Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:05 pm, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jan 17, 8:28 am, Sam Spade wrote:

Robert M. Gary wrote:

-Robert

Once the FAA has evaluated and concluded an ODP would be unsafe, the
door is open for a 91.13 violation.- Hide quoted text -

I was hoping you'd be able to come up with a NOTAM for an airport that
prohibits IFR departures from a given runway. Of course you could
argue that becouse the palm reader told you you would have a bad day
you "could" be found in violation of 91.13 but its not worth
considering since you can't control what someone else thinks of 91.13

-Robert

Why would there be a NOTAM for this circumstance? The FAA has not
authorized IFR takeoff minimums for Runway 26 at the subject airport.
No NOTAM is required.


Because originally I said that I know of no runway at a non-towered
field in which a part 91 pilot could not legally depart IFR. You said
you did, then spoke about that maybe-possibly the FAA would hold the
91 pilot to 135 standards. Legally, the only way the FAA can prevent a
91 pilot from departing IFR from a given runway is a NOTAM. So I'm
asking if you know of such a NOTAM or if we agree that a part 91 pilot
is legal to depart any runway of his choosing. The ODP is not
relaviant because 1) The 91 pilot doesn't need to follow it and 2) It
doesn't say IFR depatures from runway 20 are prohibited, only that the
ODP is not authorized.

-Robert
No, not 135 standards all all. I have stated my view and disagree with
your view that the FAA has an affirmative duty beyond "NA" for the
runway. You say the "NA" only applies to 135 (et al) and I say it very
well could apply to anyone under the doctrine of prudent and safe
operations.

Is anyone watching? Unlikely. But, if an FAA safety inspector were
sharp at happen to be at Big Bear when it is decidedly IMC, he would be
justified in exploring why N1234A departed on Runway 26.