When is a field really IFR?

Ron Levy said:
The FAA Chief Counsel and NTSB disagree if there is an instrument procedure in/out of the airport. See the legal case above.
Click to expand...

If there is an IAP Class E airspace would begin at 700' AGL so a departing aircraft would not actually have VFR conditions when it entered controlled airspace.
 
roncachamp said:
If there is an IAP Class E airspace would begin at 700' AGL so a departing aircraft would not actually have VFR conditions when it entered controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

Not if the airport has a Class E Surface Area.
 
aterpster said:
Not if the airport has a Class E Surface Area.
Click to expand...

If the airport has a Class E surface area a pilot cannot "takeoff in IMC conditions without a clearance legally so long as he is in VFR conditions by entry of controlled airspace (such as ground fog on field and clear above)."
 
EdFred said:
Well, in the cases I've been on a clearance in the class G, I was still in RADAR contact, and still talking to ZMP. I was between IMT and 6Y9 when I cancelled near Perch Lake. If you look on the sectional you can see I was inside the G for quite a few miles, and ZMP never let me go.

I also got a clearance over the phone departing 6Y9 on the route out of there, and through that same little section of G. I was also heading into ISQ from the south, and was still on a clearance in that little section of G. I never got any sort of indication that my clearance would be suspended until I got through either section.
Click to expand...
..and, of course, there would be no reason to actively "suspend" a clearance or deny you radar services just because you were going through a section of Class G.

Certainly nothing in the Controller's Handbook requires even a "Hey, you're in Class G now!" AFAIK, the only things that volume discusses are
  • the definition of Class G as airspace in which "ATC has neither the authority nor responsibility for exercising control over air traffic"
  • en route clearances through Class G are done at pilot request (if ATC gave you that clearance and you didn't file or ask for it would be interesting)
  • vectoring in Class G is done at pilot request and as an "additional service."
 
roncachamp said:
If there is an IAP Class E airspace would begin at 700' AGL so a departing aircraft would not actually have VFR conditions when it entered controlled airspace.
Click to expand...
Even if there isn't an IAP, there could be an airway with its base at 1200 AGL. I suspect the Chief Counsel's opinion would be that entering that Class E space from below without a clearance into it would be careless/reckless unless you were legal VFR upon entry (i.e., the tops below were no more than 200 AGL).
 
Ron Levy said:
Even if there isn't an IAP, there could be an airway with its base at 1200 AGL. I suspect the Chief Counsel's opinion would be that entering that Class E space from below without a clearance into it would be careless/reckless unless you were legal VFR upon entry (i.e., the tops below were no more than 200 AGL).
Click to expand...

I believe the policy, when obstacles are not an issue, is to have a 300-foot Class E buffer; i.e., the airway would not be less than 1,500, agl.
 
Ron Levy said:
Even if there isn't an IAP, there could be an airway with its base at 1200 AGL. I suspect the Chief Counsel's opinion would be that entering that Class E space from below without a clearance into it would be careless/reckless unless you were legal VFR upon entry (i.e., the tops below were no more than 200 AGL).
Click to expand...

In other words, if you actually have VFR conditions when you enter controlled airspace you're in good shape.
 
aterpster said:
I believe the policy, when obstacles are not an issue, is to have a 300-foot Class E buffer; i.e., the airway would not be less than 1,500, agl.
Click to expand...

The policy is to have a 300 foot buffer above the floor of controlled airspace. The bottom of the airway would be 1200 AGL, the MEA/MOCA would be not less than 1500 AGL.
 
Ron Levy said:
As far as 91.155 goes, yes. But there's still that pesky 91.13 charge on which they hung Mr. Murphy.
Click to expand...

Murphy didn't actually have VFR conditions when he entered controlled airspace. They hanged him on the wrong charge.
 
roncachamp said:
The policy is to have a 300 foot buffer above the floor of controlled airspace. The bottom of the airway would be 1200 AGL, the MEA/MOCA would be not less than 1500 AGL.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference that states an airway exists below its MEA/MOCA?
 
aterpster said:
Do you have a reference that states an airway exists below its MEA/MOCA?
Click to expand...
Does FAR 71.71(e) and the associated order provide any guidance on this? I don't think it's a particularly important question but, offhand, the language in the Order at least seems to suggest that the airway altitude extends from 1200 AGL.

==============================
When a Class E airspace area is designated in conjunction with an airway or route, the designation has the lateral extent identical to that of a Federal airway and extends upward from 1,200 feet or higher unless otherwise specified.
==============================
 
aterpster said:
Do you have a reference that states an airway exists below its MEA/MOCA?
Click to expand...

Order JO 7400.9W Airspace Designations and Reporting Points


Subpart E - Class E Airspace

6000. General.

Generally, if the airspace is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D, and it is controlled airspace, it is Class E airspace. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Also in this class are Federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet above ground level used to transition to/from the terminal or enroute environment, and enroute domestic and offshore airspace areas designated below 18,000 feet MSL. Class E airspace does not include the airspace 18,000 feet MSL or above.


6008. Federal Airways.

The Class E airspace areas listed in Sections 6009-6011 are designated as Federal Airways and, unless otherwise specified, extend upward from 1,200 feet to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL.

6009. Colored Federal airways.

6010. VOR Federal Airways.

6011. United States Area Navigation Routes.

The Class E airspace areas for area navigation listed below consist of a direct course for navigating aircraft at altitudes up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL, between the waypoints specified for that route.


[list of T routes follows]
 
roncachamp said:
Murphy didn't actually have VFR conditions when he entered controlled airspace. They hanged him on the wrong charge.
Click to expand...
The charged him with the wrong thing on the first count (IFR without a clearance/flight plan), and the ALJ rightly dismissed that charge, but they hanged him correctly on the second count (91.13 - careless/reckless), as what he did was reckless. They just didn't charge or hang him on the other violation he committed (91.155 - VFR in IMC). But at the end of the day, I think he got about what he deserved for what he did (90 days on the ground).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The charged him with the wrong thing on the first count (IFR without a clearance/flight plan), and the ALJ rightly dismissed that charge, but they hanged him correctly on the second count (91.13 - careless/reckless), as what he did was reckless. They just didn't charge or hang him on the other violation he committed (91.155 - VFR in IMC). But at the end of the day, I think he got about what he deserved for what he did (90 days on the ground).
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Murphy was initially charged with violating 91.155, it was a mistake to dismiss that charge.
 
roncachamp said:
That's not correct. Murphy was initially charged with violating 91.155, it was a mistake to dismiss that charge.
Click to expand...
The FAA presented the wrong evidence on that charge, as they accused him of operating VFR below the base of controlled airspace. He was, in fact, operating IFR, hence, dismissal of that charge. They should have charged him with operating VFR less than 1000 above the clouds after he entered controlled airspace; that violation would have stood on the basis of the respondent's own testimony.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA presented the wrong evidence on that charge, as they accused him of operating VFR below the base of controlled airspace. He was, in fact, operating IFR, hence, dismissal of that charge. They should have charged him with operating VFR less than 1000 above the clouds after he entered controlled airspace; that violation would have stood on the basis of the respondent's own testimony.
Click to expand...

Gee, sounds like a violation of FAR 91.155 to me.
 
roncachamp said:
Gee, sounds like a violation of FAR 91.155 to me.
Click to expand...
Right. But they didn't present any evidence of that, only saying:
5. You departed Robinson Municipal Airport VFR when
the flight visibility was less than 1 statute mile.
6. You did not remain clear of the clouds when you​
departed Robinson Municipal Airport.
Click to expand...
Neither violated 91.155 since he was operating IFR, not VFR, when he departed that airport. He wasn't operating illegally per 91.155 until he entered controlled airspace, and that was some time after he departed that airport. I agree with the ALJ:
In dismissing the 91.155(a) charge and affirming a 90-day suspension, the law judge relied on our decision in Administrator v. Vance, 5 NTSB 1037 (1986), wherein we held that an instrumentrated pilot's takeoff -- without an ATC clearance -- into uncontrolled airspace in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) was technically legal under the predecessor section to section 91.155(a), but was nonetheless careless, in violation of the predecessor to section 91.13(a).
Click to expand...
What the FAA should have said in their charging document was:
5. You entered controlled airspace over Robinson Municipal Airport VFR when you were less than 1000 feet above the clouds.
6. deleted.​
Click to expand...
That would have stood before the ALJ as a 91.155 violation. But once Murphy made the unrebutted statement that he was operating IFR from the surface until reaching the top of the fog below the base of controlled airspace, the FAA's specifications failed to meet the 91.155 charge and the ALJ had no choice but to dismiss that charge.​
 
Ron Levy said:
Right. But they didn't present any evidence of that, only saying:
Neither violated 91.155 since he was operating IFR, not VFR, when he departed that airport. He wasn't operating illegally per 91.155 until he entered controlled airspace, and that was some time after he departed that airport. I agree with the ALJ:
What the FAA should have said in their charging document was:
That would have stood before the ALJ as a 91.155 violation. But once Murphy made the unrebutted statement that he was operating IFR from the surface until reaching the top of the fog below the base of controlled airspace, the FAA's specifications failed to meet the 91.155 charge and the ALJ had no choice but to dismiss that charge.[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is they hanged him on the wrong charge.
 
roncachamp said:
So what you're saying is they hanged him on the wrong charge.
Click to expand...
No, I am not.

Last time:

They correctly charged and hanged him on 91.13 careless/reckless.
They incorrectly charged him on 91.155 by charging him with things he did that were not violations of 91.155, and failed to charge him with things he did that were violations of 91.155.

Adios.
 
Nah, the weather is whatever a recording ASOS/AWOS says it is. . . if it is CLR and 100 miles viz but there is fog enveloping the AWOS reporting 1/8 mile and VV100 then for the purposes of the FAA the weather is what the AWOS says it is unless if can be proven Tango Uniform.

I say this because at IJD in Eastern CT there is a reservoir at the NE corner of the field - in the morning you would sometimes find the FBO and runways 18/36 and half of 9/27 severe clear and the ASOS Was socked in with fog - you could taxi to the end of the fog and easily take off with 2500-3000' feet of runway but if something happened - the field would be reporting IFR and you took off without a clearance . . . . whose fault is it then?
 
The trouble with the careless or reckless clause is that it's so subjective that they can apply it to anything they don't like, regardless of whether any other regulation was violated.
 
comanchepilot said:
Nah, the weather is whatever a recording ASOS/AWOS says it is. . . if it is CLR and 100 miles viz but there is fog enveloping the AWOS reporting 1/8 mile and VV100 then for the purposes of the FAA the weather is what the AWOS says it is unless if can be proven Tango Uniform.
Click to expand...

This goes back to something I posted earlier. ASOS reports LIFR. I suspect it's from dust blowing around from farm equipment working the field near the sensors. It's a CAVU day. In this case, the equipment seems to be working just fine. Also - it was a towered field. Does tower override the ASOS? ( I did fly that day, but by then everything was back to normal so I don't know how tower handled the situation.)
 
Matthew said:
This goes back to something I posted earlier. ASOS reports LIFR. I suspect it's from dust blowing around from farm equipment working the field near the sensors. It's a CAVU day. In this case, the equipment seems to be working just fine. Also - it was a towered field. Does tower override the ASOS? ( I did fly that day, but by then everything was back to normal so I don't know how tower handled the situation.)
Click to expand...
Yes, this goes back to why I started this thread. There have been many occasions where the ASOS was reporting IFR conditions yet I see clear air and blue sky in at least one direction.
 
Matthew said:
This goes back to something I posted earlier. ASOS reports LIFR. I suspect it's from dust blowing around from farm equipment working the field near the sensors. It's a CAVU day. In this case, the equipment seems to be working just fine. Also - it was a towered field. Does tower override the ASOS? ( I did fly that day, but by then everything was back to normal so I don't know how tower handled the situation.)
Click to expand...

Possibly. Many ASOS installations are augmented sites, missing or incorrect data can be input by certified weather observers. Tower controllers often fill this role.
 
Sec. 91.155

Basic VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and Sec. 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following table:
Click to expand...

For a class G airport, the VFR flight visibility requirement is 1 SM and the cloud clearance criteria is clear of clouds. The ASOS doesn't determine flight visibility, but it does determine ground visibility.

91.155 has a requirement for ground visibility, but it only applies to Class D, C, B, or E surface areas and therefore it does not apply to class G.

(c) Except as provided in Sec. 91.157, no person may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.

(d) Except as provided in Sec. 91.157 of this part, no person may take off or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport--
(1) Unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or
(2) If ground visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3 statute miles.​
Click to expand...

So, as long as the pilot has a flight visibility in class G of 1 SM or greater and can remain clear of clouds, the ASOS doesn't control the departure. In cases where the fog is on one end of the airport and the conditions are VFR everywhere else, I don't see a regulatory limitation to an aircraft departing under VFR as long as they remain clear of all clouds. As has been previously discussed, the pilot must also be able to maintain at all times the cloud and visibility requirements for class E if they enter class E airspace. On a perfectly clear visibility day with fog covering one part of the airport including the ASOS facility and leaving the runway clear, I don't see any reason why a VFR flight would violate any regulation.

I was on a flight at a local airport conducting takeoff and landings. It was clear and over 10 miles visibility with bases of a 3500 foot scattered layer above. The ASOS was lying about the visibility and calling it 1/4 SM variable to 5 SM. The grass was being cut by a tractor and I wonder if it had blown some grass into the visibility sensor.
 
Ron Levy said:
As far as 91.155 goes, yes. But there's still that pesky 91.13 charge on which they hung Mr. Murphy.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's get this out of the way.
91.13 is not a "catch-all" that any ol pesky FAA Inspector can hang on you.
There has to be an actual compromise of safety. An actual accident or near accident. Not a theoretical possibility of an accident. which was the case in the Murphy case.

But I see it brandished about as if it had power just because a judge thinks so.
Not the case. You really has to have caused or nearly caused an accident.

Having said that, I also know it may take a good lawyer to fight your case.
They're Cops- some are bad, some don't know any better.

The point is to know your regulations to begin with and not go on hearsay.
 
nosehair said:
Ok, let's get this out of the way.
91.13 is not a "catch-all" that any ol pesky FAA Inspector can hang on you.
There has to be an actual compromise of safety. An actual accident or near accident. Not a theoretical possibility of an accident. which was the case in the Murphy case.
Click to expand...
I think your definition is too restrictive. Theoretical possibility, no. A compromise of safety, yes. But actual or near accident, no. A reasonable forseeable compromise of safety would be enough.

The ALJ and NTSB panel (the closest to a trial court we have) made a determination that Murphy's failure to obtain a clearance or to communicate what he was doing had the potential to compromise the safety of other aircraft, given the overall airspace configuration. Whether conduct in context is reckless or not tends to be a fact question.

It's really not that different than the legal standards for reckless driving criminal charges in many states. Technically legal conduct can be reckless there too.
 
Yes, Mark, maybe a little more of the way you describe, but my point is that a "reasonable" level of potential danger must be presented, which is what the PIC must be aware of before beginning any operation.
Be prepared to show that your specific operation in your real time presents little or no present danger. 91.13 cannot apply "just because" there
'could' be danger.
 
nosehair said:
Yes, Mark, maybe a little more of the way you describe, but my point is that a "reasonable" level of potential danger must be presented, which is what the PIC must be aware of before beginning any operation.
Be prepared to show that your specific operation in your real time presents little or no present danger. 91.13 cannot apply "just because" there 'could' be danger.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the way they really see it.
On appeal, respondent argues that the law judge erred in affirming the FAR section 91.13(a) charge on the basis of the "potential endangerment" created by his inadvertent gear-up landing. Specifically, respondent argues that there was, in fact, no "potential endangerment," and, even if there was, potential endangerment is, "contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the regulation."

Respondent’s arguments are unavailing, and the issues he raises are well-settled. See, e.g., Administrator v. Szabo, NTSB Order No. EA-4265 at 4 (1994) ("innumerable Board cases make clear that no more than potential endangerment is required to find a violation of section [91.13(a)]"); Administrator v. Lancaster, NTSB Order No. EA-3911 at 2 (1993) ("Given ... that respondent forgot to put down the landing gear, we cannot agree with respondent's contention that he acted with all due care. Irrespective of the amount of damage actually done to the aircraft ... the inherent danger in a failure to lower landing gear supports a [carelessness or recklessness] finding."); Administrator v. Smith, 3 NTSB 3196, 3198 ("the potential for endangerment to life and property inherent in a gear-up landing is considerable and the likelihood of some damage almost a certainty"); Haines v. Department of Transp., 449 F.2d 1073, 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1971) ("What is more important is that, in the judgment of the Board, potential danger was unnecessarily presented, and this is sufficient to support a finding that the regulation was violated…. Proof of actual danger is unnecessary, for the regulation prohibits any careless or reckless practice in which danger is inherent.") (citations omitted); Haines at n.10 (addressing language similar to section 91.13, and stating: "The wording of the regulation does not support a requirement of actual danger. Instead it prohibits the [‘][operation of] an aircraft in a careless * * * manner [FONT=FHMDPE+CourierNewPS,Courier New PS][FONT=FHMDPE+CourierNewPS,Courier New PS]so as to [/FONT][/FONT]endanger life or property[.’]") (emphasis in the original); Roach v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 804 F.2d 1147, 1157 (10th
Cir. 1986) (it is not necessary to prove actual endangerment in order to sustain carelessness charge in FAA enforcement proceedings).3

3Complainant’s argument that the FAA did not allege "potential" endangerment in the complaint is unavailing. Long-standing precedent holds that potential endangerment is sufficient to prove a violation of FAR section 91.13(a),..
Click to expand...
Administrator v. Lorenz, and many other examples available.
 
Bummer. That's some legal print I've not seen before and a.makes my case even harder and maybe impossible to win in court,.... but if if you take off in IMC in uncontrolled airspace, stay in uncontrolled airspace, never violating any FAR, and never compromising anyone's safety, then I don't think anyone would just try a single stand-alone charge of careless or reckless. It's always an add-on or only way to get at an actual careless reckless operation.
 
So if I depart a class G airfield with an instrument approach (700' AGL class E) that is just starting to have ground fog roll in that is reporting 1.5 miles visibility, am I in violation once I reach 700' AGL? The wisps of ground fog aren't exactly a "ceiling", and visibility at pattern altitude is unlimited.
 
ChrisK said:
So if I depart a class G airfield with an instrument approach (700' AGL class E) that is just starting to have ground fog roll in that is reporting 1.5 miles visibility, am I in violation once I reach 700' AGL? The wisps of ground fog aren't exactly a "ceiling", and visibility at pattern altitude is unlimited.
Click to expand...

Below 10,000 MSL, I believe you're OK if you get at least 2000 feet horizontally away from the edge of the fog bank by the time you reach 700 AGL. At or above 10,000 MSL, you need to be at least one statute mile horizontally away from the fog bank (i.e., cloud).
 
Last edited:
You think a fog bank is a cloud in the context of 91.155?
Not unless there's more legal definitions on that.
 
Lumps of visibility restrictions in flight in controlled airspace where other ifr controlled airplanes may come busting out of so I have to keep the 91.155 distances to avoid collision.
If I t.o. out of a fog bank, another airplane is not gonna pop up out of that fog behind me within 2000'.
 
nosehair said:
Lumps of visibility restrictions in flight in controlled airspace where other ifr controlled airplanes may come busting out of so I have to keep the 91.155 distances to avoid collision.
Click to expand...

Same definition for both? Just in controlled airspace?

If I t.o. out of a fog bank, another airplane is not gonna pop up out of that fog behind me within 2000'.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top