Flying an non-IFR certified aircraft legally in IMC?

MachFly

MachFly

En-Route
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
2,514
Display Name
Display name:
MachFly
Scenario, I need to get a non-IFR certified aircraft out of an airport that has an overcast layer over it. Would it be legal if I fly in close formation with an IFR certified aircraft to get through the overcast layer?

I can stay close enough to the IFR certified aircraft to fly visually and he can fly on instruments.


P.S. I realize that some of you will say that this can be dangerous, I do not want to argue the regarding the safety of such a flight, I am only trying to find out if something like this is legal.
 
Last edited:
How would this read in the NTSB report?
 
MachFly said:
Scenario, I need to get a non-IFR certified aircraft out of an airport that has an overcast layer over it. Would it be legal if I fly in close formation with an IFR certified aircraft to get through the overcast layer?

I can stay close enough to the IFR certified aircraft to fly visually and he can fly on instruments.


P.S. I realize that some of you will say that this can be dangerous, I do not want to argue the regarding the safety of such a flight, I am only trying to find out if something like this is legal.
Click to expand...

If the limitations section of the aircraft POH does not allow IFR, or if the aircraft is not equipped for IFR in accordance with 91.205(d), then it's not legal to fly under instrument flight rules, and it's not legal to fly in conditions less than VFR minimums.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the limitations section of the aircraft POH does not allow IFR, or if the aircraft is not equipped for IFR, then it's not legal to fly under instrument flight rules, and it's not legal to fly in conditions less than VFR minimums.
Click to expand...

How about if the aircraft is experimental and there is no real POH?
 
VFR legal has nothing to do with how close you are to another aircraft. What is the real question here?
 
MachFly said:
How about if the aircraft is experimental and there is no real POH?
Click to expand...

The letter of authorization from the FAA when it got its experimental certificate will specify the rules under which it is legal to be operated, IIRC. I recall discussion here about how to add IFR certification when it wasn't originally certified that way.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the limitations section of the aircraft POH does not allow IFR, or if the aircraft is not equipped for IFR in accordance with 91.205(d), then it's not legal to fly under instrument flight rules, and it's not legal to fly in conditions less than VFR minimums.
Click to expand...

Experimental or not. POH or not. Does it have GRABCARD per 91.205? If not then the answer is nope.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
Scenario, I need to get a non-IFR certified aircraft out of an airport that has an overcast layer over it. Would it be legal if I fly in close formation with an IFR certified aircraft to get through the overcast layer?

I can stay close enough to the IFR certified aircraft to fly visually and he can fly on instruments.


P.S. I realize that some of you will say that this can be dangerous, I do not want to argue the regarding the safety of such a flight, I am only trying to find out if something like this is legal.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has actually answered the question directly.

NO!

An alternative though is Special VFR depending on just how bad the weather really is. A 900' ceiling with unlimited visibility in a rural area would work. A 200' ceiling with a 1.5 mile visibility flying out of downtown LA probably wouldn't be such a good idea.
 
Anymouse said:
I don't think anyone has actually answered the question directly.

NO!

An alternative though is Special VFR depending on just how bad the weather really is. A 900' ceiling with unlimited visibility in a rural area would work. A 200' ceiling with a 1.5 mile visibility flying out of downtown LA probably wouldn't be such a good idea.
Click to expand...

It should be obvious....................
 
Off topic, reminds me of Mike Smith telling about a P-38 caught above a deck in the Aleutians. Mike went up, rendezvoused with him and shot an NDB approach with him on his wing tip. Mike told him, "If I tell you to break off, you turn right and climb and I'll turn left". First approach they had to break off. Second time in they made it.
Sorry, I know it's of no help but I always thought this a fascinating story. Says something about young men, war and "gettin' 'er done".
 
snoboy said:
Experimental or not. POH or not. Does it have GRABCARD per 91.205? If not then the answer is nope.
Click to expand...
Having the 91.205(d)-required instruments and equipment is not sufficient for legal flight in IMC if the aircraft is not certified for IFR (or in the case of Experimentals, approved for IFR in its operating limitations). So, the answer to the original question is NO, period, end of story.
 
jnmeade said:
Off topic, reminds me of Mike Smith telling about a P-38 caught above a deck in the Aleutians. Mike went up, rendezvoused with him and shot an NDB approach with him on his wing tip. Mike told him, "If I tell you to break off, you turn right and climb and I'll turn left". First approach they had to break off. Second time in they made it.
Sorry, I know it's of no help but I always thought this a fascinating story. Says something about young men, war and "gettin' 'er done".
Click to expand...

I'm sure something like this has been done a lot more than once.
 
ja_user said:
VFR legal has nothing to do with how close you are to another aircraft. What is the real question here?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement, however the real question is in the OP.
 
MachFly said:
I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement, however the real question is in the OP.
Click to expand...

You can either maintain legal vfr, IFR, or svfr, or you cannot. The fact that there is another plane involved isn't relevant.
 
ja_user said:
You can either maintain legal vfr, IFR, or svfr, or you cannot. The fact that there is another plane involved isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

Just like with a lot of other things in the FAR the rules are not exactly "black and white," somewhere in the FAR it will say one thing and somewhere else it will make an exception (ex two pilots logging PIC), or the FAA will issue a letter of explanation explaining an exception.

So I not sure that it's as clear as you make it sound.
 
MachFly said:
Why should it be obvious?
If you can fly by visual reference then you don't really need instruments.
Click to expand...

14 CFR 91.155 defines VFR conditions, and 91.157 defines special VFR minimums. There's no exception provided for having visual contact with another aircraft.

Of course, you could do it under 91.3(b) if it was required to deal with an emergency, although conditions that would justify an emergency takeoff would be very rare. (Being chased by men with guns, perhaps?)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Of course, you could do it under 91.3(b) if it was required to deal with an emergency, although conditions that would justify an emergency takeoff would be very rare. (Being chased by men with guns, perhaps?)
Click to expand...

That would work on the way back down but I'm not sure that I can justify an emergency that would require a take off.
 
if the limitations issued with the experimentals AW cert do not say VFR only, then just go ahead and make it IFR assuming it has a transponder. All you need to do is the pitot stat and encoder check. Alternatively, by the time you get that done the weather will have changed. Other than escaping rising flood waters or an approaching hurricane, I can't see where this would come up.
 
JHW said:
if the limitations issued with the experimentals AW cert do not say VFR only, then just go ahead and make it IFR assuming it has a transponder. All you need to do is the pitot stat and encoder check. Alternatively, by the time you get that done the weather will have changed. Other than escaping rising flood waters or an approaching hurricane, I can't see where this would come up.
Click to expand...

I don't think a encoder check would be required because the #2 aircraft in formation would typical have the transponder off.
 
MachFly said:
I don't think a encoder check would be required because the #2 aircraft in formation would typical have the transponder off.
Click to expand...
making the plane legal to fly ifr and executing a formation flight are 2 distinct and unrelated activities
 
Clearly no... But if legitimately needed to be evacuated, there air special flight permits for such an occasion... But even getting one for this would be tough...
 
MachFly said:
Why should it be obvious?
If you can fly by visual reference then you don't really need instruments.
Click to expand...

Because the visual reference (the other aircraft) isn't VMC. You'd still be operating IMC in a VFR aircraft. The flight plan would have to be IFR, and both aircraft equipped IAW 91.205 (d).

Also what would the pilot do if he loses sight of lead? It happens.
 
Velocity173 said:
Because the visual reference (the other aircraft) isn't VMC. You'd still be operating IMC in a VFR aircraft. The flight plan would have to be IFR, and both aircraft equipped IAW 91.205 (d).

Also what would the pilot do if he loses sight of lead? It happens.
Click to expand...

The lead would file a flight plan, then just call as flight of two. I agree it isn't officially VMC, but you are flying visually by the other aircraft.

Yeah I wouldn't do hard IFR like that for prolonged periods of time, in this case were just penetrating an overcast layer. That's five minutes or less in IMC. If something like this is done over flat terrain and there is no mountain obscuration, if #2 looses sight of lead then he'd continue climbing or descending (as pre-briefer), eventually he'd get out of the clouds (bellow or above them).
 
MachFly said:
I don't think a encoder check would be required because the #2 aircraft in formation would typical have the transponder off.
Click to expand...
Correct -- you just wouldn't be legal to do this anywhere a transponder is required without prior approval to operate no-transponder. There is are no exceptions in 91.215 for wingmen.
 
MachFly said:
The lead would file a flight plan, then just call as flight of two. I agree it isn't officially VMC, but you are flying visually by the other aircraft.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. There are no exceptions in the rules about aircraft certification and equipment requirements for wingmen. Any way you cut it, this just ain't legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
Correct -- you just wouldn't be legal to do this anywhere a transponder is required without prior approval to operate no-transponder. There is are no exceptions in 91.215 for wingmen.
Click to expand...

So even though the transponder will be off I'm still required to have one on board?
 
MachFly said:
So even though the transponder will be off I'm still required to have one on board?
Click to expand...
If you're in airspace in which a transponder is required by 91.215? Yes. Or do you see an exception for wingmen in that reg? I do not.
(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped...
Click to expand...
I've heard of plenty of cases where ATC has granted permission for a no-transponder wingman to operate on a transponder-equipped lead's wing, but permission had to be asked and granted IAW paragraph (d) of that section.
 
Ron Levy said:
Doesn't matter. There are no exceptions in the rules about aircraft certification and equipment requirements for wingmen. Any way you cut it, this just ain't legal.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think that your right.
Couldn't find anything in the FARs to confirm my theory at first, was hopping that someone would prove that there is a way around it.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're in airspace in which a transponder is required by 91.215? Yes. Or do you see an exception for wingmen in that reg? I do not.

I've heard of plenty of cases where ATC has granted permission for a no-transponder wingman to operate on a transponder-equipped lead's wing, but permission had to be asked and granted IAW paragraph (d) of that section.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
I've never had to fly an aircraft that was not equipped with a transponder within the mode C arc, so I never had to think about this before.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're in airspace in which a transponder is required by 91.215? Yes. Or do you see an exception for wingmen in that reg? I do not.

I've heard of plenty of cases where ATC has granted permission for a no-transponder wingman to operate on a transponder-equipped lead's wing, but permission had to be asked and granted IAW paragraph (d) of that section.
Click to expand...

As an aside, in anywhere other than special use airspace, wingmen are normally requested to turn off their transponders when in the ATC environment. Giant Killer actually makes this request regardless of wingman IFF/transponder status every time I check back in with them. It is standard for a flight to have only the lead squawking, with wingmen only squawking if the leads IFF isn't working with ATC. It is also common to turn the whole thing off if you are going to troll around at 100 ft and supersonic over the white house/capitol/TFR :) .

Regardless, as long as you are "standard formation" ie within 1 NM and co-altitude, you are not needing a discrete code. Literally the only time we have wingmen squawk is when we are in a restricted area or a WA.

There is also nothing "dangerous" about flying close parade through IMC as a wingman. We do it probably 10000000 times a day in the military. If you have the training/experience, it is not hard or dangerous.
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
As an aside, in anywhere other than special use airspace, wingmen are normally requested to turn off their transponders when in the ATC environment. Giant Killer actually makes this request regardless of wingman IFF/transponder status every time I check back in with them. It is standard for a flight to have only the lead squawking, with wingmen only squawking if the leads IFF isn't working with ATC. It is also common to turn the whole thing off if you are going to troll around at 100 ft and supersonic over the white house/capitol/TFR :) .

Regardless, as long as you are "standard formation" ie within 1 NM and co-altitude, you are not needing a discrete code. Literally the only time we have wingmen squawk is when we are in a restricted area or a WA.


There is also nothing "dangerous" about flying close parade through IMC as a wingman. We do it probably 10000000 times a day in the military. If you have the training/experience, it is not hard or dangerous.
Click to expand...
All true, but it doesn't change the basic legalities for folks flying civilian aircraft in formation under IFR:
  1. The wingman's aircraft must be fully equipped and certified for IFR flight.
  2. In transponder-required airspace, the wingman's plane must be equipped with a transponder which is 91.413-certified/current even if it is turned off/stby while in close formation.
  3. The wingman must be IFR qualified and current.
Any deviations to the above must be specifically approved by the FAA, and you won't get the for #'s 1 and 3.
 
How could the pilot of the second plane know for sure that he could maintain visual contact with the lead plane? What if the clouds get thicker and you lose contact with your lead? After a few seconds, do you know for sure if he's above you, below you, or still level? In front or behind?

What would be the contingency plan to safely reestablish contact once it was lost?

Why would you think there would be a legal way to fly this way?
 
As 35 AoA mentioned it is done, it isn't dangerous, it isn't difficult. I have experienced this and can attest to it. However only in the military world.

The question seems to be is there legal exception to allow for such operation. This answer seems to be no.
 
So, in the military world Why would anyone be asking it if it was legal? Legal isn't the right world. It is either against the civil regulations or not, none of which apply to government or military flights...
 
ja_user said:
So, in the military world Why would anyone be asking it if it was legal? Legal isn't the right world. It is either against the civil regulations or not, none of which apply to government or military flights...
Click to expand...

Except where it explicitly states otherwise, 14 CFR Part 91 flight rules apply to government and military flights. Check the definition of "person" in 14 CFR Part 1. Then note that 91.155 uses the phrase "no person".

In fact you'll notice that section 91.7 and 91.9 start with the phrase "Civil Aircraft" which is also defined in the Part 1 definitions. These are the sort of rules that don't apply to government and military.
 
No, not legal. Not even close to legal. You're trying to convince yourself of something you know isn't right.

This is an airport that always has a layer? Always? How did the airplane get there in the first place? Surely there is some time when it's clear. Kind of like how doesn't REALLY rain in Seattle every day of the year.

Only other suggestion I'd have is to talk to your FSDO - they're here to help, right? You might be allowed some kind of special ferry permit based on validation of certain instruments. Or you might not. Either way, I think this route would be a lot safer than to fly formation with another aircraft in IMC.
 
Ron Levy said:
All true, but it doesn't change the basic legalities for folks flying civilian aircraft in formation under IFR:
  1. The wingman's aircraft must be fully equipped and certified for IFR flight.
  2. In transponder-required airspace, the wingman's plane must be equipped with a transponder which is 91.413-certified/current even if it is turned off/stby while in close formation.
  3. The wingman must be IFR qualified and current.
Any deviations to the above must be specifically approved by the FAA, and you won't get the for #'s 1 and 3.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that. We don't typically fly non transponder equipped aircraft, so I suppose we meet all the above criteria as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top