Implications of.....keeping the speed up

[[email protected]]

So let's say I'm inbound to Teterboro from the west, doing 250 kias
below 10,000 in descent. Atc gives me a radar vector, and clears me
to maintain 4000 feet.

1, Do I need to slow to 200 kias at some time?

2. I'm considering that I may well be less than 3000 feet AGL (or is
2500 the magic number?). Does this have any bearing?

3. Do I need to worry about being underneath a class B, and thus have
a 200 kias speed limit? Or does atc somehow take care of this for me.

Thanks for all inputs. Stan

[Mark Hansen]

On 01/04/07 13:40, wrote:
> So let's say I'm inbound to Teterboro from the west, doing 250 kias
> below 10,000 in descent. Atc gives me a radar vector, and clears me
> to maintain 4000 feet.
>
> 1, Do I need to slow to 200 kias at some time?
>
> 2. I'm considering that I may well be less than 3000 feet AGL (or is
> 2500 the magic number?). Does this have any bearing?
>
> 3. Do I need to worry about being underneath a class B, and thus have
> a 200 kias speed limit? Or does atc somehow take care of this for me.
>
> Thanks for all inputs. Stan
>

The FARs spell out the speed limits. Are you asking what they say, or
are you asking if you can violate the FARs if ATC asks you to maintain
your speed?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> So let's say I'm inbound to Teterboro from the west, doing 250 kias
> below 10,000 in descent. Atc gives me a radar vector, and clears me
> to maintain 4000 feet.
>
> 1, Do I need to slow to 200 kias at some time?

Almost certainly, yes, at some point prior to when you flare :-)

I suspect you're thinking of the restrictions imposed by 14 CFR 91.117. It
imposes three basic speed limits:

A) 250 KIAS below 10,000 MSL

B) 200 KIAS below 2500 AGL or within 4 NM of a Class C or D airport.

C) 200 KIAS beneath Class B airspace.

A requires the administrator to waive. B requires ATC to waive. C is
non-waivable. Minimum safe airspeed trumps all those. That's usually only
a factor for a heavy jet right after takeoff.

In your case, B is probably what applies. If you want to exceed 20 KIAS,
make a request of the controller.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:57:19 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> If you want to exceed 20 KIAS,
>make a request of the controller.

Generally in the form of "Request takeoff, departure to..." ;)

[[email protected]]

Thanks Roy. I don't have a US licence, so hence my questions. My
thoughts were:

200 below class B. So will atc vector me below class B, possibly? In
which case, do pilots normally have a class B airspace chart out, tune
in the EWR VOR, and carefully monitor radials, dme's, altitudes, in
order to slow to 200 prior to being under class B? Somehow, I don't
think most actually do this.

250 below 2500 agl within 4 nm of C or D. Again, does anyone monitor
a low level chart and crosscheck their radial/dme with local vor's in
order to ascertain whether they meet this criteria? Again, I think
most of us are starting to tune in the localizer at this point.

Secondly, if this is reference the elevation of the primary airport,
who really continuously looks up airport elevations as they go (and
airports may be 3 or 4000 msl west of Teb in the appalachians I
presume) adds 2500, and ensures they are above this altitude.
Further, if I'm descended early into TEB, as expected for an arrival
into the NE, and am at 6000 msl 60 miles to the west, is atc really
expecting a sudden decrease to 200 this far out? Somehow I'd expect a

"CFxxx say speed, ...and this aint Dallas so pick it back up to 250
please"

So I guess I'm asking, what would you use in a situation like this to
decide when to slow to 200?

..On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:57:19 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> So let's say I'm inbound to Teterboro from the west, doing 250 kias
>> below 10,000 in descent. Atc gives me a radar vector, and clears me
>> to maintain 4000 feet.
>>
>> 1, Do I need to slow to 200 kias at some time?
>
>Almost certainly, yes, at some point prior to when you flare :-)
>
>I suspect you're thinking of the restrictions imposed by 14 CFR 91.117. It
>imposes three basic speed limits:
>
>A) 250 KIAS below 10,000 MSL
>
>B) 200 KIAS below 2500 AGL or within 4 NM of a Class C or D airport.
>
>C) 200 KIAS beneath Class B airspace.
>
>A requires the administrator to waive. B requires ATC to waive. C is
>non-waivable. Minimum safe airspeed trumps all those. That's usually only
>a factor for a heavy jet right after takeoff.
>
>In your case, B is probably what applies. If you want to exceed 20 KIAS,
>make a request of the controller.

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

> B) 200 KIAS below 2500 AGL or within 4 NM of a Class C or D airport.
>

Slight correction...... delete the word "or".

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In which case, do pilots normally have a class B airspace chart out, tune
> in the EWR VOR, and carefully monitor radials, dme's, altitudes, in
> order to slow to 200 prior to being under class B? Somehow, I don't
> think most actually do this.

If you have RNAV capability and moving maps (like a GPS unit), you
don't need to, since your instruments will show you the controlled
airspaces and tell you if you are within them. If you don't have
that, you might or might not have time to check in real time, but you
certainly need to know whether or not you're in Class B, for example.
You can also plan your flight in advance and check all of these
details so that you will know where you are at all times without
having to check charts in flight. If you have no idea at all how
close you are to controlled airspace, you need to work on your
navigation and planning skills before you go anywhere near airports of
significant size.

> 250 below 2500 agl within 4 nm of C or D. Again, does anyone monitor
> a low level chart and crosscheck their radial/dme with local vor's in
> order to ascertain whether they meet this criteria? Again, I think
> most of us are starting to tune in the localizer at this point.

You might well be flying below that altitude in some cases without
necessarily being on an approach for landing, albeit probably not in a
757.

Also, if you're preparing to intercept a localizer, you're already
slowing down considerably, and in many cases below 200 kts. Even
heavy jet aircraft can stay below 200 kts with flaps.

> Secondly, if this is reference the elevation of the primary airport,
> who really continuously looks up airport elevations as they go (and
> airports may be 3 or 4000 msl west of Teb in the appalachians I
> presume) adds 2500, and ensures they are above this altitude.

It's above the ground below you. And some areas are quite flat. And
you may have a radar altimeter that lets you know how far you are
above the ground. If you are VFR, you may be able to judge your
altitude well enough by visual means alone.

> Further, if I'm descended early into TEB, as expected for an arrival
> into the NE, and am at 6000 msl 60 miles to the west, is atc really
> expecting a sudden decrease to 200 this far out?

Why would it be sudden? If it comes as a surprise to you while you
are flying along, there's something wrong. And if you are flying below
2500 AGL, you're probably either in the military or you have a small
plane that can't do much better than 200 kts, anyway. If you are
below Class B, you're pretty close to a major airport (much closer
than 60 nm). Also, since Class B normally extends only to 10,000, the
space below it is rarely more than a few thousand feet high, so you're
no more likely to be below it than you are to be at 2500 AGL. Unless
you're in a small plane that flies at these altitudes normally, of
course.

> So I guess I'm asking, what would you use in a situation like this to
> decide when to slow to 200?

Your position and altitude, which you should always know with a fair
degree of accuracy.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> So let's say I'm inbound to Teterboro from the west, doing 250 kias
> below 10,000 in descent. Atc gives me a radar vector, and clears me
> to maintain 4000 feet.
>
> 1, Do I need to slow to 200 kias at some time?
>
> 2. I'm considering that I may well be less than 3000 feet AGL (or is
> 2500 the magic number?). Does this have any bearing?
>
> 3. Do I need to worry about being underneath a class B, and thus have
> a 200 kias speed limit? Or does atc somehow take care of this for me.

Does it seem odd that a guy flying something doing 250 knots is asking
about basic FARs?
-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Does it seem odd that a guy flying something doing 250 knots is asking
> about basic FARs?

I think it better for him to ask than to roll dice.

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

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>
>>Does it seem odd that a guy flying something doing 250 knots is asking
>>about basic FARs?
>
>
> I think it better for him to ask than to roll dice.
>
It would be better to do neither.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> It would be better to do neither.

How would he know what speed to fly?

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

[[email protected]]

Just to clarify, I have no moving map, so no depiction of class D C B.
Hence my inquiry on whether it's normal for pilots to have out class
B and low level charts. To clarify, this was flown in hi airspace,
and yes we had our hi enroute out, but it is of little help.

Re check in real time:
I presume you mean as I said by tuning in the ewr vor and monitoring
radials and dme.

Re plan in advance, it's just not always possible. This was a quick
trip, filed from Southern Ontario Canada, no prefered route available,
and the one we chose to file was from CYYZ. No surprise, we didn't
get the route we expected, with CLE centre re routing/vectoring us
enroute. then via vectors (NY) for the arrival. So.... descending 60
west of TEB at 6000 feet at 250 kias, did I break the max 200 kias
within 4 nm and 2500 AGL? I've no idea, perhaps. Hence my inquiry on
how others handle this situation.

Re not knowing how close I am to controlled airspace:
I'd think this is mostly class E airspace I'm in, and is controlled,
isn't it? And I know exactly where I am; I'm 59 dme from the TEB dme,
on the 275 radial. And I'm just setting up my fms for the ils 06 Teb,
so I know the XYZ IF is bearing ABC degress for DEF miles. I just
don't know the distance before I enter the EWR class B airspace. And
nor do I know whether in fact, due to altitude changes, I may end up
under it. Note I'm not saying I can't find out, I just didn't have a
low chart out at this point.

See a few comments further below

>If you have RNAV capability and moving maps (like a GPS unit), you
>don't need to, since your instruments will show you the controlled
>airspaces and tell you if you are within them. If you don't have
>that, you might or might not have time to check in real time,
>You can also plan your flight in advance and check all of these
>details so that you will know where you are at all times without
>having to check charts in flight. If you have no idea at all how
>close you are to controlled airspace, you need to work on your
>navigation and planning skills before you go anywhere near airports of
>significant size.
>
>
>> Secondly, if this is reference the elevation of the primary airport,
>> who really continuously looks up airport elevations as they go (and
>> airports may be 3 or 4000 msl west of Teb in the appalachians I
>> presume) adds 2500, and ensures they are above this altitude.
>
>It's above the ground below you. And some areas are quite flat. And
>you may have a radar altimeter that lets you know how far you are
>above the ground. If you are VFR, you may be able to judge your
>altitude well enough by visual means alone.
>
West of Teb is not that flat. And my altimeter comes alive at 2000
agl. And often IMC.

>> Further, if I'm descended early into TEB, as expected for an arrival
>> into the NE, and am at 6000 msl 60 miles to the west, is atc really
>> expecting a sudden decrease to 200 this far out?
>
>Why would it be sudden? If it comes as a surprise to you while you
>are flying along, there's something wrong. And if you are flying below
>2500 AGL, you're probably either in the military or you have a small
>plane that can't do much better than 200 kts, anyway.

It's not a surprise to me, and perhaps sudden is too harsh a word.
Typically I descend below 10000 at 250 kias. When I want to slow to
200, if possible I aim to pull throttles to idle, and decrease the
descent rate. I'm thinking that since atc is vectoring me, the
planned separation from other aircraft may be reduced by my perhaps
unanticipated speed reduction that far out. Just a thought.

Well thanks for your inputs. I found them useful. I am 100% sure
that corporate pilots do NOT have low level charts out, nor Class B
charts on these trips. I gather from here that in order to ensure
these speed limits are followed, one needs both, plus perhaps a
sectional for the 2500 AGL limitation.

Thanks to Roy too for his response.
Stan

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>It would be better to do neither.
>
>
> How would he know what speed to fly?
>

By reading and understanding a basic FAR, and or, by seeking remedial
training from his flight operations department.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:23:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Sam Spade writes:
>>
>>
>>>It would be better to do neither.
>>
>>
>> How would he know what speed to fly?
>>
>
>By reading and understanding a basic FAR, and or, by seeking remedial
>training from his flight operations department.

Gentlemen, I was hoping for some input on what techniques are used to
ensure compliance with the FARs.

Stan

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:23:24 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Sam Spade writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It would be better to do neither.
>>>
>>>
>>>How would he know what speed to fly?
>>>
>>
>>By reading and understanding a basic FAR, and or, by seeking remedial
>>training from his flight operations department.
>
>
> Gentlemen, I was hoping for some input on what techniques are used to
> ensure compliance with the FARs.
>
> Stan

Pilots are routinely taken below the floor of Class B airspace when
exceeding 200 knots. Most airline pilots have no idea where the
boundaries or floors of Class B airspace are located. No one cares
except the occasional fed on the jump seat who has a thing about it.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
> Pilots are routinely taken below the floor of Class B airspace when
> exceeding 200 knots. Most airline pilots have no idea where the
> boundaries or floors of Class B airspace are located. No one cares
> except the occasional fed on the jump seat who has a thing about it.

But those pilots at least know such a FAR exists. It seems very odd to
me that a CFI or check pilot signed a guy off to fly something doing
more than 250 knots and the guy isn't aware of the FARs.

-Robert, CFII

[Jose[_1_]]

> plus perhaps a
> sectional for the 2500 AGL limitation.

It's good to have sectionals available (or at least WACs) but 2500 AGL
should be pretty easy to eyeball.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Could you explain? I'm talking ifr here, and imc. Using my example,
you're at 6000 feet msl over the appalachians. How is 2500 AGL easy
to eyeball?

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:01:46 -0500, Jose >
wrote:

>> plus perhaps a
>> sectional for the 2500 AGL limitation.
>
>It's good to have sectionals available (or at least WACs) but 2500 AGL
>should be pretty easy to eyeball.
>
>Jose

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:21:47 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:
>Pilots are routinely taken below the floor of Class B airspace when
>exceeding 200 knots. Most airline pilots have no idea where the
>boundaries or floors of Class B airspace are located. No one cares
>except the occasional fed on the jump seat who has a thing about it.

This is what I've observed too. Pilots flying hi level do not bother
with low level charts nor class B charts. Only hi level charts and
sid/star charts. Not saying it is safe, legal or proper, just that
it's normal ops.

Sam, would it be true too for the 2500 AGL within 4 nm limitation too,
in your opinion?

Secondly, is there some atc requirement that if your destination is
the primary airport in a class B, then atc is required to keep you in
class B, and not vector you below?

Stan

[Jose[_1_]]

> Could you explain? I'm talking ifr here, and imc. Using my example,
> you're at 6000 feet msl over the appalachians. How is 2500 AGL easy
> to eyeball?

I suppose under those circumstances, it would be challenging. However,
the 2500 foot rule only applies within four miles of a class C or D
airport. That would place you right in the traffic pattern, and it's
unlikely that ATC would route you through there unless you are actually
on an approach, at which point you are unlikely to want to speed, and
will have your approach plates handy as a reference.

I suppose you could be landing at Danbury in the fog in an F-15, and be
told to keep your speed up as the Space Shuttle is behind you. And in
that case, you are "authorized by ATC", which is part of that particular
regulation, so you can hustle your buns.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:49:27 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Could you explain? I'm talking ifr here, and imc. Using my example,
>> you're at 6000 feet msl over the appalachians. How is 2500 AGL easy
>> to eyeball?
>
>I suppose under those circumstances, it would be challenging. However,
>the 2500 foot rule only applies within four miles of a class C or D
>airport. That would place you right in the traffic pattern, and it's
>unlikely that ATC would route you through there

>
It might be unlikely, but it is still my responsibility to ensure this
speed restriction, not atc's. Am I misinformed?
Stan

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:21:47 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>>Pilots are routinely taken below the floor of Class B airspace when
>>exceeding 200 knots. Most airline pilots have no idea where the
>>boundaries or floors of Class B airspace are located. No one cares
>>except the occasional fed on the jump seat who has a thing about it.
>
>
> This is what I've observed too. Pilots flying hi level do not bother
> with low level charts nor class B charts. Only hi level charts and
> sid/star charts. Not saying it is safe, legal or proper, just that
> it's normal ops.

It is impossible to figure out Class B from a paper chart in a jet
transport with all the more important stuff that has to be done.

With boundaries and altitude limits display electronically, it is
possible but still a lot of distraction. Try it with a Garmin with all
the aural elerts set and it is a pain. With a Garmin, it works well to
avoid Class B when VFR, but to use it to assure containment when on a
clearance within Class B, it becomes overwhelming.
>
> Sam, would it be true too for the 2500 AGL within 4 nm limitation too,
> in your opinion?

No. It is far easier to figure out where the stand-alone Class D
airspace is located.
>
> Secondly, is there some atc requirement that if your destination is
> the primary airport in a class B, then atc is required to keep you in
> class B, and not vector you below?

That is policy to the extent it can be done without creating some other
traffic problem. But, there is no "rule."

[Jose[_1_]]

> It might be unlikely, but it is still my responsibility to ensure this
> speed restriction, not atc's. Am I misinformed?

Regarding the 2500 foot rule, it's prefaced by something like "unless
authorized or required by ATC...". If ATC says to keep your speed up, I
would say that counts as an authorization to keep your speed up.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> It might be unlikely, but it is still my responsibility to ensure this
>> speed restriction, not atc's. Am I misinformed?
>
>
> Regarding the 2500 foot rule, it's prefaced by something like "unless
> authorized or required by ATC...". If ATC says to keep your speed up, I
> would say that counts as an authorization to keep your speed up.


Nope. ATC does not overide the FAR's. The pilot is always responsible
for not busting the speed limit.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Nope. ATC does not overide the FAR's.

The FAR's what? (you probably meant plural, not posessive)

My statement doesn't require ATC to "override" the FARs. Rather, ATC's
authority to grant permission to fly at higher speed (in the case in
question) is explicitly written =into= the FARs. At least the way I
read them. I'm looking at 91.117(b), and the words "by ATC".

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> Nope. ATC does not overide the FAR's.
>
>
> The FAR's what? (you probably meant plural, not posessive)
>
> My statement doesn't require ATC to "override" the FARs. Rather, ATC's
> authority to grant permission to fly at higher speed (in the case in
> question) is explicitly written =into= the FARs. At least the way I
> read them. I'm looking at 91.117(b), and the words "by ATC".
>
> Jose

You are correct. "Unless authorize by ATC" is authority from the
Administrator for ATC to supercede whatever the relevant FAR says.

When it says "Unless otherwise authorized by the Adminstrator" then ATC
is out of the picture.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> > Secondly, is there some atc requirement that if your destination is
> > the primary airport in a class B, then atc is required to keep you in
> > class B, and not vector you below?
>
> That is policy to the extent it can be done without creating some other
> traffic problem. But, there is no "rule."

Althought ATC can authorized it, there is a rule.
91.131
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large
turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which
a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the
designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral
limits of that area.

Why do I get the feeling that none of you guys have ever flown anything
that does 250 knots?

-Robert, CFII

[Roger[_4_]]

On 7 Jan 2007 21:11:01 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>
>Sam Spade wrote:
>> > Secondly, is there some atc requirement that if your destination is
>> > the primary airport in a class B, then atc is required to keep you in
>> > class B, and not vector you below?
>>
>> That is policy to the extent it can be done without creating some other
>> traffic problem. But, there is no "rule."
>
>Althought ATC can authorized it, there is a rule.
>91.131
>(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large
>turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which
>a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the
>designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral
>limits of that area.
>
>Why do I get the feeling that none of you guys have ever flown anything
>that does 250 knots?

That's why I'm waiting to finish the G-III before joining this thread.
Vne on the Deb is 225....MPH so it won't be with that.
>
>-Robert, CFII
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[G. Sylvester]

Sam Spade wrote:
> That is policy to the extent it can be done without creating some other
> traffic problem. But, there is no "rule."

First off, I'm a (very) light a/c IFR pilot. But having listened to
Channel 9 on UA for 135000 miles this past year, it is my (again,
limited) understanding/guess that on the approach the IAS is per the
pilots discretion AND within the FAR's. If there will be a traffic
problem, then ATC will issue to the affected a/c either delay vectors or
speed restrictions. It is common to hear "maintain 180 IAS until 6 DME"
where the pilots slow the plane to landing speed while descending on
the ILS. I don't recall clearance of a IAS "at least 200" as I usually
mentally read back clearances but I personally don't have to worry about
the FAR's since I'm a lowly piece of luggage at seat 2A on a A320 rather
than being the busdriver. I only wish an Archer could go that fast. I
just wish I could rent an Airbus for 100k frequent flier miles per hour.
;-)


Gerald

[Mxsmanic]

G. Sylvester writes:

> First off, I'm a (very) light a/c IFR pilot. But having listened to
> Channel 9 on UA for 135000 miles this past year ...

Is that like spending hundreds of hours with a simulator?

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

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>>Secondly, is there some atc requirement that if your destination is
>>>the primary airport in a class B, then atc is required to keep you in
>>>class B, and not vector you below?
>>
>>That is policy to the extent it can be done without creating some other
>>traffic problem. But, there is no "rule."
>
>
> Althought ATC can authorized it, there is a rule.
> 91.131
> (2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large
> turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which
> a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the
> designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral
> limits of that area.
>
> Why do I get the feeling that none of you guys have ever flown anything
> that does 250 knots?
>
> -Robert, CFII
>
And, doesn't it say "unless otherwise authorized by ATC?" The pilot of
a large turbine-powered airplane cannot drop below the floor unless ATC
sends them there.

I don't know where you get your feeling. I suspect I have a lot more
air carrier large jet time that you do, and let me assure you no one in
the airline business refers to a Class B (TCA for many years) chart
since no airline pilot in his/her right mind ever cancels arriving at a
Class B airport.

ATC takes aircraft out the sides of Class B, and sometime returns them
below the floor of an outer area.

I did my fair share of ferrying aircraft from KONT to LAX and the
clearance was always at 4,000, handed off to LAX Approach Control
(pre-SoCal) days well below the floor of Class B. On that one most of
us were smart enough to stay at 200 knots; if not assigned something
less before the handoff.

[Robert M. Gary]

Sam Spade wrote:
> And, doesn't it say "unless otherwise authorized by ATC?" The pilot of
> a large turbine-powered airplane cannot drop below the floor unless ATC
> sends them there.

Your browser appears to be truncating previous posts so I'll repost the
statement I made in the posting you are referring to...

"Althought ATC can authorized it, there is a rule."

-Robert

[Sam Spade]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>And, doesn't it say "unless otherwise authorized by ATC?" The pilot of
>>a large turbine-powered airplane cannot drop below the floor unless ATC
>>sends them there.
>
>
> Your browser appears to be truncating previous posts so I'll repost the
> statement I made in the posting you are referring to...
>
> "Althought ATC can authorized it, there is a rule."
>
> -Robert
>

But, that is not a rule that requires ATC to keep you in Class B. It is
just the opposite.

The OP wanted to know whether ATC would assure containment within Class
B. It was my choice of words to say there is no rule that requires to
to that, but it is FAA policy to the extent practical.

The regulation you cited is their authority to deviate from that policy.

[Jack Cunniff[_1_]]

Mxsmanic > writes:

>G. Sylvester writes:

>> First off, I'm a (very) light a/c IFR pilot. But having listened to
>> Channel 9 on UA for 135000 miles this past year ...

>Is that like spending hundreds of hours with a simulator?

No, it takes hundreds of hours flying an actual plane to get to be an IFR
pilot. Having simulator experience helps a person understand the
environment, but it's not the same as having actually had a scary learning
experience in real life. Guaranteed that THOSE are the lessons you learn
from.

-Jack

[Sam Spade]

Jack Cunniff wrote:
>
> No, it takes hundreds of hours flying an actual plane to get to be an IFR
> pilot. Having simulator experience helps a person understand the
> environment, but it's not the same as having actually had a scary learning
> experience in real life. Guaranteed that THOSE are the lessons you learn
> from.
>
> -Jack

Where did you get that idea?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:51:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
wrote:

>Jack Cunniff wrote:
>>
>> No, it takes hundreds of hours flying an actual plane to get to be an IFR
>> pilot. Having simulator experience helps a person understand the
>> environment, but it's not the same as having actually had a scary learning
>> experience in real life. Guaranteed that THOSE are the lessons you learn
>> from.
>>
>> -Jack
>
>Where did you get that idea?

Sounds like the voice of experience to me<:-))
Been there and done that.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:51:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jack Cunniff wrote:
>>
>>>No, it takes hundreds of hours flying an actual plane to get to be an IFR
>>>pilot. Having simulator experience helps a person understand the
>>>environment, but it's not the same as having actually had a scary learning
>>>experience in real life. Guaranteed that THOSE are the lessons you learn
>>>from.
>>>
>>>-Jack
>>
>>Where did you get that idea?
>
>
> Sounds like the voice of experience to me<:-))
> Been there and done that.
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

What is the regulation that requires "hundreds of hours flying" to
obtain an instrument rating?

[Ed Mulroy]

> What is the regulation that requires "hundreds of hours flying" to obtain
> an instrument rating?

at least 250 hours
Federal Air Regulation 61.129 a (single engine) and b (multi engine)
http://tinyurl.com/yk44ov
or, in its long form
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5aadcffca1e6fb3020e11d801d0d2f23&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.6.1.2

[Matt Whiting]

Ed Mulroy wrote:
>>What is the regulation that requires "hundreds of hours flying" to obtain
>>an instrument rating?
>
>
> at least 250 hours
> Federal Air Regulation 61.129 a (single engine) and b (multi engine)
> http://tinyurl.com/yk44ov
> or, in its long form
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5aadcffca1e6fb3020e11d801d0d2f23&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.6.1.2
>
>

That is the section for a commercial certificate. The instrument rating
requirements are in 61.65. So where is the requirement for "hundreds of
flying hours" to obtain an instrument rating?

Matt

[Jay Somerset]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:25:46 -0500, "Ed Mulroy" >
wrote:

> > What is the regulation that requires "hundreds of hours flying" to obtain
> > an instrument rating?
>
> at least 250 hours
> Federal Air Regulation 61.129 a (single engine) and b (multi engine)
> http://tinyurl.com/yk44ov
> or, in its long form
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5aadcffca1e6fb3020e11d801d0d2f23&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.6.1.2
>

You seem to be confusing the Instrument requirement with the Commercial
requirement. The IR does not need the 250 hours required for the Commercial
(at least in the U.S.)

You might want to go back and read the proper section. :-)
-Jay-

[Ed Mulroy]

> That is the section for a commercial certificate. The instrument rating
> requirements are in 61.65. So where is the requirement for "hundreds of
> flying hours" to obtain an instrument rating?

And if you check the cancel group you will see that I cancelled the message.
You managed to see it before tht cancel took.

There used to be a 250 hr (I think it was 250 but maybe 200) requirement for
an instrument rating. In later years the FAA has gotten more enlightened
and removed the hour requirement.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Ed Mulroy" > wrote:

> There used to be a 250 hr (I think it was 250 but maybe 200) requirement for
> an instrument rating.

Yeah, it used to be 200 hours (circa 1990).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Ed Mulroy]

Correction:
The requirement for an Instrument Rating used to be 125 hours, not 250

http://www.aopa.org/learntofly/getback.html#70s
scroll down to 61.65

[Jose]

> There used to be a 250 hr (I think it was 250 but maybe 200) requirement for
> an instrument rating. In later years the FAA has gotten more enlightened
> and removed the hour requirement.

In 1984, to apply for an instrument rating you needed to have 200 hours
of pilot time, of which 100 was PIC, of which 50 was PIC XC time. I do
see the wisdom of requiring 200 hours of VFR time before getting the
instrument rating, and do not think it was a good idea to drop it. The
reason is that it is important to learn how to keep one's eyes outside
the cockpit before beginning intensive training in keeping them inside
the cockpit, especially as nowadays there are more geegaws inside the
cockpit vying for the pilot's attention.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:02:01 -0500, Roger >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:51:03 -0800, Sam Spade >
>wrote:
>
>>Jack Cunniff wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it takes hundreds of hours flying an actual plane to get to be an IFR
>>> pilot. Having simulator experience helps a person understand the
>>> environment, but it's not the same as having actually had a scary learning
>>> experience in real life. Guaranteed that THOSE are the lessons you learn
>>> from.
>>>
>>> -Jack
>>
>>Where did you get that idea?
>
>Sounds like the voice of experience to me<:-))
>Been there and done that.
>

I thought you were referring to the experience and THOSE lessons, not
the hundreds of hours. Certainly the rating can be earned with less
than 200 hours so hundreds (plural) would be in excess of the
requirements. Most are going to have more than that, but it's not a
minimum requirement.

61.65.d.1,2.
As to required experience you must first obtain the PPL which requires
a minimum of 40 hours combined dual and solo. I believe we've had
three at our airport do it in 40 in recent years (I wasn't one) Then
for the Instrument the minimum is 50 hours cross country as PIC , 40
hours of actual or simulated operation that includes at least 15 hours
dual instruction and 3 hours dual instruction within 60 days of the
PTS.

I don't see as it's possible in less than about 120 hours. HOWEVER I
think it is possible to do in under 100 hours of actual flight time in
a part 142 school. Any one care to do the math figuring the absolute
minimums in which an instrument rating could be earned?

In the real world it's a very rare individual who comes any where near
these figures, but that was not the question.

Approved sim time
61.65.e
30 hours for a part 142 school
or 20 hours if not part 142.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Ed Mulroy wrote:
>>That is the section for a commercial certificate. The instrument rating
>>requirements are in 61.65. So where is the requirement for "hundreds of
>>flying hours" to obtain an instrument rating?
>
>
> And if you check the cancel group you will see that I cancelled the message.
> You managed to see it before tht cancel took.
>
> There used to be a 250 hr (I think it was 250 but maybe 200) requirement for
> an instrument rating. In later years the FAA has gotten more enlightened
> and removed the hour requirement.

It used to be 200 hours or a commercial certificate. I believe it was
reduced to a 150 hours if the training was done at an approved school.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>> There used to be a 250 hr (I think it was 250 but maybe 200)
>> requirement for an instrument rating. In later years the FAA has
>> gotten more enlightened and removed the hour requirement.
>
>
> In 1984, to apply for an instrument rating you needed to have 200 hours
> of pilot time, of which 100 was PIC, of which 50 was PIC XC time. I do
> see the wisdom of requiring 200 hours of VFR time before getting the
> instrument rating, and do not think it was a good idea to drop it. The
> reason is that it is important to learn how to keep one's eyes outside
> the cockpit before beginning intensive training in keeping them inside
> the cockpit, especially as nowadays there are more geegaws inside the
> cockpit vying for the pilot's attention.
>
> Jose
It's all about a "license to learn."

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Spade ]
> Posted At: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:57 AM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Implications of.....keeping the speed up
> Subject: Re: Implications of.....keeping the speed up
>
....
> It used to be 200 hours or a commercial certificate. I believe it was
> reduced to a 150 hours if the training was done at an approved school.

It was reduced to 160 if you were in a Part 141 school. And that did not
have to be all VFR; you could get credit for your instrument training
time also.

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:

>
> In the real world it's a very rare individual who comes any where near
> these figures, but that was not the question.
>

When I was a lad, I spent my last year as an elisted guy in the USAF. I
had unlimited access to an F-100 flight simulator and a Link C-11
(similar to a T-33 with VOR, ME, RMI, ILS, ADF). I also finished my
private pilot ticket midway during that year.

At the end of the year I started instrument training in a Piper
Tri-Pacer. It was like shooting ducks in barrel, age 20 and all that
fast simulator time.

I was not anyone special. I am sure there are young enlisted boys and
girls who have simulator access like I did and who are training at an
Air Force aero club. They all probably ace the IR in no time at all.