1-2-3 & potential 91.111(a) Violation

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Scenario:
Pilot John is flying Bugsmasher N12345 into airport KABC which is at Sea Level, MDA 999, Forecasts are stable with 2,000 foot ceilings and 3miles viz at the Class G airport with a high volume of flight training.

John is VFR-On Top with tops at 12,000 and cleared for the approach.

What systems/ procedure are in place to ensure there is no 91.111 violation since everyone is following the rules?

Change the celing to 1,001 (flight training still legal) and also discuss.
 
I am not following. With a 2000 foot ceiling, anyone on an approach will break out and have 1000 feet to look for traffic in the pattern. No problem.

With a ceiling of 1001, (and since you said it was Class G, it really does not matter what the ceiling is as long as one maintains clear of clouds) it is really problematic doing VFR patterns if the VFR pilot is maintaining proper cloud clearance. Too close to the ground. Although legal, I suppose, with a 1000 foot ceiling, the lowest feasible ceiling for pattern work is 1300 feet for an 800 foot TPA and 1500 for a 1000 foot TPA.
 
Never saw a ceiling forecast of 1001. Did you?
I'm not seeing the hair you're trying to split, but will still bite.
 
I'm not sure I follow either.

With the 2000' ceiling, there should be plenty of time to see an be seen.

With the 1001' ceiling, the VFR pilot following the rules would need to be no higher than 700' since Class E would start there. (If the airport has an IAP, Class E is going to start at 700' at an airport that is otherwise in Class G).

That 300' clearance in your scenario isn't quite as good as the 500' below for Class E generally but at a small airport it's probably going to be enough to see and be seen most of the time.

There are probably some TERPS and other approach design criteria that would come into play in your scenario but my knowledge of that is pretty thin.
 
Not following. "Cleared for the approach" implies THAT guy is under IFR handling. When he breaks out at the local airport area, I suppose he could run into local VFR traffic but radar would likely minimize this. Then again, you said Class G airspace. But cleared for approach ?

Not following. Seems like a lot of pilots like to read the FAR's and nickel and dime them to death.

John should be broadcasting intentions on CTAF/Unicom, especially since he apparently is cleared for the approach.

To successfully find of "guilty" of a 91.111 violation would be a stretch
 
Last edited:
First of all, you won't find Class G airspace at 1000 AGL above an airport with a published instrument approach. 700 AGL is as high as the FAA goes with Class G in that situation. Second, you cannot be "cleared for the approach" while operating VFR-on-top -- the two are incompatible. And you certainly cannot legally fly through a cloud while cleared for "VFR-on-top".

However, for the purpose of discussion, let's assume that the ceiling is just above MDA, and that MDA is in Class G below 700 AGL. We'll further assume that the IFR aircraft is cleared for the approach and operating in IMC during the approach down to MDA where s/he breaks out. Of course, if there is anything the FAA considers a "congested area" around the airport (and their definition of that is quite loose), nobody can be in the VFR traffic pattern legally without violating 91.119(b). Also, since the FAA will never accept that an operating airport is "sparsely populated", if the ceiling is below 500 AGL, nobody can be in the VFR traffic pattern legally without violating 91.119(c). So, we're talking about a pretty narrow range of conditions.

That assumed, in those conditions, yes, it is possible for the pilot flying the approach to break out and find a windshield full of airplane consisting of someone flying the traffic pattern VFR without either pilot having violated any explicit regulation. The FAA is for sure not going to file a 91.111(a) "operating too close to another aircraft" violation on the pilot flying the approach, and I strongly doubt they'd find any fault with that pilot unless s/he failed to make the appropriate calls on CTAF during the approach (more a 91.13 careless/reckless issue anyway). There's no way to charge the VFR pilot with violating 91.111(a) regarding an airplane which pops out of the clouds unless s/he fails to take appropriate action after seeing the other plane. Whether the FAA will charge the pilot in the VFR aircraft in the patter with 91.13 careless/reckless operation for operating in that situation without maintaining a listening watch on CTAF (I don't think they'd accept not having a radio as a valid excuse in that particular situation) and doing whatever is reasonable to avoid the arriving IFR aircraft breaking out is anybody's guess, but I sort of doubt they'd go to those lengths.

As for the 1-2-3 rule in 91.169(b) regarding the requirement to file an alternate, I don't see any applicability to this issue.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why everyone tries to make things difficult for themselves. Do you want to get in a pillow fight with the FAR/AIM?
 
Ron Levy said:
Of course, if there is anything the FAA considers a "congested area" around the airport (and their definition of that is quite loose), nobody can be in the VFR traffic pattern legally without violating 91.119(b). Also, since the FAA will never accept that an operating airport is "sparsely populated", if the ceiling is below 500 AGL, nobody can be in the VFR traffic pattern legally without violating 91.119(c). So, we're talking about a pretty narrow range of conditions.
Click to expand...
I would think a possible exception to that might be a J-3 at max gross on a high density altitude day doing 2-300 fpm that gets to 700' by the numbers and starts right back down for landing...
 
Minimum altitudes are supposed to be "except for the purpose of T.O. and landing".

For practical application, I use the airport circling minimums when practicing low patterns.
 
nosehair said:
Minimum altitudes are supposed to be "except for the purpose of T.O. and landing".

For practical application, I use the airport circling minimums when practicing low patterns.
Click to expand...
What do minimum altitudes have to do with this thread? 91.111 deals with operating near other aircraft.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I would think a possible exception to that might be a J-3 at max gross on a high density altitude day doing 2-300 fpm that gets to 700' by the numbers and starts right back down for landing...
Click to expand...
Only when flown by an angel dancing on the head of a pin.
 
nosehair said:
Minimum altitudes are supposed to be "except for the purpose of T.O. and landing".
Click to expand...
No, they are "except when necessary for takeoff and landing", not "for the purpose of", and the distinction is both intentional and important. If you dig into the legal documents, you'll see that the "when necessary" means only that when you reach the point where descent from pattern altitude is necessary to land, you can legally descend below the 91.119 altitude. It also means that when you take off, you are legal while climbing to a 91.119-legal altitude. It does not allow you to fly a VFR pattern below the minimum 91.119 altitude unless that is the published TPA. There is case law on point, most notably a couple of CFI's busted for flying VFR patterns at 800 AGL to stay 500 below a 1300-foot ceiling in Class D airspace over a very congested area.

For practical application, I use the airport circling minimums when practicing low patterns.
Click to expand...
Circling minimums are applicable only for IFR operations. They do not provide approval for VFR aircraft to fly traffic patterns below the published TPA or 91.119 minimum altitude, whichever is lower.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
No, they are "except when necessary for takeoff and landing", not "for the purpose of", and the distinction is both intentional and important. If you dig into the legal documents, you'll see that the "when necessary" means only that when you reach the point where descent from pattern altitude is necessary to land, you can legally descend below the 91.119 altitude. It also means that when you take off, you are legal while climbing to a 91.119-legal altitude. It does not allow you to fly a VFR pattern below the minimum 91.119 altitude unless that is the published TPA. There is case law on point, most notably a couple of CFI's busted for flying VFR patterns at 800 AGL to stay 500 below a 1300-foot ceiling in Class D airspace over a very congested area.

Circling minimums are applicable only for IFR operations. They do not provide approval for VFR aircraft to fly traffic patterns below the published TPA or 91.119 minimum altitude, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

If TPA is not "published", where is the "91.119 minimum altitude" you are talking about. And please define "91.119 legal altitude"
 
B350ATP said:
If TPA is not "published", where is the "91.119 minimum altitude" you are talking about. And please define "91.119 legal altitude"
Click to expand...
Right here, in 14 CFR Part 91
Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Right here, in 14 CFR Part 91
Click to expand...

define it as it relates to 91.119(a)

I can cut and paste myself, I am looking for your definition, per your discussion in post #12 authored by you.
 
B350ATP said:
define it as it relates to 91.119(a)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you want since I don't remember referring to 91.119(a) in this discussion. As for the rest of 91.119, the minimum legal altitude to fly the pattern would, as I said in post #6, depend on what's underneath the pattern -- congested, noncongested, or open water/sparsely populated.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not sure what you want since I don't remember referring to 91.119(a) in this discussion. As for the rest of 91.119, the minimum legal altitude to fly the pattern would depend on what's underneath the pattern -- congested, noncongested, or open water/sparsely populated.
Click to expand...

Ok lets take a look at your rather aggressive reply to a fellow pilot and poster:

Ron Levy said:
No, they are "except when necessary for takeoff and landing", not "for the purpose of", and the distinction is both intentional and important. If you dig into the legal documents, you'll see that the "when necessary" means only that when you reach the point where descent from pattern altitude is necessary to land, you can legally descend below the 91.119 altitude. It also means that when you take off, you are legal while climbing to a 91.119-legal altitude. It does not allow you to fly a VFR pattern below the minimum 91.119 altitude unless that is the published TPA. There is case law on point, most notably a couple of CFI's busted for flying VFR patterns at 800 AGL to stay 500 below a 1300-foot ceiling in Class D airspace over a very congested area.

Circling minimums are applicable only for IFR operations. They do not provide approval for VFR aircraft to fly traffic patterns below the published TPA or 91.119 minimum altitude, whichever is lower.
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned circling minimums, in your response to a guy who is very safely using circling minimums while VFR, and by the way circling minimums are not "only" applicable for IFR, I can use them VFR, shooting practice approaches, etc. But that is beside the point. Since you mentioned circling minimums and decided to mention TPA, my question to you, is what is your answer, on how the pilot, safely determines and altitude, VFR, if no TPA is published.

You mentioned a variety of terms such as "91.119 legal altitude" etc etc.

So tell us, how does the pilot, arriving into a field, absent a published TPA, ensure compliance with 91.119.

You also mentioned "legal documents" and "case law" regarding 91.119, I look forward to references to this as you explain how the pilot arriving into a unpublished TPA field complies with 91.119.
 
B350ATP said:
Ok lets take a look at your rather aggressive reply to a fellow pilot and poster:



Since you mentioned circling minimums, in your response to a guy who is very safely using circling minimums while VFR, and by the way circling minimums are not "only" applicable for IFR, I can use them VFR, shooting practice approaches, etc.
Click to expand...
You might think that, but the FAA Chief Counsel would not agree.

But that is beside the point. Since you mentioned circling minimums and decided to mention TPA, my question to you, is what is your answer, on how the pilot, safely determines and altitude, VFR, if no TPA is published.
Click to expand...
Your best option is to follow the AIM recommendation of 1000 AGL. Since that is FAA guidance, you are assured it is legal.
You mentioned a variety of terms such as "91.119 legal altitude" etc etc.

So tell us, how does the pilot, arriving into a field, absent a published TPA, ensure compliance with 91.119.
Click to expand...
If you follow the published FAA guidance of 1000 AGL in the AIM for airports with no published TPA, you are guaranteed legal. If you choose to fly a lower altitude, you must determine whether the area below the pattern is congested or noncongested, and then your minimum legal altitude will be 1000 AGL or 500 AGL, respectively. Given the case law on point, I'm pretty sure the FAA will never consider an operating airport to be "sparsely populated", so 500 AGL will almost certainly be the lowest you can legally fly a VFR traffic pattern in an airplane.
You also mentioned "legal documents" and "case law" regarding 91.119, I look forward to references to this as you explain how the pilot arriving into a unpublished TPA field complies with 91.119.
Click to expand...
I really don't feel like taking the time to dig out the list of cases and Chief Counsel interpretations on point, although since the case with the two CFI's at KFRG wasn't appealed to the NTSB, you'll need access to Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis to read it, and I no longer have that access. A bit of searching on this forum on your part will find past posts with those cases and interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You might think that, but the FAA Chief Counsel would not agree.

Your best option is to follow the AIM recommendation of 1000 AGL. Since that is FAA guidance, you are assured it is legal.
If you follow the published FAA guidance of 1000 AGL in the AIM for airports with no published TPA, you are guaranteed legal. If you choose to fly a lower altitude, you must determine whether the area below the pattern is congested or noncongested, and then your minimum legal altitude will be 1000 AGL or 500 AGL, respectively. Given the case law on point, I'm pretty sure the FAA will never consider an operating airport to be "sparsely populated", so 500 AGL will almost certainly be the lowest you can legally fly a VFR traffic pattern in an airplane.
I really don't feel like taking the time to dig out the list of cases and Chief Counsel interpretations on point. A bit of searching on this forum on your part will find past posts with those cases and interpretations.
Click to expand...


1000 foot, exactly. Thank You
 
Ron Levy said:
There is case law on point, most notably a couple of CFI's busted for flying VFR patterns at 800 AGL to stay 500 below a 1300-foot ceiling in Class D airspace over a very congested area.
Click to expand...

Ron,

Do you have a link to the case, I would be interested in reading it? Thanks.
 
B350ATP said:
Not following. Seems like a lot of pilots like to read the FAR's and nickel and dime them to death.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Still working on the assumption that I may not understand what he was getting at, in this case, I think Jaybird posited an airport that was Class G to 1200' (or maybe even above) with an instrument approach (not gonna happen) and didn't take such things as the 700' Class E floor and other regulatory realities into consideration.

So it's really more about not reading the FARs and nickle and dimeing one of them to death based on not understanding the big picture of interrelationship of various moving parts.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not quite. Still working on the assumption that I may not understand what he was getting at, in this case, I think Jaybird posited an airport that was Class G to 1200' (or maybe even above) with an instrument approach (not gonna happen) and didn't take such things as the 700' Class E floor and other regulatory realities into consideration.

So it's really more about not reading the FARs and nickle and dimeing one of them to death based on not understanding the big picture of interrelationship of various moving parts.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Which is why I read (and participate on) this darned forum
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not quite. Still working on the assumption that I may not understand what he was getting at, in this case, I think Jaybird posited an airport that was Class G to 1200' (or maybe even above) with an instrument approach (not gonna happen) and didn't take such things as the 700' Class E floor and other regulatory realities into consideration.

So it's really more about not reading the FARs and nickle and dimeing one of them to death based on not understanding the big picture of interrelationship of various moving parts.
Click to expand...

In his discussion about his non-existent airport there appears to be a reading of the regs (he made reference to 91.111) but a misunderstanding of the system overall.
 
B350ATP said:
In his discussion about his non-existent airport there appears to be a reading of the regs (he made reference to 91.111) but a misunderstanding of the system overall.
Click to expand...
Because of the reference to 91.111(a), I thought Jaybird was talking about a situation where a pilot is flying an instrument approach to an airport in Class G airspace, and breaks out so close to someone operating VFR that a collision hazard is created. I was examining how that could occur, and speculating on the likelihood that the FAA would cite one or both of the two pilots involved for violating 91.111(a), which says, "No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard."

I was the one who referred to 91.119 was part of my analysis on how it was under only very limited conditions (ceiling low enough that the IFR aircraft would break out below the E-space, but still high enough to allow the VFR pattern to be flown legally by the VFR aircraft, i.e., ceiling and MDA both between 500 and 700 feet and the area around the airport being neither congested nor sparsely populated) that such an event could come to pass unless the pilot in the VFR pattern was already violating either violating 91.155 by operating too close below the clouds in E-space or operating below the "minimum safe altitude" prescribed by 91.119.
 
But still, when you're executing a circling approach, or even a straight-in vor, the MDA may be less than 500' AGL. As far as I know, there is no weather condition on the 91.119 minimums.
I think we all do it, don't we? Go to minimum published altitudes without regard for the 91.119 restrictions?
 
91.119 is a general rule. The MDA is specific and "necessary"

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
nosehair said:
But still, when you're executing a circling approach, or even a straight-in vor, the MDA may be less than 500' AGL. As far as I know, there is no weather condition on the 91.119 minimums.
I think we all do it, don't we? Go to minimum published altitudes without regard for the 91.119 restrictions?
Click to expand...
Not when the weather allows stopping at higher altitude until you're in a position to land using normal maneuvers and a normal rate of descent, and my FSDO agrees with me. If it's clear and a million, and you fly a CTL down to 400 feet three miles from the airport and buzz all the neighbors from there to the airport and all the way around the pattern, don't be surprised if someone complains and the FSDO does something about it. There is simply no necessity for descending all the way to MDA if you can see the airport just fine from 1000 AGL three miles away.

There's also the issue of rooting around down there 600 feet below TPA in good VFR conditions underneath a no-radio plane which may have no idea you're down there.
high-wing-mid-air.jpg
 
Last edited:
desertav8r said:
91.119 is a general rule. The MDA is specific and "necessary"
Click to expand...
Descent to the MDA is not always "necessary" -- see my post directly above. However, when descent to the MDA is necessary to complete the approach and landing, then and only then the landing exception in 91.119 is invoked. Ask your FSDO -- I did.
 
I can see my stay on this board will be short.

Of course you don't dive to the MDA if you break out above it.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
:rolleyes:
Ron Levy said:
Glad we're on the same page. However, there are those who don't see it the same way you and I do.
Click to expand...
Probably the same ones that don't communicate and don't give way to larger faster aircraft.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
Jay -

Have you heard of Minute Wash?

It helps to take time off your hands. Which you obviously seem to have too much of.
 
Really, Ed?....why don't you go hand-fly something in the clag on a treadmill.

If there is something I don't understand, I ask. Just because the way I ask may be obscure to the original question is not (with all due respect) your concern. I ask in the manner that I do, because this forum has a way of revealing things that I previously did not consider remotely relevant to my lack of knowledge.

No idea what a minute wash may be referring to.
 
Jaybird180 said:
:yeahthat:

Which is why I read (and participate on) this darned forum
Click to expand...
So glad you didn't read my post as a flame :yesnod: It wasn't intended to be but as soon as I left the building I realized it might be read that way.

Yep, so much about the rules is about where they fit in the big picture.
AAA-tamna+materija.JPG
 
Do I really need a smiley after all my posts?
 
When you're doing simulated approaches for training or currency, they must be flown to mins to count.
Besides training,, sometimes you are "in and out" of the clag .
Flying the approach at mda is the pilot's decision.
Of course, if its class g and there's a mile viz, you have to see and avoid like any pattern.
 
nosehair said:
When you're doing simulated approaches for training or currency, they must be flown to mins to count.
Besides training,, sometimes you are "in and out" of the clag .
Flying the approach at mda is the pilot's decision.
Of course, if its class g and there's a mile viz, you have to see and avoid like any pattern.
Click to expand...

That first sentence isn't quite true. But overall I was thinking the same thing. I had my students fly a whole bunch of approaches in VFR conditions. Guess now I have to go to pilot jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top