Re: Is 91.175 enforced in the USA?

[Chris]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> This is the reg which prevents flying instrument approaches unless it
> is a published one.
>
> In the UK, this is not illegal (on G-reg aircraft). But then we don't
> get the radar services here, etc.

well that is news to me! If you fly in IMC, IFR in uncontrolled airspace
then the IF rules specify ground clearances etc so descents have to be in
line with those. There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you under
cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet above the highest
obstacle within five miles either side of your track and once through the
cloud are in VFR conditions.

Home made approaches will get you prosecuted by the CAA if they catch you
and the sanctions are far tougher than the FAA do. (For our US friends we
don't have administrative sanctions such as a suspension of certificate. we
end up in court invariably lose and have to pay the CAA's costs and have a
criminal record). If you have an accident be sure the insurance will not pay
either.

The proper procedure is to make an instrument approach at an airfield with a
published instrument approach and if possible continue VFR to the airfield
you want. If you cannot continue VFR then land and wait and worry about the
$200 landing costs after you have landed safely.

we have a number of airfield whose published approaches are in uncontrolled
airspace eg Southend, Cambridge, Oxford, Cranfield, Exeter, Doncaster as
well as those in Class D airspace (our class D is operated like US class B)

Flight conditions are either VMC or IMC. There is no such thing as MVFR.

even if it is OK to fly a G reg as you say, it is not Ok to fly an N reg
even if the N reg is in the UK it has to follow the FARs.

[Doug[_1_]]

Chris wrote:
>There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you under
>cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet above the highest
>obstacle within five miles either side of your track and once through the
>cloud are in VFR conditions.

The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the MEA (which
varies, ATC knows and will tell us), and if we are not in VFR
conditions, then we have to do an intrument approach. MEA's are higher
than 1000 AGL I can tell you that. MEA's are not published, but ATC has
a map of them. Radar coverage madatory for IFR flight (with one
exception, Class G). I don't honestly know what the rules are for
descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR clearance. I don't think
there are any. It doesn't happen much, almost all our IFR flight is
with radar coverage and ATC clearances etc.

[Doug[_1_]]

Misposted a bit, radar coverage is not mandatory for IFR flight but ATC
clearance is and it USUALLY includes radar coverage.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> I don't honestly know what the rules are for
> descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR clearance.

Class G is so close to the ground in most locations that you'll only
be in it quite briefly during descent (or take-off), anyway, which I
presume is why there aren't many rules concerning that airspace.
Anyone who cruises for an extended period in Class G on instruments is
either way out in the boondocks or very bold or both.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Doug wrote:

>
> The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the MEA (which
> varies, ATC knows and will tell us), and if we are not in VFR
> conditions, then we have to do an intrument approach. MEA's are higher
> than 1000 AGL I can tell you that. MEA's are not published, but ATC has
> a map of them.

MEA's are published. MVA's are not published. A minimum instrument
altitude is always going to be 1000 above the terrain.


> Radar coverage madatory for IFR flight (with one
> exception, Class G).

Absolutely INCORRECT. Radar coverage is not mandatory for flight
in controlled airspace. An IFR clearance is, but radar is not
necessary nor sufficient for a clearance.

> I don't honestly know what the rules are for
> descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR clearance

Same as for controlled airspace 91.175 makes no distiction.

?. I don't think
> there are any. It doesn't happen much, almost all our IFR flight is
> with radar coverage and ATC clearances etc.
>
Nonsense. Many airports with approaches exist outside of controlled
airspace.

[Ron Natalie]

Doug wrote:
> Misposted a bit, radar coverage is not mandatory for IFR flight but ATC
> clearance is and it USUALLY includes radar coverage.
>
ATC clearance is mandatory for IFR flight IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE.
It is neither necessary nor available outside.

Radar coverage while pretty pervasive isn't a requirement for nor
a guarantee of an IFR clearance availability. Nearly all flights
begin and end outside of radar coverage, some outside of controlled
airspace.

[Jim Macklin]

In controlled airspace, the MEA or MVA [radar] is
controlling unless you have a IAP.

In Class G, you can fly under IFR in IMC w/o a clearance,
but you can't climb into or fly sideways into any controlled
airspace w/o first getting a clearance.

You can descend for a landing then, | Chris wrote:
| >There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you
under
| >cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet
above the highest
| >obstacle within five miles either side of your track and
once through the
| >cloud are in VFR conditions."
In mountainous areas the minimum is 2,000 feet and most
areas of Class G large enough and high enough in which to
fly IFR are in mountainous areas. The far western
Kansas/eastern Colorado area comes to mind, there are only a
handful of airports within those areas.

Alaska pilots are probably the ones who do this type of
flying on a regular basis.



"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Chris wrote:
| >There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you
under
| >cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet
above the highest
| >obstacle within five miles either side of your track and
once through the
| >cloud are in VFR conditions.
|
| The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the
MEA (which
| varies, ATC knows and will tell us), and if we are not in
VFR
| conditions, then we have to do an intrument approach.
MEA's are higher
| than 1000 AGL I can tell you that. MEA's are not
published, but ATC has
| a map of them. Radar coverage madatory for IFR flight
(with one
| exception, Class G). I don't honestly know what the rules
are for
| descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR clearance. I
don't think
| there are any. It doesn't happen much, almost all our IFR
flight is
| with radar coverage and ATC clearances etc.
|

[Jim Macklin]

In controlled airspace. In uncontrolled airspace no ATC
service is available and neither is a clearance. But IFR is
possible using the big sky random principle.


§ 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when
necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft under IFR below-

(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95
and 97 of this chapter; or

(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those
parts-

(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a
mountainous area in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above
the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4
nautical miles from the course to be flown; or

(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the
highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical
miles from the course to be flown.

However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a
particular route or route segment, a person may operate an
aircraft below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA,
when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned (based on
the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).

(b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall
begin immediately after passing the point beyond which that
minimum altitude applies, except that when ground
obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher
minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the
applicable MCA.



91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

(a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an
aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled
airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level
assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance
assigns "VFR conditions on-top," that person shall maintain
an altitude or flight level as prescribed by §91.159.

(b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding
pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person
operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in
uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude
as follows:

(1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and-

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179
degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000,
5,000, or 7,000); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359
degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000,
4,000, or 6,000).

(2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below
flight level 290, and-

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179
degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359
degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220).

(3) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM
airspace, and-

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179
degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals,
beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight
level 290, 330, or 370); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359
degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals,
beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight
level 310, 350, or 390).

(4) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace
designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)
airspace and-

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179
degrees, any odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals
beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight
level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359
degrees, any even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals
beginning at and including flight level 300 (such as 300,
320, 340, 360, 380, 400).

"Doug" > wrote in message
ps.com...
| Misposted a bit, radar coverage is not mandatory for IFR
flight but ATC
| clearance is and it USUALLY includes radar coverage.
|

[Sam Spade]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> Doug wrote:
>
>>
>> The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the MEA (which
>> varies, ATC knows and will tell us), and if we are not in VFR
>> conditions, then we have to do an intrument approach. MEA's are higher
>> than 1000 AGL I can tell you that. MEA's are not published, but ATC has
>> a map of them.
>
>
> MEA's are published. MVA's are not published. A minimum instrument
> altitude is always going to be 1000 above the terrain.
>

Change that to "at least 1,000 feet above obstacles." (2,000 in DMAs).
>

> Nonsense. Many airports with approaches exist outside of controlled
> airspace.

Cite an example, other than below 700 feet inside the FAF.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> In controlled airspace, the MEA or MVA [radar] is
> controlling unless you have a IAP.
>
> In Class G, you can fly under IFR in IMC w/o a clearance,
> but you can't climb into or fly sideways into any controlled
> airspace w/o first getting a clearance.

Once a climb to level-off is completed under IFR in Class G airspace
then the aircraft must forever maintain the off-route altitude
requirements of 91.177 unless becoming VFR.

[Jim Macklin]

91.179


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > In controlled airspace, the MEA or MVA [radar] is
| > controlling unless you have a IAP.
| >
| > In Class G, you can fly under IFR in IMC w/o a
clearance,
| > but you can't climb into or fly sideways into any
controlled
| > airspace w/o first getting a clearance.
|
| Once a climb to level-off is completed under IFR in Class
G airspace
| then the aircraft must forever maintain the off-route
altitude
| requirements of 91.177 unless becoming VFR.

[Doug[_1_]]

Where are MEA'a published?

[Sam Spade]

Doug wrote:
> Where are MEA'a published?
>

On Victor aiways.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> 91.179
>
>
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> |
> | > In controlled airspace, the MEA or MVA [radar] is
> | > controlling unless you have a IAP.
> | >
> | > In Class G, you can fly under IFR in IMC w/o a
> clearance,
> | > but you can't climb into or fly sideways into any
> controlled
> | > airspace w/o first getting a clearance.
> |
> | Once a climb to level-off is completed under IFR in Class
> G airspace
> | then the aircraft must forever maintain the off-route
> altitude
> | requirements of 91.177 unless becoming VFR.
>
>
91.177 is the MEA requirement. 91.179 also has to be satisfied but only
after 91.177 is satisifed.

[Doug[_1_]]

OK, see if I can get it right this time.
> Chris wrote:
> There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you under
> cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet above the highest
> obstacle within five miles either side of your track and once through the
> cloud are in VFR conditions.
>
The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the MEA (which is
published on the IFR enroute charts), or to the MVA (which ATC will
tell us) and if we are not in VFR conditions, then we have to do an
intrument approach. MEA's are higher than 1000 AGL I can tell you that.
MVA's are not published, but ATC has a map of them. ATC clearance
madatory for IFR flight (with one exception, Class G). I don't honestly
know what the rules are for descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR
clearance. I don't think there are any. It doesn't happen much, almost
all our IFR flight is with ATC clearances and frequently with radar as
well etc.

[Chris]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> OK, see if I can get it right this time.
>> Chris wrote:
>> There is no problem setting up a descent to bring you under
>> cloud providing that whilst in cloud you remain 1000 feet above the
>> highest
>> obstacle within five miles either side of your track and once through the
>> cloud are in VFR conditions.
>>
> The above cannot be done in the US. We can descend to the MEA (which is
> published on the IFR enroute charts), or to the MVA (which ATC will
> tell us) and if we are not in VFR conditions, then we have to do an
> intrument approach. MEA's are higher than 1000 AGL I can tell you that.
> MVA's are not published, but ATC has a map of them. ATC clearance
> madatory for IFR flight (with one exception, Class G). I don't honestly
> know what the rules are for descent in Class G with no radar and no IFR
> clearance. I don't think there are any. It doesn't happen much, almost
> all our IFR flight is with ATC clearances and frequently with radar as
> well etc.

I think basically the rules are similar in the US and the UK. The main
difference is the organisation of airspace. we have a fair bit of Class G
airspace going upto FL190 and IFR in IMC can go on outside of radar control
because there is none.

On the other hand we have a lot of Class A airspace going from 2500' upwards
all over the place and it it is impossible to use with an instrument rating.
The class A is radar controlled.

Going from Class G to A means hanging around for a clearance before entering
the class A.

We also have an IMC rating which is a version of the IR which allows us to
fly in IMC except in Class A aispace. For that we need the instrument
rating. The JAA instrument rating is a pig to get as you have to pass 8
exams so some of us fly on an US instrument rating in a N reg plane which
means we have to follow the FARs.

As the FARs are broadly in line with the ICAO requirements then the rules
are similar to the UK.

The biggest difference is over the interpretation of IFR/VFR.

Non instrument rated and IMC rated pilots can fly IFR in all airspace except
class A. But they must be in VMC conditions.

[Doug[_1_]]

But still, we don't go around doing IMC "letdowns" to 1000' AGL without
being on an approach. If THAT is what pilots actually do in England,
and I wonder if they do, even if it is legal, that's a pretty big
difference.

[Mxsmanic]

Chris writes:

> We also have an IMC rating which is a version of the IR which allows us to
> fly in IMC except in Class A aispace. For that we need the instrument
> rating. The JAA instrument rating is a pig to get as you have to pass 8
> exams so some of us fly on an US instrument rating in a N reg plane which
> means we have to follow the FARs.

Are you saying that you can fly outside the U.S. in a U.S.-registered
aircraft and follow U.S. instrument flight rules (instead of local
rules)? Or am I misunderstanding?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Chris]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> But still, we don't go around doing IMC "letdowns" to 1000' AGL without
> being on an approach. If THAT is what pilots actually do in England,
> and I wonder if they do, even if it is legal, that's a pretty big
> difference.
>
Not 1000' AGL, 1000' above the highest object within 5nm either side of
track and it is no big deal really provided you know where you are. A couple
of VORs, or one VOR and a DME or ADF and you are home and dry and its like
with anything else, you set a minimum descent height and if you are not out
of cloud by then, back up you go. Mind you at $9.14 a gallon you don't want
to spend too much time diverting 50 miles to find an approach so we tend to
play it safe and stay out of cloud. And at 3500' in England the only think
you are going to hit is another plane.

Remember the UK is relatively low level. The highest elevation is in
Scotland at 4409', Wales 3500' and in England its 3210'.

[Chris]

"Peter" > wrote in message > proposing to ban them but
they abandoned it. FYI there is currently a
> thread running on the flyer.co.uk forum on this, and it contains ANO

The idiots on the flyer.co.uk forum are the least reliable about. That forum
and the magazine behind it frankly are a joke. The articles that get written
are tosh and just for vanity.

It is all very embarrassing really when compared to some of the more erudite
stuff that comes out of the US.

Ian Seagar is a joke as is McCullum and as for that Heald bloke well.....!

[Sam Spade]

Peter wrote:

> "Chris" > wrote
>

>
> That may well be, but the fact remains that there is no prohibition
> (which means it IS allowed) for homemade instrument letdowns in the
> UK, i.e. G-reg aircraft.
>
> If you can find an article in the UK Air Navigation Order which
> details such a prohibition, I and may others would be very interested
> in seeing it.
>
> The USA does have such a prohibition, in the form of 91.175. As per
> aviation regs generally, that applies to all operations of FAA reg
> aircraft no matter where it is flying.

91.177 works with 91.175 to prohibit roll-your-own IAPs.

Related aside: Are IAPs themselves Air Regulations in the UK? Public
IAPs are in the U.S.; not so with most countries.

[Sam Spade]

Peter wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote
>
>
>>Related aside: Are IAPs themselves Air Regulations in the UK? Public
>>IAPs are in the U.S.; not so with most countries.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
>
> I don't know if this is relevant but AFAIK there is no law here in the
> UK specifying what equipment is to be used at any time (private flight
> context, similar to your Part 91). Only equipment to be *carried* is
> defined, for different airspace classes, etc. This has led to
> suggestions that e.g. an NDB IAP (one in Class G, where there is no
> requirement to carry an ADF for IFR) can in fact be legally flown
> without actually carrying an ADF. I don't think you can do this in the
> USA...

Each IAP in the U.S. is an amendment to Federal Aviation Regulation Part
97. Thus, all the notes, altitudes, etc, are regulatory.

[Michael[_1_]]

Peter wrote:
> The purpose of my original Q here was to see how it works in the USA.
> I guess it works because the US has plenty of instrument approaches
> available, whereas most general aviation airfields in Europe don't
> have an IAP so many pilots just do it themselves.

Most private airports in the US (these outnumber the public airports)
do not have instrument approaches. A few do, but this is an expensive
luxury. There are also more than a few public use airports without
instrument approaches. Pilots based at such airports have basically
two options, and both are in common use. What I mean by this - I know
lots of people who use these options, and they know lots of people -
and nobody has been busted. Also, no insurance policy that I have ever
seen excludes coverage for FAR violations. I've known people to have
accidents with expired BFR's (not legal to act as PIC) carrying
passengers, and the insurance still paid.

So what are the options?

Those that are located reasonably close to a public airport with an
instrument approach will generally fly that approach, cancel IFR, and
scud run to their actual destination. If the conditions are too poor
for this, they will simply land and wait it out or get a ride home.
Since we don't have large landing fees anywhere but a few of the major
internationals (we consider anything over US$20 large) it's not a huge
problem.

This practice is not actually prohibited, but the legality is about the
same as any scud running - minimum altitudes, visibility and cloud
clearance requirements, etc.

Those that are not located reasonably close to a public airport with an
instrument approach are generally quite centrally located in the middle
of nowhere. There is no official weather reporting anywhere close.
There might be an automated system, but those are known to be
notoriously unreliable. FAA inspectors are almost never found at these
airports - and at many private airports FAA inspectors only show up in
extremis, and only in groups - a single inspector might disappear
without a trace. So pilots do exactly what they do in the UK - make up
their own approaches. This is quite frankly illegal, but ATC cares not
a whit once the pilot reports the airport in sight and cancels IFR, so
really the only way to get busted is to have someone report you to the
FAA - and the sort of people who do that don't last long at that kind
of airport either.

The system works not because the rules allow for this, but because the
rules are generally not enforced.

Michael

[Sam Spade]

Michael wrote:

FAA inspectors are almost never found at these
> airports - and at many private airports FAA inspectors only show up in
> extremis, and only in groups - a single inspector might disappear
> without a trace.

Does that mean the local pilot group will murder an FAA inspector out
there all by him/her self?