VFR minima at Class G airports

[MAKG1]

I had an interesting chat with one of my buddies, a current instrument student.

He was considering approaches into KTCY, a local non towered airport with Class G below 700, and Class E above. TPA is 1000. There is a city nearby, but not directly adjacent to the airport.

Suppose you were on the GPS approach to 30, during daytime. Here is the approach plate: http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1405/pdf/05815R30.PDF . Circling minimum is 680 feet.

Could you get cleared for the approach in solid overcast, pop out of a 700 foot ceiling and encounter legal NORDO VFR traffic in the pattern 50 feet below it? How is that conflict resolved?

Minima for Class G in daytime seem to be 1 mile vis, clear of clouds. below a marine layer, the visibility can be huge, and flying around at 650 feet would be clear of clouds, and still in Class G. Minimum altitude is exempted when necessary for takeoff and landing -- which includes the pattern -- and 500 feet separation from structures, vehicles and people is all that is required in other-than-congested areas. You can get really far at 600 MSL if you fly away from the city (just watch the western mountains, as they are considerably higher than that). Leaving aside that this is really stupid, is it legal?

 

[Old Geek]

No expert and no instrument rating. Fly the airplane and avoid the traffic. Then tell ATC the situation. I can't see any other alternative.

 

[MAKG1]

What ATC? There is no ATC in Class G. You can't raise Approach on the ground at that airport. I haven't tried 700 feet, but I suspect it's just as bad.

And 50 feet goes by FAST.

 

[roncachamp]

Could you get cleared for the approach in solid overcast, pop out of a 700 foot ceiling and encounter legal NORDO VFR traffic in the pattern 50 feet below it?

Yes.

How is that conflict resolved?

See and avoid, TCAS, luck.

Leaving aside that this is really stupid, is it legal?

Yes.

 

[MAKG1]

OK, thanks.

That's what I thought.

When I said that to my buddy, his eyes bugged out. I could see how that could make him really nervous -- clearance on the approach is no guarantee you're the only one there, in really crappy weather.

 

[ja_user]

OK, thanks.



That's what I thought.



When I said that to my buddy, his eyes bugged out. I could see how that could make him really nervous -- clearance on the approach is no guarantee you're the only one there, in really crappy weather.

It is no guarantee anytime. People bust cloud clearance requirements all the time, some of them even have transponders on.

 

[Velocity173]

Legal yes, but you have to ask yourself how many aircraft are out flying NORDO in that weather and operating in a traffic pattern less than 1,000 agl on downwind?

 

[azure]

This situation has crossed my mind at VLL, which is also Class G below 700. The circling minimums for the RNAV 9 are right at 700 feet. I'm not sure it's legal to fly the pattern at 680 feet when the TPA is 1000, but people do it, and it isn't even that stupid from a safety POV (relatively speaking) if you know the area, since you can fly at that altitude in most directions for several miles without hitting anything.

(Now, it IS a congested area, so 91.119 would get you if you tried to leave the vicinity, but that's another issue.)

 

[MAKG1]

Legal yes, but you have to ask yourself how many aircraft are out flying NORDO in that weather and operating in a traffic pattern less than 1,000 agl on downwind?

Considering all the ag ops around there, I suspect the answer is higher than either of us would like.

Marine layer often has an edge you can see, as well, and the terrain is pretty open to the southeast.

 

[Velocity173]

Considering all the ag ops around there, I suspect the answer is higher than either of us would like.

Marine layer often has an edge you can see, as well, and the terrain is pretty open to the southeast.

Oh that's right, you're on the west coast. Yeah, I can bet some of the AG guys are skirting underneath the marine layer out there.

 

[James331]

Hence the reason most 121/135 ops are prohibited from IFR in class G.

 

[James331]

. I'm not sure it's legal to fly the pattern at 680 feet when the TPA is 1000,

It's legal, TPAs are recommend not regulatory

 

[dtuuri]

Hence the reason most 121/135 ops are prohibited from IFR in class G.

I'd say, if that were true, most 135 ops would be illegal. How could you depart most IFR airports? Oh yeah, a composite flight plan.

dtuuri

 

[dukeblue219]

Hence the reason most 121/135 ops are prohibited from IFR in class G.

Including uncontrolled airports without E surface areas?

 

[James331]

I'd say, if that were true, most 135 ops would be illegal. How could you depart most IFR airports? Oh yeah, a composite flight plan.

dtuuri

It is true

You depart VFR and pickup IFR

You can also file for a different airport, ask for MVA to your desired class G or no wx airport, to take a look and CANCEL if you can get in VFR.

.

 

[Brad Z]

Hence the reason most 121/135 ops are prohibited from IFR in class G.

Well, 121 ops anyway. I think most 135 operators prefer a tower for this reason, and many bizjet operators intentionally base their operations at towered airports when possible.

 

[poadeleted20]

Could you get cleared for the approach in solid overcast, pop out of a 700 foot ceiling and encounter legal NORDO VFR traffic in the pattern 50 feet below it?

Possibly, assuming it's not a "congested area" underneath you (in which case the other aircraft would be violating 91.119(b)).

How is that conflict resolved?

By a combination of "see and be seen" and the "Big Sky Theory," and yes, that is a bit scary if you think about it. However, the statistics do not show much if anything in the way of IFR aircraft on instrument approaches having midair collisions with VFR aircraft operating 1-mile/clear-of-clouds below 700 AGL, so while it is a theoretical risk, it's not one which seems to be a problem in reality.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is true

No, it's not true. You can legally get your clearance on the ground to enter the overlying controlled airspace, and be cleared for an instrument approach procedure down out of controlled airspace not cancelling until you land -- even under Part 121/135. What's not legal for those folks is not following any ODP published for that airport on departure, or going IFR in/out of an airport without published IFR procedures.

 

[James331]

No, it's not true. You can legally get your clearance on the ground to enter the overlying controlled airspace, and be cleared for an instrument approach procedure down out of controlled airspace not cancelling until you land -- even under Part 121/135. What's not legal for those folks is not following any ODP published for that airport on departure, or going IFR in/out of an airport without published IFR procedures.

So you're saying that if the airport say reverts to class G after the tower closing and lack of wx reporting I can land there as a 135/121 op?

 

[ja_user]

So you're saying that if the airport say reverts to class G after the tower closing and lack of wx reporting I can land there as a 135/121 op?

Also you're saying that I didn't just copy and paste this out of my GOM
"Flight is prohibited under IFR in Class G airspace"

Doesn't class D normally revert to E to the surface when the tower is closed?

 

[dtuuri]

Also you're saying that I didn't just copy and paste this out of my GOM
"Flight is prohibited under IFR in Class G airspace"

You're flying Part 135? Which ops spec prohibits your company from flying IFR approaches to Class G airports?

dtuuri

 

[James331]

Doesn't class D normally revert to E to the surface when the tower is closed?

Normally yes, however some don't. Al la KPTK.

For us it mostly comes down to a airport not reporting wx after the tower closes which some don't

 

[ja_user]

Normally yes, however some don't. Al la KPTK.

For us it mostly comes down to a airport not reporting wx after the tower closes which some don't

Good point

 

[Velocity173]

So you're saying that if the airport say reverts to class G after the tower closing and lack of wx reporting I can land there as a 135/121 op?

Also you're saying that I didn't just copy and paste this out of my GOM
"Flight is prohibited under IFR in Class G airspace"

You sure you're not reading the enroute portion of your OpSpecs? Never heard of one limiting a 135 operator from departing or arriving IFR in class G airspace. Our company conducts SPIFR helo ops into class G airports all the time. They even shoot instrument approaches into hospitals with no wx reporting (AWOS within 15).

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Well, 121 ops anyway. I think most 135 operators prefer a tower for this reason, and many bizjet operators intentionally base their operations at towered airports when possible.

i could name a few airports where controlled airspace starts at 700 agl that are served by scheduled part 121 airlines.

 

[MAKG1]

i could name a few airports where controlled airspace starts at 700 agl that are served by scheduled part 121 airlines.

One example is Santa Rosa after 8PM. An Alaska Airlines flight from LAX arrives daily at 9:30PM. It's Class G when the tower is closed.

 

[flyingron]

Possibly, assuming it's not a "congested area" underneath you (in which case the other aircraft would be violating 91.119(b)).

That rule starts with "Except when necessary for take off or landing..."

 

[jonnyjetprop]

We were authorized.

 

[dtuuri]

We were authorized.

What?! You didn't file composite flight plans??? When I wrote the Letter of Compliance for my 135 certificate I concluded there were too many 135 restrictions on VFR flights to be able to remember them all. I told my POI it would be "IFR only" for this operation.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

So you're saying that if the airport say reverts to class G after the tower closing and lack of wx reporting I can land there as a 135/121 op?

Lack of weather reporting is another story, and not the one we were discussing, which was whether IFR arrivals/departures were permitted without controlled airspace to the surface. 14 CFR 135.215 allows the ops specs to cover taking off and climbing through G-space into controlled airspace and descending through G-space out of controlled airspace on an instrument approach, and I've never seen a 135 operation in which that was not allowed in the ops specs.

 

[poadeleted20]

Doesn't class D normally revert to E to the surface when the tower is closed?

Usually, but not always.

 

[poadeleted20]

That rule starts with "Except when necessary for take off or landing..."

That rule does not allow you to operate in the pattern when the weather does not allow legal VFR at the 91.119 minimum altitude for the area over which you are flying. It only provides relief from the requirement to stay at the legal minimum altitude while you are climbing out after takeoff or descending from TPA for landing, not to level off at a lower altitude in the pattern. This was explained in case law some years back when a couple of CFI's at FRG were burned for operating in the pattern over congested areas at 800 AGL trying to stay below a 1300-foot ceiling.

 

[azure]

That rule does not allow you to operate in the pattern when the weather does not allow legal VFR at the 91.119 minimum altitude for the area over which you are flying. It only provides relief from the requirement to stay at the legal minimum altitude while you are climbing out after takeoff or descending from TPA for landing, not to level off at a lower altitude in the pattern. This was explained in case law some years back when a couple of CFI's at FRG were burned for operating in the pattern over congested areas at 800 AGL trying to stay below a 1300-foot ceiling.

Okay, I believe that's the case that I was thinking of in my earlier post. So I take it, there is no explicit prohibition against flying the pattern below TPA, but it might be a violation of 91.119 if you fly too close to the surface, even though you don't leave the pattern.

 

[poadeleted20]

Okay, I believe that's the case that I was thinking of in my earlier post. So I take it, there is no explicit prohibition against flying the pattern below TPA, but it might be a violation of 91.119 if you fly too close to the surface, even though you don't leave the pattern.

Correct. Out in the middle of Kansas, where the 91.119 minimum altitude around some outlying airport might be 500 AGL, you might be able to do this, but not over the tightly packed occupied spaces around Republic Airport on Long Island.

 

[azure]

Correct. Out in the middle of Kansas, where the 91.119 minimum altitude around some outlying airport might be 500 AGL, you might be able to do this, but not over the tightly packed occupied spaces around Republic Airport on Long Island.

Or around Oakland-Troy airport in the Detroit suburbs either, which is where I was thinking of when I said "people do this". I feel an edusec moment coming on...