midlifeflyer

Interesting comment. I wasn't the only single there when I flew in and stayed for a weekend. And it wasn't even the busy season.

KTEX would have been fun but you should get plenty of challenge from KAAX. runway oriented N-S. Always a crosswind, usually substantial. Look at the sectional and you'll see why.

Are you sure you feel that way? Not one bit safer? With IFR, when you suddenly see that VFR helicopter in your path, you can go missed and the approach airspace still protected for you. If you cancel, the next of those many airplanes you mentioned earlier has probably been cleared since you reported yo no longer needed it, so you end up un-legal, unsafe, or both. You went missed after cancelling IFR??!!!!

Just think. You got both! Answers to your question AND a hole bunch of unsolicited advice. What could be better?

No. AFAIK there is no dedicated transponder code in the US for IFR in uncontrolled airspace. Code 1000 is reserved for something completely different (See the Appendix here: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO%207110.66D%20.pdf) . I'm not familiar with Canadian regulations or flight practices so I'm just guessing that uncontrolled IFR in the US is just not significant enough to warrant it. And, what little of it there is, is typically not in airspace that requires a transponder.

It's not a matter of ATC expectations. It's a matter of not hitting something. The AIM reference is ¶5-2-8.b. which starts... What criteria is used to provide obstruction clearance during departure? 1. Unless specified otherwise, required obstacle clearance for all departures, including diverse, is based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the runway at least 35 feet above the departure end of runway elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the departure end of runway elevation before making the initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile (FPNM), unless required to level off by a crossing restriction, until the minimum IFR altitude.

Keep in mind that the practical reality of uncontrolled airspace IFR is very limited. First, there's the obvious personal safety issue and the logistical problem in the OP of a missed approach and the need to get a brand new flight plan and clearance before re-entering the clouds in controlled airspace. Technically you are IFR in uncontrolled airspace any time you are in Class G. Take off from or land at an airport other than one having Class E or higher from the ground up, you are flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace until you enter Class E. If your IFR departure clearance involves an ATC-assigned heading, it will be "upon entering controlled airspace..." Even without that, you IFR clearance is not effective until you are at least in Class E. The combined practical and legal problem takes place when you try to apply the technicality. There was a NTSB case some years back involving a pilot who took off through the marine layer on the west coast without filing an IFR flight plan, getting a clearance, or even speaking with ATC. He was nailed, not for violating 91.155 since the NTSB acknowledged that he was indeed "legally" flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace (the NTSB dismissed that charge) , but under 91.13 (reckless) because a pilot departing from an uncontrolled field in instrument conditions but without a clearance has no assurance that VFR conditions will prevail when he reaches controlled airspace. And furthermore, this type of takeoff also create the hazard of a collision with other aircraft. IOW, departing IFR without a clearance from an uncontrolled airport into controlled airspace where there are likely to be IFR aircraft relying on ATC separation services,. creates an unreasonable hazard and is therefore reckless. Here's the full case for those interested: Administrator v. Murphy So, the practical reality of no-clearance IFR in uncontrolled airspace is really limited to a few limited geographic areas of the country where you might be able to conduct an entire flight without even entering controlled airspace. I've only done uncontrolled IFR with controlled clearance only a few times and even then, only once involved entry into the clouds. A is still the correct technical answer. But consider 201er's answer to the "why cancel" question: Those "loads of other airplanes" is probably the best "legal" reason not to cancel when conditions are marginal.

Cleon would be a great choice.

Did you mean to type class G?

You cannot cancel IFR unless you can maintain VFR in controlled airspace. But an IFR clearance is only required in controlled airspace (subject to the "reckless" issue). Browse through the Part 91 IFR rules. Notice how some apply to operations "under IFR" and others to operations "under IFR in controlled airspace". There's a reason for the difference. Then read the one about the requirement for a clearance.

I agree with you. The hypothetical states the airport is Class G. Although the question doesn't tell us where Class E begins above the airport, the lowest it can begin is 700 AGL (assuming the absence of some unique airspace configuration). According to the question, that's the altitude where the the pilot breaks out of the marine layer and sees the airport. So, once breaking out, the pilot is below 700 AGL and in uncontrolled airspace. IFR without an IFR clearance is legal in uncontrolled airspace. So, at that point he may cancel his IFR clearance (which applies only in controlled airspace) and continue his descent to landing under IFR in uncontrolled airspace. There can of course be other factors that could change the answer. For example, the presence of other aircraft in nearby controlled airspace can make otherwise "legal" IFR in uncontrolled airspace reckless operation under 91.13 (I always though it interesting that 91.13 was the "unlucky" all-purpose gotcha for pilots). But I agree that A is the technicaly correct answer under the hypothetical. Smart to cancel IFR when there is a solid overcast at 700 AGL? Probably not, but that wasn't the question.

I can't speak about New Mexico but can give you some ideas about Colorado. The Colorado Pilot Association's (CPA) award-winning course is usually given June and August. It was June and September this year http://coloradopilots.org/mtnfly_class.asp Sometimes the local flight schools will do classes, but that generally in the spring at the beginning of the flying season rather than the fall. Same for some of the type clubs. Maybe sacrilege, but I think the Bonanza Society does one every year or 2. If you're interested in private instruction, a safe bet is one of the CPA instructors http://coloradopilots.org/mtn_instructors.asp?menuID=91~91 although there are pretty good mountain instructors at most of the Front Range flight schools. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me. I moved to North Carolina in December after 20 years in Colorado and taught mountain flying there (among other things) so I know a god number of these folks personally.

I can't disagree with that even a little. It's excellent advice.

..and then I'd like to hear the real story from his attorney. The client's perspective on the process is often very different from the attorney's Only kidding. If a client asked me to discuss his case on a public forum, I'd decline.

I guess you're willing to take the risk of facing federal felony prosecution; most others aren't.

Personally, I don't think one way or the other is "best" all the time and for all people. One thing I hopefully have not done in any of my posts is recommend a course of action for anyone. I've tried in my "contributions" to the thread to provide general information. What one does with the information is that person's choice, not mine. Having dealt with the FAA and law enforcement in various situations, the best I can say about what I would do is that I have a decent understanding of my rights and their authority and that I won't know what I would do in particular situation until the situation occurs.

I'm pretty sure he'll tell you you misunderstood what was said. Whether considered a "right" or a "privilege," suspension or revocation is subject to a "right" - to due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. In general, all that requires is a process that provides a hearing and opportunity to challenge the government's action. Add to that the blurring of the original technical distinctions between the two, and, unless you are talking about Constitutional rights, it doesn't matter much, practically speaking, what you call it. For example, we have a Constitutional right to travel; there are those who argue this means that you have a "right to drive" with or without a drivers' license. And no, they are not trying to be funny. Most likely, what you heard was a reference to the Pilots Bill of Rights. which changes some of the landscape of that process. It's not too hard to get the wrong takeaway from a discussion of that legislation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do you know anyone who tosses out their maintenance records after 1 year and thereby lowers the resale value of their airplanes? Or are you suggesting you only need to produce those portions of your aircraft logbook that show 1 year's worth of maintenance and current inspections and only those portions of your pilot logbook that show currency and can withhold the rest? If so, I'll have to disagree with you. I'm guessing so would the FAA and NTSB in the ensuing certificate suspension proceedings. Or are you suggesting you intentionally lie to the FAA about having those things?

Just as an alternate possibility, my solution to that example (which comes up in a number of situations) was to separate the "Engine Run-up" from the "Before Taking Runway" on my checklist. That type of ergonomic rearrangement of tasks is part of the "flow" of creating your own checklist. I don't want to dissuade you from moving to an electronic checklist. Some folks just love them. But it's more a matter of personal preference than which is capable of doing the job correctly.

The bottom line is that, for all the chest-thumping by some of us, none of us know exactly how we would react in a given situation. And we need to keep in mind that not all warrantless searches are improper. Sounds like you understand your rights. You made an informed decision at the time to comply with what you saw as a minimal, and to you reasonable, intrusion. Makes sense to me.

The checklists were created in Word and ported to a bookmarked pdf. They are "Documents" in ForeFlight. Most of the tasks are re-arranged to fit a flow pattern, making flow-and-check easy for me. I always hesitate posting them because they are personalized. A friend of mine, a good pilot, once tried to use mine and had trouble because everything wasn't where he expected it. So I won't post the checklists here, but I will put in the following graphics. The first is the last version of a checklist (its a Comanche) before I went iPad. The second is my current M20J checklist showing the bookmarks.

I think it's a good article in terms of the limitations of different types of checklists. But I'm not sure how it leads one to select one medium over the other. Unless you're part of a crew where standardization has value, medium and usability are very personal things. I've been using self-authored checklists since I started flying and every revision I've done has had a single goal — making it easier for me to use. Interestingly enough, since my iPad, my checklist has actually grown. With paper, the part of the usability goal included using as little paper as possible — keeping things to one or two pages seemed to be easier than having to flip around. Now, with my checklists bookmarked pdf files on my iPad, I'm using more pages which allows me separate phases of flight, use larger fonts, include extra information, all without adding bulk or difficulty in finding things.

The question is, what do you mean by an "electronic checklist"? Do you mean what is in essence a "paper" checklist in a pdf file and available on your tablet (which I use)? Or do you mean one that prompts you for an item, you check it off, and then prompts you for the next one, like the integrated ones in some on-board GPS/MFD displays (which I've tried i the past and really didn't like):

I agree. Also a knee-jerk reaction with inaccurate information. There are also a number of completely separate things being discussed in the thread and they likely deserve a different response: 1. A run-of-the-mil FAA ramp inspection. 2. A ramp check used by an investigatory agency, not the FAA, as a pretext for some other investigatory activity. 3. A standard customs/security check when crossing a border into the US.

I'm curious. Is that what you do and say when a police officer stops you for a possible traffic violation and asks for your license and registration?