JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
In this image I've marked an area in the Big Bend of Texas as 'G to 14500 msl'. Am I correct?
Thanks, I'm studying for the CFI-A oral, and wanted to come up with examples of the different flavors of G.
what are the practical implications for flying down there?
There are still things here and there on sectionals which are either not too well documented or so uncommon they have pilot scratching their heads. CFIs are no exception.When I was studying for my CFI I had another CFI tell me he didn't know what that area was. He trained out of Chicago area.
Like the good ol' days when the FAA disavowed any knowlege of TRSAs, bun they were still on the charts?There are still things here and there on sectionals which are either not too well documented or so uncommon they have pilot scratching their heads. CFIs are no exception.
Is the converse also true, that if you file IFR you will have to choose a route around that area (or above 14,500 across it) to remain in controlled airspace?I suppose if you're insane you could fly IMC in there without talking to anyone.
I suppose if you're insane you could fly IMC in there without talking to anyone.
Yes, if you want a clearance and ATC services. Otherwise, you just operate according to the rules on your own. A flight plan for SAR purposes is a good idea.Is the converse also true, that if you file IFR you will have to choose a route around that area (or above 14,500 across it) to remain in controlled airspace?
Some people would say it's against the rules according to 91.13, I however believe that if it was against the rules it would be written out. Not some catch all regulation like 91.13I suppose if you're insane you could fly IMC in there without talking to anyone.
Having flown in that area a little bit, if you really did that a black helicopter might follow you home.
Yes, if you want a clearance and ATC services. Otherwise, you just operate according to the rules on your own. A flight plan for SAR purposes is a good idea.
Some people would say it's against the rules according to 91.13, I however believe that if it was against the rules it would be written out. Not some catch all regulation like 91.13
That sounds reasonable to me. If you're in IMC and your plan is to take off and remain within 700 (or even 1200) feet of the ground until you can pick up a clearance in the air, that's at least careless. Even over flat terrain, that is very close to the ground and possible towers to be flying on instruments. It also violates the minimum IFR altitude (91.177) in the 700AGL areas and forces you to a very thin margin in 1200AGL areas.I don't think there's been any issue with flights that originate and are slated to remain in uncontrolled airspace. The issue was departing in instrument conditions in uncontrolled airspace 700/1200 feet class E base without a clearance for the airspace that you will be climbing into. A pilot in an enforcement action argued, he could depart for air pickup, but the FAA held that such was indeed careless and reckless.
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3935.pdf
I agree I'm just saying what some people believe. I was at training for an airline and was talking to another person and the instructor overheard me tell the guy that all the actual instrument time I had was in uncontrolled airspace. He freaked out and started quoting 91.13. I never flew for the airline I left before the lengthy training was finished.I don't think there's been any issue with flights that originate and are slated to remain in uncontrolled airspace. The issue was departing in instrument conditions in uncontrolled airspace 700/1200 feet class E base without a clearance for the airspace that you will be climbing into. A pilot in an enforcement action argued, he could depart for air pickup, but the FAA held that such was indeed careless and reckless.
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3935.pdf