of the folks who wrote those regs in comparison with mine, Greg Bockelman's, Ed Guthrie's, and a few others around here is at all accurate. Second, they didn't come up with them by saying "Whaddya think is a good, safe minimum for VMC?" Those numbers date back almost to Orville and Wilbur, and the accident rate in those conditions was even worse back then.

Your judgement, not mine. I cannot imagine flying a VFR XC in 1000-3, and I'd disown any former student who'd fly VFR in 1 mile/clear of clouds conditions. Someone almost killed me doing that about 25 years ago -- I was operating IFR, and he wasn't.

It's all about risk management, and unlike the folks in the FAA writing the rules, these FBO's are putting their money where their mouths are.

For the sake of discussion Ron, let's suppose you were trying to convince the above mentioned type of FBO to let you fly one of their suitable planes down to the legal IFR minimums with which you are comfortable enough but, that neither they nor their insurance company have approved in the past because they all feel the FAA legal IFR minimums' risks go way up from theirs and are too dangerous:

What would would you tell them?

 

[infotango]

Thanks for the replies, this is becoming a fascinating thread.
I was always under the impression that cloud clearance requirements were not for your own safety but to insure separation between VFR aircraft and IFR aircraft screaming out of clouds. This is why I am curious about what people's own limits were. The sick side of me also wanted to know what it is like flying in the crazy low absolute minimums in G. And I still want to hear Toby's story.
The IFR separation theory has always held the most water for me. IFR planes which fly slower than 250 knots under 10,000 have roughly the same time before hitting a VFR plane when flying out of a cloud (2000 ft horizontal separation) as they do when travelling faster above 10,000 (1 SM horizontal separation).
In class Bravo where all planes are under radar control, you only need to ensure that planes stay clear of clouds, since all VFR traffic can be vectored away from IFR traffic.
I also thought that G separation requirements were because there was almost no IFR traffic operating in IMC in G. Aren't those magenta circles around all the uncontrolled airports which have instrument approaches there to ensure that the top parts of their patterns (assuming most have a 1000 ft AGL) fall into E, (700 ft AGL)? I guess a problem arises when a plane is flying just below cloud base at 700 ft agl, and an IFR plane comes screaming in on the approach breaking out at 700 AGL. Maybe the E only goes down to 700 to allow uber marginal VFR flights to get out of uncontrolled airports? Scary.

 

[gismo]

Just looking at low "VFR," in the planes I fly (typically, Bonanzas) scares the bejeebers out of me, and I am not at all ashamed to say so. Towers hide well in the haze.

If it is not good VFR, I am filing IFR and enjoying the warm comfort of instrument flying in the ATC system.

There really is a speed factor WRT safe VFR visibility limits. I'm quite comfortable flying the 70-80 mph Porterfield with visibilities in the 2-3 mile range or under a low cloud deck with good visibility as long as I'm in an area where I know the terrain well. But under those same conditions cruising along at nearly four miles a minute in the Baron I also fly is about as save as driving at 60 mph on a highway with your eyes closed.

I also believe that you should consider the combined effects of low visibility and low ceilings as a multiplier of the risks involved. Low (<5 mi) vis in haze with decent (>2500 AGL) or 20+ miles vis with a 1200 ft overcast cloud layer are nowhere near as difficult or risky as the combination of low vis and low ceilings.

 

[SCCutler]

Towers hide well in severe clear too. But 3 HZ is pretty sketchy when in a fast mover so while you're still legal you may not have much margin when moving at a fast clip.

I quite agree, and when I am in marginal VFR, it also becomes a lot more work to simply maintain the visual situational awareness necessary to avoid ground hazards by reference to a sectional.

Main thing for me, it is no fun.

I would likely feel differently were I flying a Cub or something similar.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

There really is a speed factor WRT safe VFR visibility limits.

I agree, Lance. I think that's why 91.155 basically exempts helicopters from the class G limits by essentially saying you're good to go if you remain clear of clouds and can go slow enough that you don't hit anything -- 91.155 (b) (1)

 

[gismo]

I've ventured there a few times and always regretted it (no crashes but way too much stress). The most recent experience was in the Baron about ten years ago on the way to OSH. I didn't have a slot reservation and had to go VFR and it was barely VFR. I had stopped at an airport in WI to check the weather more carefully and planned a route to avoid obstructions and populated areas on the way to RIPON but I passed the one tall antenna I really needed to avoid on the south side when my plan had me on to the north.

The IFR separation theory has always held the most water for me. IFR planes which fly slower than 250 knots under 10,000 have roughly the same time before hitting a VFR plane when flying out of a cloud (2000 ft horizontal separation) as they do when travelling faster above 10,000 (1 SM horizontal separation).
In class Bravo where all planes are under radar control, you only need to ensure that planes stay clear of clouds, since all VFR traffic can be vectored away from IFR traffic.
I also thought that G separation requirements were because there was almost no IFR traffic operating in IMC in G. Aren't those magenta circles around all the uncontrolled airports which have instrument approaches there to ensure that the top parts of their patterns (assuming most have a 1000 ft AGL) fall into E, (700 ft AGL)? I guess a problem arises when a plane is flying just below cloud base at 700 ft agl, and an IFR plane comes screaming in on the approach breaking out at 700 AGL. Maybe the E only goes down to 700 to allow uber marginal VFR flights to get out of uncontrolled airports? Scary.

I'm a bit apprehensive about encounters with "VFR" traffic at class G airports myself. That's one of the main reasons I added TCAS recently.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I just turned down going to the airport after an hour's ground (BFR) on a guy who could not tell me what the magenta line around GBG meant, nor what the note next to it meant, and he was unable to look up VFR minima. I met him for breakfast, he did NOT bring the AFD nor a current sectional that I had told him to do. Hmmn, this is "train to adequacy" thinks I, so we use mine.

Of course, when GBG is between 7A and 11P, is E to the ground. That means 500 under the deck. The pattern is NOT legal, and flying just below the deck at 999 feet is illegal. Not G- a mile and clear of clouds.

That's because when the commuter comes out of the ILS 3 approach and smacks into him the ASOS will testify that this was a bust. He did not pay attention multiple times and did not appear to care. "AFD? Whassat?"

I have subsequently found out from the base mechanic that his Bonanza has more delco-remy parts than GMC and that he would not sign it off. There were 38 deficiencies on the last annual.

The enemy is US.

Ah yes, the pilot and/or owner that has routinely been, and wishes to continue flying outside the FAA regs that we need to maintain some semblance of legal order while airborne. We don't need any of those pilots or aircraft owners in aviation.

Good to hear from you Bruce.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just out of curiosity, Ron...was this VFR pilot legal?

Yes, and it still almost got us all killed.

Long ago in a galaxy far away (actually, it was 1981 in New Mexico), I was in the right seat of an F-111 cruising along at 480 knots at 400 feet AGL. The weather in which we were flying was about 200 scattered, 500 broken, and 900 overcast, with visibility about 1-1/2 miles in fog. Our terrain following radar (TFR) was working fine, and we were on an IFR clearance below radar coverage on an approved IR route. The route was NOTAM'd active with the various FSS's around the area. TFR is pretty neat, but it has its limitations, and it isn't at all good at spotting thin towers or small airplanes. We planned our missions to avoid the towers, but there's not much we could do about light aircraft except maintain a good visual scan when in VMC. However, at night or in the weather (and the conditions described were definitely "in the weather" as we were in and out of the clouds all the way) TF-ing takes 100% of the crew's attention inside the cockpit to watch the TF and ground map radars, vertical steering commands, altimeters, VSI, charts, timing, speed, and still do the navigation and systems monitoring required in any situation.

As we crossed I-40 near Tucumcari, there was a flash as we crossed just behind another aircraft down our right side. My head snapped around and I saw a Cessna 182 disappearing behind us, the pilot of which was looking out his left window at the dark shape disappearing into the mist. We missed each other by a couple of hundred feet horizontally, and zero vertically. No doubt the pilot of the Skylane was thinking he was not only legal, but safe, as he was operating on an "I Follow Roads" clearance along I-40 in 1 mile vis, clear of clouds and well below the published MEA, and so should not have to worry about any high-speed or IFR traffic. If we'd hit, our ejection system might have saved our lives, but he'd definitely have been a bug splat. One can only speculate on how shocked the 182 pilot was - we definitely needed a change of shorts when we landed.

Now, the 'Varks are, sadly, gone to the great boneyard in the sky (well, really Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson), but there are still plenty of USAF F-15E's and B-1's, and USMC F-18D's TF-ing their way around the USA in crappy weather, in the dark, and sometimes both. They are operating on approved routes and IFR clearances, and are doing all their talking on UHF so you can't even hear them. While the multimode radars in the Strike Eagles and Hornets are highly capable, they do have limitations about how many things they can do at once, and at 400 feet and 600 knots, TF and nav/mapping take priority over air search, so they can't even "see" you on radar. Before you go trying to duplicate their feat VFR in your light aircraft, take a GOOD look at the sectional charts, and see if you're crossing any IR routes. Remember also that the routes shown on your chart are only the centerline, the route may be 10-12 miles wide, and the fast movers may be planning to use any part of the route width for tactical reasons. Check with FSS to see if the routes are active, and if they are, STAY THE HECK AWAY FROM THEM!

Ron Levy, ATP, CFI
ex-'Vark WSO

 

[poadeleted20]

For the sake of discussion Ron, let's suppose you were trying to convince the above mentioned type of FBO to let you fly one of their suitable planes down to the legal IFR minimums with which you are comfortable enough but, that neither they nor their insurance company have approved in the past because they all feel the FAA legal IFR minimums' risks go way up from theirs and are too dangerous:

What would you tell them?

"You can pump your gas in my plane and I'll fly it whenever I think it's safe."

IOW, it's their plane, and they share the risk, which gives them an equal say in the "no-go" side of the go/no-go decision. If they've decided the cost of the risk isn't worth the profit on the rental, that's a business decision on their part and I've got no standing to argue with them. I'm not here to educate them on how to run their business better. If they ask my advice, I'll give it (well, maybe I'll charge them for it -- I am happy to be a paid consultant), but other than that, it's just not my call.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was always under the impression that cloud clearance requirements were not for your own safety but to insure separation between VFR aircraft and IFR aircraft screaming out of clouds.

That's correct, but it's true even for IFR aircraft plodding out of the clounds.

I also thought that G separation requirements were because there was almost no IFR traffic operating in IMC in G.

Actually, that's not true. Most instrument approaches to a non-towered airport ends in G-space -- only those that go to E-to-surface (magenta dashed lines) or have HAA/HAT's above 700 AGL end do not enter G-space under IFR. Also, outside of towered airports and E-space to surface, every IFR departure transits G-space on its way up. This is why the NTSB squashed Murphy like a bug.

Aren't those magenta circles around all the uncontrolled airports which have instrument approaches there to ensure that the top parts of their patterns (assuming most have a 1000 ft AGL) fall into E, (700 ft AGL)?

More like it's there to ensure clearance from VFR aircraft for IFR arrivals, but you've got the right concept.

I guess a problem arises when a plane is flying just below cloud base at 700 ft agl, and an IFR plane comes screaming in on the approach breaking out at 700 AGL. Maybe the E only goes down to 700 to allow uber marginal VFR flights to get out of uncontrolled airports? Scary.

Exactly. Especially when they aren't talking on the CTAF. Now, in many cases, those VFR folks flying around at 650 AGL are busting 91.119 minimum altitudes, but if the ground below is relatively unpopulated, it may be 91.119-legal down to 500 AGL, and even lower if there's nothing at all down there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ah yes, the pilot and/or owner that has routinely been, and wishes to continue flying outside the FAA regs that we need to maintain some semblance of legal order while airborne. We don't need any of those pilots or aircraft owners in aviation.

And since the FAA hasn't the resources to spot all these jamokes, it is up to every one of us who values the privilege of flying to take notes when they see such illegal activity and tell the FAA so they can be removed from the skies by legal action rather than waiting for God to revoke their certificate (in which case the 1-year reapplication rule is moot but our insurance rates go up and our privileges go down).

 

[Lance F]

And since the FAA hasn't the resources to spot all these jamokes, it is up to every one of us who values the privilege of flying to take notes when they see such illegal activity and tell the FAA so they can be removed from the skies by legal action rather than waiting for God to revoke their certificate (in which case the 1-year reapplication rule is moot but our insurance rates go up and our privileges go down).

Coincidently, this was a topic at the normal Sat. morning Waffle House breakfast today. I brought the subject up and promoted doing exactly what you suggest. The general response was that the FAA would and could do nothing, since there would be no proof. I'm thinking now they might be right. Forget taking notes. Even if you had an N number, a lat/long position and photo of your TCAS showing the offender's altitude, how could the exact WX conditions be proven?

 

[poadeleted20]

Coincidently, this was a topic at the normal Sat. morning Waffle House breakfast today. I brought the subject up and promoted doing exactly what you suggest. The general response was that the FAA would and could do nothing, since there would be no proof. I'm thinking now they might be right. Forget taking notes. Even if you had an N number, a lat/long position and photo of your TCAS showing the offender's altitude, how could the exact WX conditions be proven?

The FAA has hung people for low-fly complaints on the word of non-aviation observers. Pilots would have even more credibility. Keep in mind that the ALJ needs only a finding of "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt" to sustain a violation, and the FAA is obligated to investigate all complaints. Even if they don't find your evidence persuasive, a string of complaints about the same pilot by several different complainants will result in close observation of the offender, and eventually they will get their man -- been there, seen that.

 

[infotango]

The FAA has hung people for low-fly complaints on the word of non-aviation observers. Pilots would have even more credibility. Keep in mind that the ALJ needs only a finding of "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt" to sustain a violation, and the FAA is obligated to investigate all complaints. Even if they don't find your evidence persuasive, a string of complaints about the same pilot by several different complainants will result in close observation of the offender, and eventually they will get their man -- been there, seen that.

Yes they do... I draw your attention to the case of JANE F. GARVEY, Administrator, v. WILLIAM RODERICK CANDA, III where the court found a witness' testimony that pilot was flying his 150 below 500 feet AGL (based on a crude comparison to the height of trees in her back yard) adequate to suspend respondant's certificates. This was despite three pilots testimony (all related to respondant) that the aircraft was above 500 feet AGL.

 

[infotango]

Actually, that's not true. Most instrument approaches to a non-towered airport ends in G-space -- only those that go to E-to-surface (magenta dashed lines) or have HAA/HAT's above 700 AGL end do not enter G-space under IFR. Also, outside of towered airports and E-space to surface, every IFR departure transits G-space on its way up. This is why the NTSB squashed Murphy like a bug.

Very interesting opinion, thanks for posting it. To be honest, like Murphy, I had not even thought about departing IFR acft at uncontrolled airports.
I also looked at the vance opinion cited in Murphy, which is pretty interesting reading as well.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

"You can pump your gas in my plane and I'll fly it whenever I think it's safe."

IOW, it's their plane, and they share the risk, which gives them an equal say in the "no-go" side of the go/no-go decision. If they've decided the cost of the risk isn't worth the profit on the rental, that's a business decision on their part and I've got no standing to argue with them. I'm not here to educate them on how to run their business better. If they ask my advice, I'll give it (well, maybe I'll charge them for it -- I am happy to be a paid consultant), but other than that, it's just not my call.

OK...
Let's then say that you take off and land without incident under an IFR flightplan in a stock, IFR SkyHawk in undisputably legal FAA IFR minimums and some of the local people living under the SID/STAR file legal action against you with the FAA to bust you regarding 91.13 because, "The fog was thick as pea soup and nobody can fly safely in that stuff over our houses!":

What would you then say to defend yourself and your PIC actions?

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's then say that you take off and land without incident under an IFR flightplan in a stock, IFR SkyHawk in undisputably legal FAA IFR minimums and some of the local people living under the SID/STAR file legal action against you with the FAA to bust you regarding 91.13 because, "The fog was thick as pea soup and nobody can fly safely in that stuff over our houses!": What would you then say to defend yourself and your PIC actions?

Nothing. I won't have to. The FSDO will investigate and determine that no rule was violated. I'll probably never even hear about it. My biggest problem will be trying to hide from my friends the embarassing fact that I was flying a Skyhawk.

 

[SCCutler]

...I had stopped at an airport in WI to check the weather more carefully and planned a route to avoid obstructions and populated areas on the way to RIPON but I passed the one tall antenna I really needed to avoid on the south side when my plan had me on to the north...

Yup, that'll gitcher attention; I get all clinched-up just reading that. I have observed that towers can't be located all that precisely by reference to sectionals.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Nothing. I won't have to. The FSDO will investigate and determine that no rule was violated. I'll probably never even hear about it. My biggest problem will be trying to hide from my friends the embarassing fact that I was flying a Skyhawk.

Oh... I really must apologize then, because I didn't know you've been subjected to much more than your share of airborne humiliation by repeating driving around in perhaps one of the ugliest of all narrow purpose jets, or should I say weaseling around the wilds, in the snouty Aardvaark. (although I'm really glad and Thank You and the others that were up there helping our country be what it is I also wonder, was that why you were in IMC, so that no one would see you in it?) Hope it doesn't give you nightmares, or additional shorts' cleaning details...

We know you were in legal IFR but again, let's say simply for the sake of educational aviation discussion, that you WERE under legal scrutiny by the FAA, the local FSDO, and other legal powers and your strategy of silence in defence of your legal actions wasn't working for you in their pusuit of 91.13 against you. To make matters worse for you, your faced with certificate suspension, fines, your personal aircraft inpoundment, etc. AND they will make you fly out of town not in just any relatively high lift/low MCA plane suitable for low VFR and low IFR but in what is widely accepted as probably the single most useful and successful multipurpose GA aircraft ever made, a lowly SkyHawk! To rub it in, they'll make you do it in front of all your friends and their sensitivities!

Wouldn't you then have some logical points to outline for them in your defence and if so, won't you share them with us here?