IFR in/near mountianous terrain

PittsDriver said:
A few years ago, I spent a week flying in Alaska both training for my ASES and riding shotgun on some flights hauling ice and eggs back and forth. In nearly 20 hours of flying over 7 days, not once did anyone call for a weather brief or file IFR even on the days where more than just the tops of the hills were in the clouds. My impression was that they do things differently there out of necessity and what passes for FAA oversight works differently there for the same reason. I mean, what else could explain the kind of STCs and the shear number of them that have been approved for Super Cubs?

It still works pretty much like frontier country there where the laws of nature and necessity trump everything else. The trick is defining "necessity" properly. I took off in a 206 on floats packed with ice and spent the next hour 50' from the trees winding up valleys where everything above us was in IMC. Every couple of minutes was a decision point - do we keep going or turn around? The pilot knew every ridge and valley because he'd flown it a thousand times and knew if we rounded the next corner and it was obscured to the ground that there would be room to turn around. No DUATS weather report would have been helpful for that flight - it was a "let's go take a look and be prepared with plan B" kind of day.

I don't see that it would be very practical to suggest that any kind of instrument procedures would be helpful either. Their destinations are sand bars, little ponds in the bottom of valleys, and rivers and there's a whole bunch of those out there.
Click to expand...

How did you get such an opportunity?

I'd kill to sit in an Alaskan bush plane
 
Ron Levy said:
You could "contend" that, but I see no legal basis to do so, because the regulation does not limit itself to controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

91.173 exempts the requirement to be on a flight plan in uncontrolled airspace, and 179 only requires us to follow heading and altitude rules, it does not require ATC permission to be there. 175 speaks to IFR approaches. I don't believe that any one flying north of the Alaska Range will be on one, with the exception for the tower controlled approaches where they have contacted ATC and have approval to be there.

Two of my personal friends operate their aircraft on us postal contracts delivering mail in remote Alaska, they routinely operate in the clouds with out ATC control, I know for a fact they have had FAA ops inspectors ride with them, and never received a citation, So there must be a loop hole some where.

Orval Tosh operated up and down the Yukon river for many years under these rules, Read his book he had no problem with the FAA for flight infractions.

I still contend it can be done legally, case law or not.

we all know the FAA is attracted by smoking holes, and that 91.13 can be applied to any one, uncontrolled or not.
 
Tom-D said:
91.173 exempts the requirement to be on a flight plan in uncontrolled airspace, and 179 only requires us to follow heading and altitude rules, it does not require ATC permission to be there. 175 speaks to IFR approaches. I don't believe that any one flying north of the Alaska Range will be on one, with the exception for the tower controlled approaches where they have contacted ATC and have approval to be there.

Two of my personal friends operate their aircraft on us postal contracts delivering mail in remote Alaska, they routinely operate in the clouds with out ATC control, I know for a fact they have had FAA ops inspectors ride with them, and never received a citation, So there must be a loop hole some where.
Click to expand...
No loophole -- what you're describing is not what Murphy did nor what I've been talking about. If you're out in the big brown areas on the L-chart, you can do this all day legally, as long as you can get visual at the 91.177 minimum altitude so you can descend and land visually from there without need of an instrument approach procedure (i.e., a visual approach or cancelling and going VFR if you get to VMC). However, the issue covered in Murphy is operating without an IFR clearance out of/into the overlying controlled airspace in the G-space between the surface and the 700 AGL base of the overlying controlled airspace at airports with published instrument procedures. That the FAA considers unacceptably unsafe due to the potential for conflict with aircraft operating with a clearance on the approach or climbing out. Likewise, even in uncontrolled airspace, any descent below the 91.177 minimum altitude would have to be done either on a published SIAP or visually to stay legal per 91.175(a), which is not limited to controlled airspace.
 
Last edited:
as long as you are in VMC by your class e entrance you should be good.
Ron, are you suggesting that anytime there is class E overlying class G you cant fly Class G IMC?
 
taters said:
as long as you are in VMC by your class e entrance you should be good.
Click to expand...
The problem is that pesky "1000 above" rule in 91.155 which Mr. Murphy clearly violated, but the FAA failed to make note of in its case against him. Say the top of the fog is 200 AGL. That means you have to be 1200 AGL before you're 1000 above and thus in legal VMC. If the E-space starts at 700 AGL, then you have 500 feet of E-space in which VFR is prohibited by the "1000 above" rule, and IFR is prohibited without a clearance by 91.173.

taters said:
Ron, are you suggesting that anytime there is class E overlying class G you cant fly Class G IMC?
Click to expand...
I'm only saying what it said in the Murphy case -- that launching into IMC in the space between the surface and the overlying E-space at an airport with published instrument procedures without a clearance is considered illegal by the FAA and NTSB. Out in the boonies where E-space starts at 14,500 would be another story entirely (and apparently one tolerated by Inspectors in the field as long as 91.175(a) isn't violated), and one never to my knowledge addressed directly by FAA Legal.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If you're out in the big brown areas on the L-chart, you can do this all day legally, as long as you can get visual at the 91.177 minimum altitude so you can descend and land visually from there without need of an instrument approach procedure .
Click to expand...

That is what this thread is all about. Flight in the clouds in uncontrolled air space is done every day as needed, and it is legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
The problem is that pesky "1000 above" rule in 91.155 which Mr. Murphy clearly violated, but the FAA failed to make note of in its case against him. Say the top of the fog is 200 AGL. That means you have to be 1200 AGL before you're 1000 above and thus in legal VMC. If the E-space starts at 700 AGL, then you have 500 feet of E-space in which VFR is prohibited by the "1000 above" rule, and IFR is prohibited without a clearance by 91.173.

That would be decent thru controlled airspace? bad !

I'm only saying what it said in the Murphy case -- that launching into IMC in the space between the surface and the overlying E-space at an airport with published instrument procedures without a clearance is considered illegal by the FAA and NTSB. Out in the boonies where E-space starts at 14,500 would be another story entirely (and apparently one tolerated by Inspectors in the field as long as 91.175(a) isn't violated), and one never to my knowledge addressed directly by FAA Legal.
Click to expand...

that's actually launching into controlled airspace with out a clearance. BAD!
 
Tom-D said:
That is what this thread is all about. Flight in the clouds in uncontrolled air space is done every day as needed, and it is legal.
Click to expand...
In some uncontrolled airspace, under some conditions, yes, but not in all uncontrolled airspace or all conditions.
 
Tom-D said:
that's actually launching into controlled airspace with out a clearance. BAD!
Click to expand...
While that's true, by the FAA/NTSB position, in the Murphy-type situation, you violated the rules before you even reached the overlying controlled airspace -- and that's my point.
 
taters said:
as long as you are in VMC by your class e entrance you should be good.
Ron, are you suggesting that anytime there is class E overlying class G you cant fly Class G IMC?
Click to expand...

In the better statement would be maintaining VFR by class e standards upon entrance into Class E.
 
taters said:
as long as you are in VMC by your class e entrance you should be good.
Ron, are you suggesting that anytime there is class E overlying class G you cant fly Class G IMC?
Click to expand...

No,,, what he and I both arte saying you can't fly thru Class E to get to the G
 
Tom-D said:
No,,, what he and I both arte saying you can't fly thru Class E to get to the G
Click to expand...
Actually, what I'm saying is the opposite -- you can't legally fly through the G in IMC without a clearance into or out of the overlying 700 AGL E-space, regardless of what the weather is in the E-space or where you're intending to go.
 
Ron Levy said:
Never said otherwise.
Click to expand...


Ron Levy said:
The FAA and the NTSB agreed that what Murphy did was both unsafe and illegal, and I think they would both say the same in any future case like it, whether in Indiana or Alaska or any of the other 48 states. You have any case law to suggest otherwise?
Click to expand...

dmccormack said:
Your own citation proves my point -- this case did not hinge on the legality of launching into IMC into uncontrolled airspace.

Rather, the pilot was caught by the catch-all provision of careless/reckless.
Click to expand...

Unh hunh... :rolleyes2:
 
What part of "what Murphy did" and "any future case like it" didn't you understand? :)rolleyes2: yourself)
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, what I'm saying is the opposite -- you can't legally fly through the G in IMC without a clearance into or out of the overlying 700 AGL E-space, regardless of what the weather is in the E-space or where you're intending to go.
Click to expand...

Think the north slope that's what this about, you can start in the "G", stay in the "G" fly thru the clouds until you get near the "C" and contact tower, then get clearance to enter for the approach.

or you start with a clearance to take off in the "controlled airspace" then transition into the "G" and land any where you have viability to do so with out violating VFR visual rules.
 
Ron Levy said:
Likewise, even in uncontrolled airspace, any descent below the 91.177 minimum altitude would have to be done either on a published SIAP or visually to stay legal per 91.175(a), which is not limited to controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

By its own terms, 91.175(a) only applies to approaches that are made to airports. 91.175(g) says something similar for miltary airports. I can't find any requirement for approaches to off-airport locations to use an SIAP. Thus, I don't see anything that would prohibit a pilot from devising his own approach procedure to an off-airport location.
 
Palmpilot said:
By its own terms, 91.175(a) only applies to approaches that are made to airports. 91.175(g) says something similar for miltary airports. I can't find any requirement for approaches to off-airport locations to use an SIAP. Thus, I don't see anything that would prohibit a pilot from devising his own approach procedure to an off-airport location.
Click to expand...
You may not see it, but I guarantee the FAA would if you pranged.
 
Ron Levy said:
You may not see it, but I guarantee the FAA would if you pranged.
Click to expand...

I think every pilot / owner in Alaska that lands at home has their own approach.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and there are a lot of owner/pilots in Alaska who don't even have pilot certificates, so your point is...?
Click to expand...

Don't believe all the tall tales you hear about Alaskan Pilots.


My point is simple, 90% of the landing places in Alaska are not marked on any sectional. They are just known by the pilots that use them. they make their own methods to get there. We can't really call them approaches, because then you would call them IFR, when in fact they are visual IAW the 91.155 requirements.

It's not what we call it, its just a way to get home, and no body runs below landing mins with out paying the price some time.
 
Ron Levy said:
You may not see it, but I guarantee the FAA would if you pranged.
Click to expand...

I don't think a non-attorney's guarantee is worth much when it comes to legal matters.

I think we all know that the careless or reckless clause is very flexible, but that does not justify claiming that 91.175(a) says something different from what it says.

I also have the impression that what the FAA sees as acceptable in Alaska is far different from what the FAA sees as acceptable in the lower 48.

One of the old-timers I have met online talks about "the myth of one FAA." I gather from what he has said that there is a lot of variation between FSDOs as to how enforcement is done.
 
Tom-D said:
I think every pilot / owner in Alaska that lands at home has their own approach.
Click to expand...

It's not just there. There are plenty of landing spots here in the lower 48 where people have their own approaches. Legal? I don't feel like arguing with Ron. But they seem to have managed it just fine.

A lot of times, low VFR can be better than IFR. All depends on your knowledge of the area and a bunch of other factors. Here on the eastern half of the lower 48, it's pretty rare for IFR to not make sense, but that's a lot different than Alaska.

In Canadian uncontrolled airspace, you do need to have a flight plan for VFR or IFR flight more than 25 nm from the origin airport. However there isn't a clearance involved until you enter controlled airspace. When I flew to Chisasibi from La Grande Riviere, it was in uncontrolled airspace the whole time. Opened my flight plan with the radio at La Grande, and then closed it when I landed. I was on an IFR flight plan the whole time, squawking 1200.

The part up there is that if you're going along at your filed altitude and route of, say, 6000 ft and need to change altitude or course for whatever reason (clouds/ice concerns, storms, etc.) you can just do it legally, rather than when in controlled airspace you have to talk to people. I rather like it, it's fun.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think a non-attorney's guarantee is worth much when it comes to legal matters.
Click to expand...
When there's a question about what is legal, there's a big difference between believing someone who says, "Fine, do it, no problem," and someone who says, "Everything I know says that will get you in trouble if they catch you." Choose wisely.

I also have the impression that what the FAA sees as acceptable in Alaska is far different from what the FAA sees as acceptable in the lower 48.
Click to expand...
LIke I said about someone who says, "Fine, do it..." Whatever differences there are in Alaska (aside from one or two Alaska-specific regs, like the one on postponing night training for Private and the gross weight increase rule for commercial operators) are, I think, more a case of the FAA simply lacking the resources to catch them rather than a difference in enforcement action if caught. Choose wisely.

One of the old-timers I have met online talks about "the myth of one FAA." I gather from what he has said that there is a lot of variation between FSDOs as to how enforcement is done.
Click to expand...
That is an ancient perception, but FAA has been striving for years to eliminate any such variation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's not just there. There are plenty of landing spots here in the lower 48 where people have their own approaches. Legal? I don't feel like arguing with Ron. But they seem to have managed it just fine.
Click to expand...
Wander though the NTSB accident reports and you'll find several where self-generated hand-drawn instrument approach procedures were found in the cockpit. Since those accidents were mostly fatal, you don't see corresponding enforcement actions. Consider this as one where the FAA lacks the resources to detect violations unless you crash, but that doesn't make it legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA has for several years been limiting the authority of FSDO's to give field approvals just for this reason.
Click to expand...

...which results in default "no"

"Why not?"

"Ummm..... HQ says we can't" (translated, "I don't want to deal with them.")

Consolidation and centralization is not always "progress"
 
dmccormack said:
...which results in default "no"

"Why not?"

"Ummm..... HQ says we can't" (translated, "I don't want to deal with them.")

Consolidation and centralization is not always "progress"
Click to expand...
It may not be "progress" in your eyes, but it is "standardization," and that is AFS's middle name. OTOH, had various FSDO's not started approving stuff that HQ didn't want approved, HQ would probably not have reined them all in. Least common denominator, and all that.
 
Tom-D said:
they got him on the 91.13 but not the 91.155.

taking off into the clouds is legal in class G (uncontroiled) airspace, wither or not that is safe is depend and upon the out come of the flight. bust your sweet cheeks and you'll probably loose on 91.13

" what is legal isn't always safe "
Click to expand...


Exactly, Pt 91 they give you plenty of rope to hang yourself with. However, the question remains, was he under Pt 91? I don't really know the territory and I know there are Alaska rules with the FAA that are really just a longer rope, but I would suspect those guys are operating under Pt 135 rules, so their OpSpecs are their govenance and those are complint to a MINIMUM of what is in Pt 135, not Pt 91. I think most likely they are restricted to VFR if not Day VFR conditions running single engine single pilot operations in their OpSpecs if it isn't so spelled out in Pt 135 directly which IIRC it used to be. I admit, haven't read or reviewed Pt 135 to any real extent in over 15 years, it just doesn't apply to me at the moment.
 
Ron Levy said:
It may not be "progress" in your eyes, but it is "standardization," and that is AFS's middle name. OTOH, had various FSDO's not started approving stuff that HQ didn't want approved, HQ would probably not have reined them all in. Least common denominator, and all that.
Click to expand...


OK, then I'll add "Standardization" isn't necessarily progress, either.
 
dmccormack said:
OK, then I'll add "Standardization" isn't necessarily progress, either.
Click to expand...
That's an opinion to which you are indeed entitled, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. IMO, the shame is that the FAA was unable to achieve standardization without eliminating the ability of FSDO's to give field approvals.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's an opinion to which you are indeed entitled, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. IMO, the shame is that the FAA was unable to achieve standardization without eliminating the ability of FSDO's to give field approvals.
Click to expand...

Thank God the Wright Brothers, Eddie Rickenbaker, Glenn Curtiss, Charles Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, the EAA, and ten thousand others agreed that "outside the box" is a good way to think.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA has for several years been limiting the authority of FSDO's to give field approvals just for this reason.
Click to expand...

That's not really true, the only change in resent past is the FAA now allows the A&P-IA to sign and return some 337's that have approved data. that is the only change I have seen in the last 25 years.
 
Tom-D said:
That's not really true, the only change in resent past is the FAA now allows the A&P-IA to sign and return some 337's that have approved data. that is the only change I have seen in the last 25 years.
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago, the FAA directed the FSDO's to elevate to the MIDO/ACO/etc requests for approvals for alterations which used to be approvable in the field. Ask your PMI if you want the details.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's an opinion to which you are indeed entitled, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. IMO, the shame is that the FAA was unable to achieve standardization without eliminating the ability of FSDO's to give field approvals.
Click to expand...

The FAA has not reached standardization simply because it is manned by people, as this board demonstrates each person thinks and does things differently, each ASI has guidance, but that isn't standardization. The resent change in guidance for IA renewal is a good example of each FSDO doing things differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top