Flying an ODP non radar contact

loudbagel

loudbagel

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
102
Display Name
Display name:
Hummingbird Saltalamacchia
Departed a small uncontrolled field in a valley looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Got in touch with ATC but she needed me at 6k to pick me up. Problem was that overcast cloud layer was steady at 4k.

Controller says that if you are instrument rated and on an appropriate ODP then I can climb into the clouds even before she has radar contacted me and issued me a clearance.

Im like not so much.....?
 
Radar contact is not required, but you can not enter controlled airspace in IMC without a clearance.

Other than picking up the clearance on the ground, your other option is to tell her unable and remain VFR until she can get you a clearance. Of course, there may be delays in doing that.
 
Yes, I live on a small strip with no ability to radio ATC. My standard procedure for IMC departures is to get the clearance on the ground that includes a time slot, code, altitude, and either a vector to enter controlled airspace or or a fix to fly to.

Once I get off the ground, I call, wait for radar contact, then immediately get an instruction that gets me on my way.

If it's low IMC, I generally wait until I'm well established on the climb and initial clearance before calling, knowing that 1) they've cleared the airspace of traffic, 2) it's my responsibility to avoid obstructions and 3) they will see me as soon as I get into their radar coverage. If ceilings are a bit higher I will call while still visual and may remain visual until radar contact is established and I'm given an instruction.

Interestingly Iv'e been getting ADSB weather on the ground in front of my hangar. Didn't expect that.
 
Yeah if she's withholding your clearance until radar contact then that's a no go on your end. Gotta have the clearance prior to entering controlled airspace while IMC.
 
Last edited:
All this is why I always recommend strongly against taking off VFR to pick up your IFR clearance airborne unless you have at least a Plan B (and maybe Plans C and D, too) in case you're told what the OP was told. For an example of how this can go horribly wrong if you don't have that Plan B, see this fatal accident.
 
loudbagel said:
Controller says that if you are instrument rated and on an appropriate ODP then I can climb into the clouds even before she has radar contacted me and issued me a clearance.
Click to expand...
She's wrong. You can climb into the clouds on the ODP without radar contact if you already have a clearance, but not without it. I suggest calling the facility ASAP and having QA review your conversation with her because if she said what you think she did, she's out of line. I would also suggest a NASA ASRS report on this issue since it involves a serious safety problem.
 
Yup Figured as so
 
loudbagel said:
Departed a small uncontrolled field in a valley looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Got in touch with ATC but she needed me at 6k to pick me up. Problem was that overcast cloud layer was steady at 4k.

Controller says that if you are instrument rated and on an appropriate ODP then I can climb into the clouds even before she has radar contacted me and issued me a clearance.

Im like not so much.....?
Click to expand...

She's wrong, but you knew that. Where was this and what had you filed?
 
If you just departed an airport, and ATC does not have radar contact with you I think they can issue you a clearance if you can assure your own obstacle clearance up to a certain altitude. Perhaps this is what the controller wanted?
 
loudbagel said:
Departed a small uncontrolled field in a valley looking to pick up my clearance in the air. Got in touch with ATC but she needed me at 6k to pick me up. Problem was that overcast cloud layer was steady at 4k.

Controller says that if you are instrument rated and on an appropriate ODP then I can climb into the clouds even before she has radar contacted me and issued me a clearance.

Im like not so much.....?
Click to expand...

What is the identifier of the airport?
 
dell30rb said:
If you just departed an airport, and ATC does not have radar contact with you I think they can issue you a clearance if you can assure your own obstacle clearance up to a certain altitude. Perhaps this is what the controller wanted?
Click to expand...
They can, traffic permitting (in the accident I linked, traffic did not permit that), and that may be what she wanted. However, it appears that either the controller misspoke or the OP misheard, and that's worth a call to ATC to see what's actually on the tape so whoever got it wrong doesn't get it wrong next time.
 
loudbagel said:
Controller says that if you are instrument rated and on an appropriate ODP then I can climb into the clouds even before she has radar contacted me and issued me a clearance.
Click to expand...
You have to know the "magic words", but first she has to ask the "magic question".

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
You have to know the "magic words", but first she has to ask the "magic question".
Click to expand...
...and it's possible she was doing that but the OP misunderstood the question. That's why I suggested calling the ATC facility and having the tape reviewed.
 
dell30rb said:
If you just departed an airport, and ATC does not have radar contact with you I think they can issue you a clearance if you can assure your own obstacle clearance up to a certain altitude. Perhaps this is what the controller wanted?
Click to expand...

Correct - she was not wrong, it is exactly the same process as getting your clearance on the ground. ATC clears the area and issue a clearance. It doesn't matter if you are on the ground or in the air; same process and most likely same person. They will give you the responsibility for terrain until you reach their safe altitude. If you are on a ODP you are OK. What you cannot do is enter IMC without ATC giving you a clearance either on the ground or in the air.

I fly into the mountains quite often and this is petty much SOP. I will depart VFR only if I can safely reach an altitude where ATC can hear me AND the ceiling is high enough for me to stay VFR, clear of terrain, for quite a while should they be delayed in getting my clearance. Otherwise, I pick it up on the ground.
 
I did query the controller and got a "whatever " response . She then got me a clearance and I made the climb, no harm no foul. I just wanted to know if I was allowed to make that climb, I thought I wasn't so I didn't and it all worked out.

Side note which probably caused confusion, I filed direct through foreflight on the ground, but the controller said the flight plan that actually came through was all messed up. She said it had my departure airport as my destination with several random radials.... Clearly not what I had filed.
 
loudbagel said:
I did query the controller and got a "whatever " response . She then got me a clearance and I made the climb, no harm no foul. I just wanted to know if I was allowed to make that climb, I thought I wasn't so I didn't and it all worked out.

Side note which probably caused confusion, I filed direct through foreflight on the ground, but the controller said the flight plan that actually came through was all messed up. She said it had my departure airport as my destination with several random radials.... Clearly not what I had filed.
Click to expand...


Yeah she can clear you below the MIA/MVA but you have to maintain you're own obstruction/terrain clearance until reaching it. She has to ask you that question as well (4-2-8 7110.65). Below that altitude (6,000 ft) they want nothing to do with you. That's why they put it on your back.

Your post made it sound like she wasn't going to issue the clearance until reaching 6,000 ft. That would be a bust on her part.
 
dell30rb said:
If you just departed an airport, and ATC does not have radar contact with you I think they can issue you a clearance if you can assure your own obstacle clearance up to a certain altitude. Perhaps this is what the controller wanted?
Click to expand...

When a VFR aircraft operating below the minimum IFR altitude requests an IFR clearance, and the controller is aware that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to that altitude, Order JO 7110.65 tells controllers before issuing the clearance to ask if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstruction clearance during a climb to the minimum IFR altitude. If the pilot says he can, the clearance is issued. If the pilot says he can't he controller is to tell him to maintain VFR and state his intentions.
 
loudbagel said:
I did query the controller and got a "whatever " response . She then got me a clearance and I made the climb, no harm no foul. I just wanted to know if I was allowed to make that climb, I thought I wasn't so I didn't and it all worked out.
Click to expand...
Controllers are not necessarily knowledgeable of all the rules that apply to us as pilots. I was once on an IFR flight over mountainous terrain when my oxygen crapped out on me. I advised ATC of the problem and cancelled IFR so I could continue below the MEA. Controller replied that I did not need to cancel so long as I provided my own terrain separation. A violation of 91.177 (unless you are of the view that IFR altitude requirements can be waived by ATC, not a position I feel comfortable taking).
 
midlifeflyer said:
Controllers are not necessarily knowledgeable of all the rules that apply to us as pilots. I was once on an IFR flight over mountainous terrain when my oxygen crapped out on me. I advised ATC of the problem and cancelled IFR so I could continue below the MEA. Controller replied that I did not need to cancel so long as I provided my own terrain separation. A violation of 91.177 (unless you are of the view that IFR altitude requirements can be waived by ATC, not a position I feel comfortable taking).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the phrase "unless otherwise authorized by the FAA" in 91.177 cover it?
 
Palmpilot said:
Wouldn't the phrase "unless otherwise authorized by the FAA" in 91.177 cover it?
Click to expand...
I don't see that phrase or anything like it anywhere in that section.
Sec. 91.177

Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

[(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below--
(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this chapter. However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA, provided the applicable navigation signals are available. For aircraft using VOR for navigation, this applies only when the aircraft is within 22 nautical miles of that VOR (based on the reasonable
estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft of that distance); or
(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in parts 95 and 97 of this chapter, then--
(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous area in part 95 of this chapter, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or
(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown.]
(b) Climb. Climb to a higher minimum IFR altitude shall begin immediately after passing the point beyond which that minimum altitude applies, except that when ground obstructions intervene, the point beyond which that higher minimum altitude applies shall be crossed at or above the applicable MCA.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
That's because you're looking at an out of date version of it.
Click to expand...

Yep, the current reg reads

§ 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, or unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below--​

...or perhaps not old enough. It apparently used to say "unless authorized by the administrator" and was apparently inadvertently dropped. Here's the explanation from the FR:

On August 18, 1989 (54 FR 34288),
the FAA published a final rule that
revised 14 CFR part 91. In the final rule,
the phrase in § 91.177 (a) introductory
text ‘‘unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator’’ was inadvertently
removed. The impact of this action was
not apparent until the FAA recently
amended the guidelines for establishing
minimum vectoring altitudes. Without
this phrase in the regulation, certain
altitudes are unavailable to air traffic
control. This action corrects this error
with a minor revision. We are replacing
the word ‘‘Administrator’’ with ‘‘FAA’’.
The new phrase will read ‘‘unless
otherwise authorized by the FAA’’.
​
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Wouldn't the phrase "unless otherwise authorized by the FAA" in 91.177 cover it?
Click to expand...

As Ron explains that is to cover only radar vectors because some radar vector sectors don't comply with off-route 91.177 requirements. (MVAs are not regulatory altitudes.)

User groups pushed to get MVAs and MIAs Part 95 altitudes but the 900 pound monkey shook his head no.:D
 
aterpster said:
As Ron explains that is to cover only radar vectors because some radar vector sectors don't comply with off-route 91.177 requirements. (MVAs are not regulatory altitudes.)

User groups pushed to get MVAs and MIAs Part 95 altitudes but the 900 pound monkey shook his head no.:D
Click to expand...

I don't see the word "only" in that Federal Register excerpt. :dunno:

However, I certainly don't object to a pilot refusing an unsafe altitude assignment.
 
Last edited:
By way of example about 4 years ago I departed Mt. Washington [HIE] Airport in New Hamsphire and needed IFR to get home due to clouds and layers etc enroute - there was a Remote at the airport - and I got my clearance on the ground from Manchester Approach.

Ceilings were fairly high in the mountains and I could have departed VFR but the ODP required me to intercept an outbound radial with a climb gradient and climb to 5000 - MVA in the area was 3100 I believe - so even if I wanted to I could not have received radar services until about 3000 and the Controller was adamant about me flying the ODP [there had been an accident about a month earlier on the same departure when someone deviated to turn south sooner - so the obvious concern about staying on the ODP]. He wanted me to stay on the ODP but he did not assign it as a DP - he just gave me a clearance that required me to be on the departure when entering controlled airspace given where I needed to be .. . .
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't see the word "only" in that Federal Register excerpt. :dunno:

However, I certainly don't object to a pilot refusing an unsafe altitude assignment.
Click to expand...

The preamble cited makes it clear why they added the language. The FAA won't give an altitude below MVA or MIA as an assigned altitude. Nor will the FAA authorize ATC to assign you an IFR altitude below an MEA unless ATC is using its MVA or MIA charts.
 
aterpster said:
The preamble cited makes it clear why they added the language. The FAA won't give an altitude below MVA or MIA as an assigned altitude. Nor will the FAA authorize ATC to assign you an IFR altitude below an MEA unless ATC is using its MVA or MIA charts.
Click to expand...

In this case, it was ATC telling Mark that he didn't need to cancel IFR as long as he provided his own terrain separation. Maybe the controller would have been in hot water with his employer, but a 91.177 violation for the pilot is not obvious from the wording of the reg.

I'm assuming this is not a common event, however, so there is probably no need to lose sleep over what to do in that situation.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, I was surprised too.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Why should the FAA keep a seaparate library of federal regulations otherwise publicly available has always been a mystery to me. Unnecessary duplication in these days of budgetary constraints. A simple link to the eCFR is all that's required.
 
Palmpilot said:
In this case, it was ATC telling Mark that he didn't need to cancel IFR as long as he provided his own terrain separation. Maybe the controller would have been in hot water with his employer, but a 91.177 violation for the pilot is not obvious from the wording of the reg.

I'm assuming this is not a common event, however, so there is probably no need to lose sleep over what to do in that situation.
Click to expand...
In my case it was severe clear so it was easy. If I was in IMC (and IMC below) I would probably have continued without oxygen as the leser of evils.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In my case it was severe clear so it was easy. If I was in IMC (and IMC below) I would probably have continued without oxygen as the leser of evils.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cruising below the minimum instrument altitude in IMC would definitely not be a life-prolonging strategy. :hairraise:
 
Palmpilot said:
In this case, it was ATC telling Mark that he didn't need to cancel IFR as long as he provided his own terrain separation. Maybe the controller would have been in hot water with his employer, but a 91.177 violation for the pilot is not obvious from the wording of the reg.

I'm assuming this is not a common event, however, so there is probably no need to lose sleep over what to do in that situation.
Click to expand...

Seems ad hoc to me. Perhaps our resident retired controlled can provide a reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top