Flying at MOCA to airport without IAP

[roncachamp]

If you don't care what the FAA says, then please don't argue with me when I tell you what the FAA has said.

There is no reason to believe the FAA said what you say they said.

 

[Henning]

Conditions have to be VFR at the MIA or further descent is not authorized. If out west in one of the high class G areas the MIA is likely to be at least 2000 AGL or higher which adds the 500/1000/2000 cloud clearance to VFR requirements in addition to the 1 Mile visibility (1200 AGL). If they are less than that, then an instrument approach would be necessary, even if the visibility is 1 mile and you are clear of clouds.

If the class G airport without an approach underlies class E at 1200 AGL, the visibility requirements go up to 3 miles in class E for VFR flight. Anything less than this at the MIA makes either an instrument approach or IFR visual approach necessary.

1200&1 is all you need to be legal. If you are going to operate for extended period (more than a minute) in 1200 & 1, you best have a plan is all I'm sayin; because 1200&1 is pretty sketchy even when flown at 100'-200'.

Flying pipeline I'd just let the right of way take me where I needed to go, sometimes in less than a mile vis penetrating winter frontal lines in TX. There were days when that got pretty sketchy.

 

[roncachamp]

You are asking the wrong question, the question is "Where does it exclude them?" Legal language is inclusive in America, if not specifically excluded, it is included. The FAA will give you all the rope you want to hang yourself with. If you want to 'Roll Your Own' approach onto your ranch in Class G, the system is set up to allow you to proceed 'at pilot's discretion', "Just don't bust the applicable conditions." If you die, it's your own fault, as it should be.

That is excluded by FAR 91.175:


§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

[roncachamp]

I didn't say an instrument approach, the rule specifically states can't violate the IFR rules. However in Class G what are the IFR rules? Normally one makes it into VFR per Class G rules before having to get particularly low, often the MOCA or MEA is plenty, but 1 mile clear of clouds can be scuzzy enough you want to have a procedure for finding your way.

The IFR rules for Class G airspace are FARs 91.167 through 91.193 that are not limited to controlled airspace. For example, FAR 91.173 states:

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.

That rule is clearly limited to controlled airspace, there is no similar language in FAR 91.175.

 

[Henning]

Like I said before, you can be VFR legal and still need an approach procedure worked out.

 

[John Collins]

1200&1 is all you need to be legal. If you are going to operate for extended period (more than a minute) in 1200 & 1, you best have a plan is all I'm sayin; because 1200&1 is pretty sketchy even when flown at 100'-200'.

Flying pipeline I'd just let the right of way take me where I needed to go, sometimes in less than a mile vis penetrating winter frontal lines in TX. There were days when that got pretty sketchy.

If you are at the MIA, you are likely to be above 1200 AGL. You have to get to from the MIA to 1200 AGL first. That requires cloud separation or an approach.

 

[Palmpilot]

Like I said before, you can be VFR legal and still need an approach procedure worked out.

Amen to that!

 

[Palmpilot]

There is no reason to believe the FAA said what you say they said.

I believe that someone at the FAA said that, but I don't believe that unpublished interpretations communicated to individuals constitute binding legal precedent.

 

[B350ATP]

I believe that someone at the FAA said that, but I don't believe that unpublished interpretations communicated to individuals constitute binding legal precedent.

Correct, personal opinions are not binding legal precedent.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no reason to believe the FAA said what you say they said.

Just ask them. If you contact your FSDO, let them know the answer is in FAQ #799 -- that will save them from a lot of searching.

Y'all do what you want. I'll do (and teach) what the FAA says.

 

[roncachamp]

Just ask them. If you contact your FSDO, let them know the answer is in FAQ #799 -- that will save them from a lot of searching.

Y'all do what you want. I'll do (and teach) what the FAA says.

You'll teach what you believe the FAA says.

 

[John Collins]

Just ask them. If you contact your FSDO, let them know the answer is in FAQ #799 -- that will save them from a lot of searching.

Y'all do what you want. I'll do (and teach) what the FAA says.

John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810, had developed and maintained documents on the FAA website for Frequently Answered Questions. I have a copy of the FAQ for part 61 but can't locate any copy of it for part 91. If you have a copy, I would appreciate it if you would share it as it does give some insight into the thinking of the FAA even though it can't be considered as speaking for the FAA.

As far as I can tell, it is no longer on the FAA website and John was advised to remove it based on the fact that the FAA General Counsel did not want anyone to speak for the FAA on interpretation of the regulations other than themselves. If I have my information wrong, feel free to correct it.

 

[dtuuri]

You'll teach what you believe the FAA says.

Before this thread slips into oblivion I'd like to add a comment to this post of yours earlier:

Do you have an official source that indicates an official source is required for those coordinates? Look at the language of FAR 91.177 for a moment:

(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

Why would that be sufficient for MOCA purposes but not for route clearances?

Good question. The AIM has long described "direct route" flight plan procedures. Even when filing off-airways from one navaid to another, manual chart plotting is required to find the outbound and inbound courses. The changeover point is determined by timing if the pilot has no DME information available. So, it's obvious Cap'n Ron and the mysterious FAQ #799 hold mistaken notions of how to make a direct flight lacking approved RNAV equipment under IFR.

dtuuri

 

[RotorAndWing]

John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810, had developed and maintained documents on the FAA website for Frequently Answered Questions. I have a copy of the FAQ for part 61 but can't locate any copy of it for part 91. If you have a copy, I would appreciate it if you would share it as it does give some insight into the thinking of the FAA even though it can't be considered as speaking for the FAA.

As far as I can tell, it is no longer on the FAA website and John was advised to remove it based on the fact that the FAA General Counsel did not want anyone to speak for the FAA on interpretation of the regulations other than themselves. If I have my information wrong, feel free to correct it.

You are correct.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS–810, had developed and maintained documents on the FAA website for Frequently Answered Questions. I have a copy of the FAQ for part 61 but can't locate any copy of it for part 91. If you have a copy, I would appreciate it if you would share it as it does give some insight into the thinking of the FAA even though it can't be considered as speaking for the FAA.

As far as I can tell, it is no longer on the FAA website and John was advised to remove it based on the fact that the FAA General Counsel did not want anyone to speak for the FAA on interpretation of the regulations other than themselves. If I have my information wrong, feel free to correct it.

Also provides some insight into where some of these misconceptions come from.

 

[azure]

The AIM has long described "direct route" flight plan procedures. Even when filing off-airways from one navaid to another, manual chart plotting is required to find the outbound and inbound courses. The changeover point is determined by timing if the pilot has no DME information available. So, it's obvious Cap'n Ron and the mysterious FAQ #799 hold mistaken notions of how to make a direct flight lacking approved RNAV equipment under IFR.

But navaid to navaid, the only critical issue would be obstacle clearance if your course is off by a few degrees. Given that your maximum permissible bearing error is 4 degrees, if you are off by 2 degrees in your estimate with the plotter, your total bearing error might be up to 6 degrees. But assuming a low altitude VOR (or high altitude below 14.5), the most you are going to be off 40 nm out is ~ 4 nm, and the 91.177 minimum altitude should be adequate protection. 4 nm to one side of your destination could mean the difference between seeing the field or not, even if you're in visual conditions.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

But navaid to navaid, the only critical issue would be obstacle clearance if your course is off by a few degrees. Given that your maximum permissible bearing error is 4 degrees, if you are off by 2 degrees in your estimate with the plotter, your total bearing error might be up to 6 degrees. But assuming a low altitude VOR (or high altitude below 14.5), the most you are going to be off 40 nm out is ~ 4 nm, and the 91.177 minimum altitude should be adequate protection. 4 nm to one side of your destination could mean the difference between seeing the field or not, even if you're in visual conditions.

That's true and a good reason to not let your VORs drift that far before you get 'em realigned. OTOH keep in mind you don't need the airport in sight to cancel, you just need to be in VFR conditions.

 

[dtuuri]

But navaid to navaid, the only critical issue would be obstacle clearance if your course is off by a few degrees. Given that your maximum permissible bearing error is 4 degrees,

It's actually 6 degrees.

...if you are off by 2 degrees in your estimate with the plotter, your total bearing error might be up to 6 degrees.

Actually 8 degrees.

But assuming a low altitude VOR (or high altitude below 14.5), the most you are going to be off 40 nm out is ~ 4 nm,

I get 5.36 nm.

...and the 91.177 minimum altitude should be adequate protection. 4 nm to one side of your destination could mean the difference between seeing the field or not, even if you're in visual conditions.

So, since it isn't adequate, measure accurately else you might hit something like a really big tidal wave on Lake Michigan. As for the horror of not seeing the airport, oh well, it happens with non precision approaches too.

dtuuri

 

[azure]

It's actually 6 degrees.

For a ground check, it's 4 degrees. I always thought the reason you're allowed 6 degrees for an airborne check is uncertainty in the plotted position of the "prominent ground point" -- which I figure should be about 2 degrees, so basically the calculation I did. Personally I don't use the airborne check method to check my VORs.

I get 5.36 nm.

Sounds about right if you're using 8 degrees, but that's beyond any error that I consider reasonable, for the reason I gave above (unless you're way more conservative in your planning than 91.177 requires).

So, since it isn't adequate, measure accurately else you might hit something like a really big tidal wave on Lake Michigan. As for the horror of not seeing the airport, oh well, it happens with non precision approaches too.

You're still hung up on 2P2 I see. What if the destination was in the mountains?

 

[dtuuri]

I always thought the reason you're allowed 6 degrees for an airborne check is uncertainty in the plotted position of the "prominent ground point"

An FAA designated airborne checkpoint is 6 degrees. I would think they're pretty sure what the position is before designating it.

What if the destination was in the mountains?

I would take them into consideration. Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I like to file to an intersection on a nearby airway and finish the flight under VFR. The OP isn't going to the mountains, so I don't think mountain procedures ought to be required any more than the OP ought to require flotation gear of a mountain pilot. You just have to think it through. Has point to point database flying spoiled pilots' abilities to think for themselves? I'm really beginning to wonder..

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

............ What if the destination was in the mountains?

FAR 91.177 (a)(2)(i) requires 2000' above the highest obstacle within 4 nm of your course in designated mountainous areas.

 

[azure]

An FAA designated airborne checkpoint is 6 degrees. I would think they're pretty sure what the position is before designating it.

Okay - I forgot that they had designated airborne checkpoints. Maybe reflection or diffraction effects from objects on the ground can affect the received phase or radial - I'm not a radio engineer. Also, you really should add errors from different sources in quadrature, not arithmetically. But I would think that if the sum of all of the errors involved could be expected to exceed 4 nm anywhere within the service volume, 91.177 would have required giving obstacles a wider berth.

I would take them into consideration. Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I like to file to an intersection on a nearby airway and finish the flight under VFR. The OP isn't going to the mountains, so I don't think mountain procedures ought to be required any more than the OP ought to require flotation gear of a mountain pilot. You just have to think it through. Has point to point database flying spoiled pilots' abilities to think for themselves? I'm really beginning to wonder..

No, you're just being gratuitously condescending. You know (or should be able to see) that I'm talking about a more general case than just the OP's ESC -D-> 2P2 clearance, where obviously there's no danger of hitting anything at the MOCA. In the mountains, different story. Personally, I wouldn't want to be blundering around at the MOCA looking for a mountain airport that could be 4 nm either way from where I am.

IOW do ya think maybe C'Ron's (or his putative FAA source's) strict reading of the "suitable equipment" wording in 91.205 might have some basis in safety considerations? I wouldn't completely discount that.

 

[azure]

FAR 91.177 (a)(2)(i) requires 2000' above the highest obstacle within 4 nm of your course in designated mountainous areas.

Exactly. Still 4 nm, just 1000 feet higher than in the flatlands.

 

[roncachamp]

No, you're just being gratuitously condescending. You know (or should be able to see) that I'm talking about a more general case than just the OP's ESC -D-> 2P2 clearance, where obviously there's no danger of hitting anything at the MOCA. In the mountains, different story. Personally, I wouldn't want to be blundering around at the MOCA looking for a mountain airport that could be 4 nm either way from where I am.

MOCA applied to the airway. Where might there be danger of hitting something at the MOCA?

 

[azure]

Should be OROCA if not on an airway, sorry. But note the wording about blundering around looking for the airport. If you are 4 nm off and there are obstacles nearby, and you lose situational awareness (easy to do if the vis is marginal), could be a quick way to go.

 

[roncachamp]

Should be OROCA if not on an airway, sorry. But note the wording about blundering around looking for the airport. If you are 4 nm off and there are obstacles nearby, and you lose situational awareness (easy to do if the vis is marginal), could be a quick way to go.

OROCAs cover a very large area, a 1° quadrangle. Unless you're operating near the OROCA boundary use of the OROCA to determine your altitude will keep you well clear of obstacles. In marginal viz it could also keep you from seeing the airport.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

........... Also, you really should add errors from different sources in quadrature, not arithmetically. But I would think that if the sum of all of the errors involved could be expected to exceed 4 nm anywhere within the service volume, 91.177 would have required giving obstacles a wider berth.

Even tho' it's legal to use, personally I won't accept a 4 degree VOR error. Anything more than 2 degrees and I'm making an appointment at my avionics shop. And I certainly wouldn't plan an IFR flight in low weather to an airport 40 miles up a narrow mountain valley with a known 4 degree error. Just because something is techniquely legal doesn't nessesarily mean it's prudent.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Should be OROCA if not on an airway, sorry. But note the wording about blundering around looking for the airport. If you are 4 nm off and there are obstacles nearby, and you lose situational awareness (easy to do if the vis is marginal), could be a quick way to go.

Yeah, the OROCA could conceivably be based on an obstruction that's as much as 60 nm away.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

OROCAs cover a very large area, a 1° quadrangle. Unless your operating near the OROCA boundary use of the OROCA to determine your altitude will keep you well clear of obstacles. In marginal viz it could also keep you from seeing the airport.

Just a quick peek at the L-13 chart............the airport at Sheridan, Wyoming is up on the hill south of town as I recall, elevation 4021'. OROCA in that quadrangle is 15,300'.

 

[dtuuri]

No, you're just being gratuitously condescending.

Now, now. When I got my instrument rating, using a plotter and E6B to draw checkpoints and compute groundspeeds and ETAs was standard operating procedure. Just because RNAV came along doesn't negate the use of those techniques.

...do ya think maybe C'Ron's (or his putative FAA source's) strict reading of the "suitable equipment" wording in 91.205 might have some basis in safety considerations?

Nope.

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.............................
IOW do ya think maybe C'Ron's (or his putative FAA source's) strict reading of the "suitable equipment" wording in 91.205 might have some basis in safety considerations? I wouldn't completely discount that.

I would in fact completely discount that. Ron's is not a "strict reading", it's just a misconception.
Think about this; the applicable paragraph of FAR 91.205(d)(2) states (For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required) "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown".

That's been the case ever since I can remember and I'm older than dirt. How do you think we navigated these direct routes before GPS?

 

[azure]

OROCAs cover a very large area, a 1° quadrangle. Unless your operating near the OROCA boundary use of the OROCA to determine your altitude will keep you well clear of obstacles. In marginal viz it could also keep you from seeing the airport.

True. But in mountainous areas, they're often so high as to be useless for the intended purpose. So yeah, you have to find out what the MIA is. Any possibility that the MIA would be low enough for this to be an issue?

 

[azure]

Even tho' it's legal to use, personally I won't accept a 4 degree VOR error. Anything more than 2 degrees and I'm making an appointment at my avionics shop. And I certainly wouldn't plan an IFR flight in low weather to an airport 40 miles up a narrow mountain valley with a known 4 degree error. Just because something is techniquely legal doesn't nessesarily mean it's prudent.

I agree completely, especially since I'm moving to an area where there could well be granite in the clouds.

Sorry for the threadjack...

 

[azure]

Now, now. When I got my instrument rating, using a plotter and E6B to draw checkpoints and compute groundspeeds and ETAs was standard operating procedure. Just because RNAV came along doesn't negate the use of those techniques.

I never said otherwise. But flying direct to an airport is one purpose that I'd think twice about, and not just because someone with a lot of experience asking the FAA about this stuff says that it's illegal. It might be "illegal" in the sense that filing an IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the altitude box -- I'll defer to Steven's answer to my last question on that.* But if there's any safety basis at all for Ron's reading, I'd really hesitate to do it.

edit: that sounds really obscure now that I read it back after posting. What I'm saying is that the IFR + "VFR" as altitude technique is one perfectly safe technique to get into the system quick and easy VFR (and even necessary in the SFRA) that the Chief Counsel is now on record as saying is a no-no unless you are IFR legal, all because someone just HAD to know and wrote her a letter. If Ron's source is bona fide but using a VOR to navigate direct to an airport will never get you in trouble if you follow the MIA even adding in legally acceptable VOR error (which is what I asked Steven), then I'd put this in the same category. I'm just not convinced yet.

 

[azure]

That's been the case ever since I can remember and I'm older than dirt. How do you think we navigated these direct routes before GPS?

Lots of pilots in non-/G or /I aircraft (I think, too lazy to look up equipment suffixes right now) accepted direct random route clearances back in the day too. The fact that ATC is okay with it and gives you a clearance doesn't make it legal (or safe).

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.............. But if there's any safety basis at all for Ron's reading, I'd really hesitate to do it.

"Ron's reading" is apparently based on the misinterpretation of one FAA employee (John Lynch) who's subsequently been largely discredited by his own agency.

 

[B350ATP]

Lots of pilots in non-/G or /I aircraft (I think, too lazy to look up equipment suffixes right now) accepted direct random route clearances back in the day too. The fact that ATC is okay with it and gives you a clearance doesn't make it legal (or safe).

1. "Navajo 1 Bravo Charlie, cleared direct Cowboy, fly heading 090 until receiving"

2. In most cases, the FAA will give you a safe and legal clearance, based on the information they have. They may mistakenly believe you are a /G, when not, or a Beech 35 Bonanza instead of a B-350 King Air (BE35 erroneously entered on flight strip) but in almost all cases, ATC does a good job.

I never said otherwise. But flying direct to an airport is one purpose that I'd think twice about, and not just because someone with a lot of experience asking the FAA about this stuff says that it's illegal. It might be "illegal" in the sense that filing an IFR flight plan with "VFR" in the altitude box -- I'll defer to Steven's answer to my last question on that.* But if there's any safety basis at all for Ron's reading, I'd really hesitate to do it.

edit: that sounds really obscure now that I read it back after posting. What I'm saying is that the IFR + "VFR" as altitude technique is one perfectly safe technique to get into the system quick and easy VFR (and even necessary in the SFRA) that the Chief Counsel is now on record as saying is a no-no unless you are IFR legal, all because someone just HAD to know and wrote her a letter. If Ron's source is bona fide but using a VOR to navigate direct to an airport will never get you in trouble if you follow the MIA even adding in legally acceptable VOR error (which is what I asked Steven), then I'd put this in the same category. I'm just not convinced yet.

OK, admittedly I have lost interest in this thread and grown weary of purported experts with their legal quotes and purported FAA connections (if they only knew...) I have stopped actively monitoring this thread. With that said, you lost me with this IFR+VFR commentary above. Sorry but I went to public High School. I can't figure out if you were asking a question or just making a comment.

 

[RotorAndWing]

"Ron's reading" is apparently based on the misinterpretation of one FAA employee (John Lynch) who's subsequently been largely discredited by his own agency.

How dare you!! Blasphemy!

Now go say your penitence at the alter of the Chief Counsel!

 

[John Collins]

I would in fact completely discount that. Ron's is not a "strict reading", it's just a misconception.
Think about this; the applicable paragraph of FAR 91.205(d)(2) states (For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required) "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown".

That's been the case ever since I can remember and I'm older than dirt. How do you think we navigated these direct routes before GPS?

That specific wording has only been around since 2007 when it was updated to account for GPS and RNAV. Prior to that time, it read as:

(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.

Since you are older than dirt, I must have been born before continental drift started.

 

[roncachamp]

True. But in mountainous areas, they're often so high as to be useless for the intended purpose. So yeah, you have to find out what the MIA is. Any possibility that the MIA would be low enough for this to be an issue?

Which MIA are you referring to here? The tool of the ARTCC, similar to an MVA? Or the Minimum IFR Altitude as determined by a pilot on a cruise clearance? The Center MIA will very probably be higher as it covers a larger area.