The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from
a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of
takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter."

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. If takeoff
minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a
particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR
for aircraft operating under those parts: " where do you see that it's
anything other than a weather-minimum? (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

I don't see offhand anything in part 91 that speaks to DP/ODP directly
at all. You might be right on there being nothing in 91 for it, but
91.175(f) isn't your basis. Still, taking off on a runway that's
listed as "NA - Obsticle" in the AF/D without being able to see it at
night isn't wise.

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
(f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
does refer to ODPs.

Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
(f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
does refer to ODPs.

Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

Sec. 91.175 - Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, no pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125,
129, or 135 of this chapter may take off from a civil airport under
IFR unless weather conditions are at or above the weather minimum for
IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.
If takeoff minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter
for a particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs
under IFR for aircraft operating under those parts:

(1) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less
-- 1 statute mile visibility.

(2) For aircraft having more than two engines -- 1/2 statute mile
visibility.

(3) For helicopters -- 1/2 statute mile visibility.

Where does it say DP/ODP? It says weather conditions.

Part 97:

Sec. 97.1 - Applicability.

This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures for
instrument letdown to airports in the United States and the weather
minimums that apply to takeoffs and landings under IFR at those
airports.

Says IAP and weather minimums, not DP/ODP.

Where do you see DP/ODP?

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"

Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
wrote:
Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"

Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. Interesting.

On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. *Interesting.

Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. *Interesting.

Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.