cloud flying regulations

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
"Fox Two" wrote:

there is still risk that the FAA will consider
flight in Class G in IMC to be careless or reckless. They
have done it at least once.

I would be curious to know the rest of the story of that particular
violation.

Here's some more info - I haven't gone to the original cases
yet, perhaps tonight I'll do so, but if you track down any
of this and think there's something interesting there, I'm
interested in hearing your thoughts. This is from a 1994
post in rec.aviation.ifr:
-------------------------------------

Hi Todd,

My opinion? The pilot was careless and reckless, and should have been
violated.

In his specific case, he was denied an IFR clearance due to traffic,
and he chose to circumvent the system by charging forward anyway
without a clearance. This is no different to me that running a red
light at full speed through a busy intersection. He was a noodle head!

The judge referenced an earlier case that also involved flying IFR
through the Class G airspace underlying a transition area. The Class G
airspace in question, while technically the same airspace as the Class
G out west that extends all the way to 14,500 feet MSL, can be argued
to be different 'in nature.' In my opinion (which appears to be the
same as the judge's), there is a BIG difference between the Class G
airspace that is only 10 miles away from Chicago O'Hare Airport, and
the Class G airsapce that is 100 miles southwest of Albuquerque!

Would I ever depart an airport into IMC without a clearance? Heck no!
Would I fly through a cloud at 13,000 feet while in Class G airspace in
an IFR certified aircraft without a clearance? You bet I would. Do I
plan on doing so? No.

My intention is to fly IFR in Class E and Class A airspace, with an ATC
clearance. Now I need to see if my DAR would be willing to certify a
glider for IFR!

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

Frank Whiteley wrote:

I'm told some soaring pilots operating locally request discrete
transponder codes and receive flight following and are offered climbs
and cruise blocks above FL180 occassionally. Useful when cloud base
may exceed FL240. This may be more common in California/Nevada due to
long time agreements and experience. A former partner of mine once
wrote up an article for the PASCO newsletter about blocking FL220-260?
and cruising about 115miles from Truckee to Mt Whitney without turning.
I don't think he was transponder equipped for that flight.


Hi Frank,

That's exciting stuff, and encouraging! I would be interested in
reading that article if you can find it.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
news
"Fox Two" wrote:

My opinion? The pilot was careless and reckless, and should have been
violated.

I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
certain of where you stand.

FAR 91.173 is about as short as any reg there is. It just
says:
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace
under IFR unless that person has--
(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance.

If they wanted to require (a) and (b) in Class G too, the
change is pretty simple, just remove the 3 words "in
controlled airspace."


--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Departures in IMC, under IFR, without a clearance are done all the time.
As an example, the weather at Gold Beach, Oregon(4S1), is indefinite,
1/4mile, fog. The airport is in G airspace, and a pirep shows the tops at
500' and the fog extends offshore about a mile. I can, and have, legally
departed this airport to climb to VFR conditions, within uncontrolled
airspace. A clearance is only required to enter controlled airspace. At
this, and many other locations, it is possible to climb over 10,000' without
finding controlled airspace.

Al G

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
certain of where you stand.

The pilot didn't violate the IFR reg; but he did knowingly and
intentionally jeopardize the safety of others. He was a noodle-head.
That's why he was violated.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

"Fox Two" wrote in message
oups.com...

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
I wouldn't disagree. My point was just that you can read
the wording of the regs with a microscope and still not be
certain of where you stand.

The pilot didn't violate the IFR reg; but he did knowingly and
intentionally jeopardize the safety of others. He was a noodle-head.
That's why he was violated.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas


I wholeheartedly agree.

Al G

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

Both the case and the fog scenario above involve departures
without a clearance in IMC conditions, and both seem to be
FAR legal. My problem is that, while they "seem" to be
legal, the ALJ and the FAA disagree, at least for the two
cases mentioned, calling it careless/reckless. I'm not sure
how to interpret that in the context of proposed glider
cloudflying in class G airspace.
--


Hi Todd,

While this sub-thread has gone off the primary topic of pilot and
instrument requirements to fly a glider IFR, I'll try to explain this a
different way:

I believe that we all agree that there were no regulations that were
violated in either of these cases, except the "Careless & Reckless"
charge. Flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace without an ATC clearance
is perfectly legal, perfectly safe, and pilots do it every day. But
there is a judgement call that needs to take place. Using CFAR §
91.173 as a 'loophole' to climb through the extremely thin slice of 700
feet of uncontrolled airspace (from an airport that has a published
instrument approach procedure, and possibly an IFR airplane on an
instrument arrival) to enter the conjested controlled airspace of the
Midwest is bad judgement, and by definition: careless & reckless. On
the other hand, there are vast areas in the Western United States that
are uncontrolled all the way up to 14,500 feet MSL. There are
thousands of airports that are hundreds of miles away from lower levels
of controlled airspace. It is in the spirit of accomodating aircraft
in these areas that CFAR § 91.173 was written, not as a loophole to
move to the front of the line to Indianapolis!

Pilots shouldn't be afraid of CFAR § 91.13: Careless & Reckless
Behavior. If you exercise good judgement, and work with the system,
you'll be fine. This reg is for pilots that exerceise bad judgement,
and work against the system.

I hope that helps.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

I don't think it's very far off topic. My interest has
always been what is required to cloud fly a glider, and part
of that interest has always been - "what about class G?"
I've been trying to determine exactly when you think the
FAA/NTSB would impose the careless/reckless charge on a
glider pilot who went cloud flying in class G. I don't
really care about instrument departures other than for what
they tell us about gliders in the U.S. Since there are no
glider/91.173 cases, we can only look at the instrument
cases.

Todd,

I apologize. Flying gliders IFR is very much on topic.


So you think the important factors a
1) the departure airport had a published approach.
2) it was in the Midwest - not out west.
3) it was a loophole to legally do what he couldn't do
otherwise without a clearance.

Yes, I do. And there are likely to be other factors with this case
that contributed to this pilot's violation that we don't know about,
such as:

1.) Why didn't this pilot get an IFR clearance prior to departure?
2.) Did he get a weather briefing (which is required), and
3.) if he did, why did he depart for an airport that was below
minimums?
4.) Did his departure create a conflict with another aircraft?
5.) What was his attitude/behavior when questioned by ATC?

I don't disagree, but presumably they did not have to let
him into the front of the line at Indianapolis, in which
case he'd have had to maintain VFR and go elsewhere. As to
accommodating aircraft from small airports out west, don't
most instrument pilots call and get a clearance with a
release time and a void time?

ATC simply won't give IFR clearances to aircraft operating from many
(not all!) small, remote airports out west. That is the purpose of the
intentional wording of CFAR § 91.173.

I used to fly at an airport not far from the NYC Mode C veil
that was notorious for low level fog. There were pilots who
would depart through it to get to VMC. Would you consider
them to be at risk of a 91.13 charge? Did it matter whether
they intended to go VFR to their destination?

It depends. I know that is a sucky answer, but CFAR § 91.13 is, by
definition, subjective! I'll try to illustrate using two hypothetical
situations from your New York Airport:

Flight 1: A pilot departs without an IFR clearance through 500 feet of
ground fog with visibility just shy of 1 mile. Above the fog,
conditions are clear skies, and unrestricted visibility. The flight
continues VFR to a VFR landing at the destination.

Flight 2: A pilot departs without an IFR clearance through 500 feet of
ground fog with visibility just shy of 1 mile. Above the fog, however,
is an overcast layer at 2,000 feet with widely scattered rain showers.
Many of the other airports in the area are reporting IFR conditions, as
does the destination airport.

While neither of these pilots violated the regs, one can argue that the
2nd pilot exercised poor judgement. If this departure created a
conflict with another aircraft, and the pilot had a "So what, just give
me my clearance already" attitude, then a violation would be probable.

I'm not sure if it does. Any time that an aircraft is in
IMC outside of controlled airspace without a clearance,
there is *some* MAC risk with another aircraft that is
talking to ATC or doing the same thing. You seem confident
that it's legal in some circumstances, but not others. The
IFR magazine article and the two cases cited seemed to say
that it wasn't all that clear that it was ever legal no
matter what the FARs seem to say.

Again, this is just my opinion, but one based on a lot of experience
flying IFR, and training and evaluating pilots at all levels of the
system. CFAR § 91.13 is a vital tool for the FAA to protect those of
us that work with the system from those who do not.

If a glider is in cloud out west in class G, will the pilot
be more like the fog departure case or the "loophole" case?
I'd love to see a case that says - yes it's OK to depart in
fog from an isolated airport to get to VMC and fly VFR. Is
there such a case?

Unfortunately, we may never have such a case. So all that I can say is
follow your gut. If you aren't comfortable doing something, or a voice
inside you is saying that maybe you should do something else, don't do
it.

Which brings us back to the beginning of the thread. While I believe
it is possible for me to pick up a VFR clearance to operate a non-IFR
equipped glider in class A airspace, I'm not willing to risk my career
on it! I'm trying to work with the system to get an IFR clearance to
operate an IFR-equipped glider in Class A airspace without a waiver.
This is an exercise of legality and good judgement.

Chris Fleming, F2
El Paso, Texas

In Germany and in Switzerland, the principle of glider flying in clouds is
that you know that there is a glider at a precise position in that cloud,
and that there is no other glider/aircraft at the same position. In Germany,
an ATC clearance and a fligh plan is mandatory. In Switzerland, you can flow
only in areas which are allocated for cloud flying, and you have to
blind-radio your precise position twice on a frequency allocated for cloud
flying before you enter the cloud.

That all work of course only if there isn't a butthead who enters a cloud
"just because he feels like". I wouldn't say that cloud flying is common
practise in Germany, and in Switzerland it's rather used for training
purposes than for x-country.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Fox Two" wrote:
Yes, and that's why it's so tough trying to decide how
glider cloudflying in class G might be treated. It seems to
be handled in other countries in a way that gives some US
trained airplane instrument pilots the willies - and a 91.13
charge would probably be initiated by someone with exactly
that background - not a glider background, and certainly not
a glider instrument background.

I'm trying to work with the system to get an IFR clearance to
operate an IFR-equipped glider in Class A airspace without a waiver.
This is an exercise of legality and good judgement.

This is something that I understand some glider pilots have
managed to do fairly routinely I've read several reports of
it in both the west and from wave off the eastern ridges.

Thanks for your comments.
--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)